Thousands of anti-Israel demonstrators flooded midtown Manhattan, turning Bryant Park into a cauldron of chants and cowbells on Saturday.
Fox News reported that the "Stand with Gaza" rally saw protesters wielding signs to halt aid to Israel while shouting "free, free Palestine" and "globalize the intifada."
This gathering, pulsing with anti-Israel fervor, drew sharp criticism for its rhetoric, especially the phrase "globalize the intifada," which many see as a veiled call for violence against Jews. New York City mayoral hopeful Zohran Mamdani, a Democratic socialist, stirred controversy by refusing to denounce the chant.
The phrase "globalize the intifada" has been radioactive since the Hamas attack on Israel in October 2023, linked to violent acts like the burning of pro-Israel demonstrators in Colorado and the shooting of Israeli embassy staff in Washington, D.C.
Critics argue it’s not just a slogan but a dog whistle for antisemitic aggression. Yet, protesters at Bryant Park belted it out, undeterred, with the implicit support of radical leftists like Mamdani.
Zohran Mamdani, dodging condemnation of the chant, said, "It is language, I understand, there are concerns about, and what I will do is showcase my vision for the city through my words and my actions."
That sidestep feels like a politician’s pirouette—graceful but spineless, avoiding the hard truth that words can ignite harm. Voters deserve clarity, not vague promises of "vision."
Bipartisan lawmakers, like Reps. Josh Gottheimer and Rudy Yakym aren’t buying the dodge. They’ve introduced legislation to brand "globalize the intifada" as a call to violence against Jews and Israelis worldwide. The resolution, if passed, would urge leaders to shun the phrase and recognize its threat to safety.
Gottheimer didn’t mince words: "It must be condemned." He’s right—hate speech, no matter the target, poisons discourse and fuels division. Playing coy with phrases tied to violence isn’t leadership; it’s cowardice.
Yakym echoed the sentiment, stating, "Condemning it should be common sense, but some would rather play politics than tell the truth."
His frustration hits home—when leaders tiptoe around hate, they embolden it. The legislation points to real-world fallout: deadly attacks in Boulder and D.C. tied to anti-Israel sentiment.
The Manhattan protest, while peaceful, amplified a phrase that’s anything but. "Globalize the intifada" isn’t a call for debate; it’s a rallying cry with a body count. Lawmakers argue it endangers Jews and Israelis globally, a point hard to dispute given recent violence.
Gottheimer added, "I’m against hate speech targeting anyone — and everyone should be." His stance cuts through the noise: hate, whether aimed at Jews, Christians, or anyone, has no place in a civilized society. Yet, the Bryant Park crowd seemed oblivious, chanting with fervor.
The demonstrators’ signs were blunt: stop all aid to Israel. It’s a demand that ignores the complexity of Middle East alliances and America’s strategic interests. Simplistic slogans may fire up a crowd, but they rarely survive scrutiny.
Chants like "Palestine will live forever" rang out alongside the clanging cowbells, creating a spectacle that was part protest, part performance art. The energy was undeniable, but the message veered into dangerous territory with "globalize the intifada." It’s a phrase that doesn’t just protest policy—it flirts with violence.
Yakym put it starkly: "The violence and hatred directed at Jewish and Israeli people is reprehensible." He’s not wrong—targeting any group based on identity is a step backward from reason. The protest’s failure to self-police its rhetoric undermines its cause.
Mamdani’s refusal to condemn the chant raises questions about his judgment. Leadership isn’t just about vision; it’s about calling out poison when it’s in the air. His silence speaks louder than any campaign promise.
The proposed legislation by Gottheimer and Yakym aims to draw a line in the sand. It would discourage leaders from endorsing or ignoring the "globalize the intifada" chant, framing it as a clear threat. If passed, it could set a precedent for tackling hate speech head-on.
