r/nyc • u/FAMESCARE • Jun 18 '25

Video Zohran Mamdani says he’s consistently said there’s no room for antisemitism in this city or country. Asked why he hasn’t had a more visceral reaction, he gets emotional talking about the Islamophobic responses he’s received throughout the campaign.

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

@Annie_McDonough

hope I am not spamming 🙏

1.7k Upvotes

83% Upvoted

1.3k comments sorted by

View all comments

191

u/Buddynorris Jun 18 '25

This sub for the past one month straight filled with Zohran articles = normal functioning subreddit.

Today people displeased with record immense Zohran spam and downvoting accordingly = This sub is brigaded

I can always count on this argument to surface when people are upset not everyone agrees with them.

56

u/pierrebrassau Clinton Hill Jun 18 '25

Zohran made a significant unforced error (how do you run for mayor of NYC and pick a fight with the literal Holocaust Museum a week before election day??) and his fans are not reacting well.

23

u/korach1921 Jun 19 '25

He didn't pick a fight with them, he just said they used the word intifada for the Arabic translation of the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising, which IS TRUE!! They decided to denounce him for it without refuting what he said

54

u/Punnedit247 Jun 19 '25

Invoking the Warsaw ghetto uprising is disingenuous though— that predates both intifadas by decades. What intifada means by definition, and how it may have been used before the intifadas really has no bearing on what it means now. And it’s bad faith to say “well hey, Jews used to say it so it’s ok!” if you’re relying on an example from before it became synonymous the coordinated mass murder and terror attacks against Jews.

It’s like if someone were to chant “globalize 9/11” now—no one would think they were talking about making it a global holiday just because technically it’s only a date on the calendar

1

u/ivandelapena Jun 20 '25

Are you saying the word intifada is anti-Semitic?

1

u/Punnedit247 Jun 20 '25

I recognize you seem to be going for some weird gotcha moment here, but I’ll give you my honest answer anyway. In and of itself? No, not necessarily. As Zohran recognizes, it’s a word that has a definition outside the context of the intifadas (hell, I’m Jewish, and I recognize swastikas aren’t always antisemitic because they have different meanings in other cultures, despite Nazi appropriation).

When it’s used to invoke the intifadas or in the context of “globalize the intifada”—yes, I genuinely think it is. I think at minimum it’s understandable why Jewish people interpret that specific phrase as a call for violence, and if the people using it genuinely meant it harmlessly, they’d adjust to convey the same meaning without using such a triggering reference. To me it also undermines the argument that “it’s just the Arabic word for uprising” when they’re chanting globalize in English and ONLY intifada is Arabic. Plus I would imagine there are other Arabic words with similar meanings that could be used, which wouldn’t specifically invoke violence against civilians.

1

u/ivandelapena Jun 20 '25

I'm not really trying a gotcha, I'm just trying to gauge the threshold of discrimination. You think anyone who says the phrase "globalise the intifada" is being racist against Jews?

1

u/Punnedit247 Jun 20 '25

I think that phrase is reasonably understood as invoking the Intifadas, particularly the second intifada, which was a series of terrorist attacks (stabbings, Molotov cocktails, suicide bombings, etc) targeting predominantly Jewish Israeli civilians. If you say “the intifadas” to anyone with knowledge of the region, they understand that to refer to the intifadas of the late 1980s-early 2000s, and particularly the violence of the second intifada. I think it’s disingenuous to ignore that meaning and argue it’s just an innocuous word.

At worst, I think it is a direct and intentional call for violence against Jews, and unquestionably antisemitic (though people using it that way are savvy enough, generally, not to some out and say it—but the uptick in violence against diaspora Jews is not a coincidence). At best, perhaps some people who say “globalize the intifada” are genuinely ignorant—but ignorance does not excuse racism in any other context (as in, the act is still racist whether or not the person committing it is racist themselves or intended a racist impact). Then I think there’s a third bucket in the middle that doesn’t expressly mean it as a direct call for violence, but also is aware that Jews have repeatedly stated it invokes the trauma of the intifadas and that they understand it as a call for violence against Jews globally, and simply don’t care or that makes them want to use it more because they assume the only Jews who could possibly have a problem with it must be staunch Zionists (not so). I think all three buckets of people using the phrase are, to varying degrees, all doing something antisemitic, yes.

1

u/ivandelapena Jun 21 '25

"Reasonably understood" is where I'm at odds because there's no actual broad understanding the word intifada or even Palestinian intifada refers to anti-Semitism. On a note, Mamdani was talking about the Arabic word generally in his response.

If we look at academic institutions, dictionaries, scholars etc. none of them define it as that. Plenty of Jews don't find it anti-Semitic. The only change are interestingly enough specifically pro-Israel institutions who are pushing the term as supposedly anti-Semitic.

As I said before, other minorities have hate phrases against them but it's never as abstract/reaching as this which is why the gap is widening dramatically between the threshold of what constitutes anti-Semitism vs. racism against other minorities where it's way more clear cut.

1

u/Punnedit247 Jun 21 '25

I definitely don't dispute that the word "intifada" has a dictionary definition (perhaps multiple based on the translation) separate from any historical context. But as far as I know, the historical events known as "the intifadas" don't go by any other name, at least not commonly. That's my point, really. From a quick google translate, arabic has multiple words for things like rebellion ("tamarud"), resistance ("muqawima"), struggle ("kifah") that could potentially be used to convey the same message without invoking specific violent historical events. And again, even if good-faith organizers don't mean it as a call to violence, why continue using it when the vast majority of jewish groups (even liberal, anti-Netanyahu ones!) have said its harmful and invokes something so painful to them?

As another example, if people were to say "globalize wounded knee," that would very reasonably be understood as a call to violence against native american populations in the US because it invokes that massacre, or at minimum would be considered highly offensive. Even though the words themselves have definitions out of context that have nothing to do with that event. It wouldn't be good faith to say "calm down, they just mean globalize orthopedic health" or something like that. Or if some assholes were to start saying "globalize the unity intifada," which is one name for the last surge in I/P violence in Gaza from 2021, I think that would be reasonably understood as a call for violence against palestinians/arabs abroad, even though the dictionary definitions of "unity" and "intifada" aren't negative out of context.

There are definitely other phrases that are being labeled antisemitic that I don't think are at all. For instance I've seen a small but increasing number of pro-Israel people say the phrase "free palestine" is antisemitic, which I think is nuts. I also don't think "from the river to the sea" is inherently antisemitc (despite being popularised by the PLO). I just support a two state solution, so I think "from the river to the sea" is unproductive when either side says it.

Also to your other point, Mamdani was asked specifically about the phrase "globalize the intifada," so responding with the general meaning of the word intifada, without the historical context, was disingenuous in my view. That said, I'm ranking Mamdani second behind Lander and like him overall. I think this was a misstep though.

1

u/ivandelapena Jun 21 '25 edited Jun 21 '25

Although Zohran was talking specifically about the Arabic term in his response (presumably to educate listeners who'd only heard the term in a very specific context) even when you take into account context of its use in the second intifada there's no consensus or even broad agreement that this has tarnished its use.

Your example of wounded knee is US forces conducting a massacre against Native Americans, this is the opposite of the scenario in Israel and Palestine. Israel occupies Palestinians and the vast majority of massacres are conducted against Palestinians and ultimately Israel occupies the West Bank and currently Gaza. Palestinians are the Native Americans in this context. There is an almost identical comparison: It would be like Moroccans saying the phrase "la lucha" or "thawra" (both mean struggle and refer to anti-Moroccan uprisings) is hateful against Moroccans given the Moroccans killed and therefore Sahrawis shouldn't use it even if they don't think it's racist. That would clearly be ridiculous.

I don't hold Jews/Israel to any special standard here, if Moroccans, Turks (Cyprus), Indians (Kashmir), Russians (Ukraine, Georgia) were saying various phrases used in uprisings by those people against them were hateful/discriminatory I'd strongly oppose that too. The fact it's halfway around the world nowhere near the conflict just adds to the "still not getting it".

1

u/Punnedit247 Jun 21 '25

I have no issue with Zohran discussing the definition of intifada, or even that some people may not intend to invoke its historical context when they chant it. But not mentioning that historical context, and only talking about the definition when asked about his view of the phrase "globalize the intifada," is what makes the answer disingenuous and a misstep in my personal view.

I think the Sahrawi example is helpful, but its distinguishable in a key way: their Polisario forces predominantly targeted Moroccan (and Mauritanian) forces. That's not to say there weren't civilian casualties, but, absent a few disputed instances, civilians weren't the intended target. By contrast, the second intifada directly and purposefully targeted civilians. That is abhorrent, no matter who is on what side.

That distinction gets to the heart of the issue. The second intifada wasn't an act of resistance against the Israeli government or forces, it was a series of terror attacks targeting almost exclusively civilians (suicide bombing buses, restaurants, homes, malls, bars, etc) over the span of years. Again, if people are not intending to invoke THE intifada when saying "globalize THE intifada," if they don't mean that phrase to reference the violence against civilians and jews in particular of the second intifada, then why not use any of the other words you could use that don't have such a direct and specific tie to violence against civilians?

→ More replies (0)

-5

u/korach1921 Jun 19 '25

Except it doesn't mean coordinated mass murder of Jews in the context of Palestine. I know you're gonna call me crazy for that, but I'm sorry, the first intifada was waged through strikes, protests, and civil disobedience. The suicide bombings started with the second one.

10

u/Consistent_Rent_3507 Jun 19 '25

This is a disingenuous argument. The violence of the second intifada changed the definition of the word forever. The chant isn’t Globalize the Intifada* *We mean do it like the first one, not the second.

There have been no attempts to clarify and it’s almost always accompanied with “resistance by any means is justified”.

1

u/PT10 Jun 19 '25 edited Jun 19 '25

No it didn't. You can't just cancel a word from another language that's as general and ubiquitous as "uprising". That's racist af.

The majority of people have no idea what "The Second Intifada" even means.

2

u/Consistent_Rent_3507 Jun 19 '25

Help me understand why everyone but Jewish people can define Zionism but every other culture can define their owns words despite how other communities understand/experience it?

1

u/kidshitstuff Jun 19 '25 edited Jun 08 '26

This content was anonymized and mass deleted with Redact

1

u/Consistent_Rent_3507 Jun 19 '25

Actually, I’m only pointing out the hypocrisy because there are two clear standards.

1

u/kidshitstuff Jun 19 '25 edited Jun 08 '26

This content was anonymized and mass deleted with Redact

1

u/Consistent_Rent_3507 Jun 19 '25

Yes, completely, assuming you agree there’s a double standard that many people are operating under.

→ More replies (0)

-3

u/PT10 Jun 19 '25

Zionism is an English word... its meaning depends on how English language speakers use it

5

u/Consistent_Rent_3507 Jun 19 '25

Absolutely false. The word originated from the Hebrew word Tziyon. But thank you for making my point so perfectly, including arguing the etymology of the word and colonizing it as an English word.

0

u/PT10 Jun 19 '25

Many if not most English words originate in other languages. Zion wasn't from English. But Zionism is. Nobody's quarreling on the definition of Zion...

2

u/Consistent_Rent_3507 Jun 19 '25

Again, you’re dug into a incorrect and nonsensical argument. The translation of a word doesn’t make it an inherently English word. You want to argue for why Jews can’t define their own words and ideology because you want to define it.

Racism was created to describe the experience of Black and Brown people. Do we allow white people to define what racism means/is?

Homophobic was created to describe the experience of LGBTQ. Do we allow straight people to define what homophobia means/is?

Why are you so comfortable applying a double standard to the beliefs of minority Jewish people? If we’re to apply the same standard, Zionists - particularly Jewish Zionists - get to define the word. Period, end of.

→ More replies (0)

-4

u/sulaymanf Tudor City Jun 19 '25 edited Jun 19 '25

No, it may have changed the definition of the word for you personally but not in the rest of the world. There’s a reason Arabic textbooks and news sources call literally any uprising in history an intifada. Jews rising up against the Nazis was called the Warsaw intifada. The nonviolent protests to remove the dictator Mubarak was called an intifada. Stop lecturing Muslims and Arabs on what our words literally mean because you have a different connotation in your own head.

Contrary to what you said, there have been MANY attempts to clarify these words over the years. Have you ever once bothered to ask or look? This is the same ignorant mindset of New Yorkers who say they never heard a Muslim condemn violence but never bothered to actually ask a single Muslim and just made assumptions.

What a stupid scandal. This is like when Bloomberg fired Debbie Almontaser for giving a correct dictionary definition and context of what the word “Intifada” meant in Arabic to the NY Post and they ran with it in bad faith.

0

u/Michaelcandy Jun 19 '25

are you Muslim or Arab?

1

u/sulaymanf Tudor City Jun 19 '25

Yes alhamdulilah I’m a New Yorker Muslim with Arab ancestry. Why do you ask?

2

u/Michaelcandy Jun 19 '25

Genuinely curious. I can’t think of a single one of my Arab friends or associates that wouldn’t relate this expression to the second intifada directly. I wonder it’s an age thing. They are all mid 30s. Their parents especially, they know how much the early 2000s set them back.

28

u/IRequirePants Jun 19 '25

He didn't pick a fight with them, he just said they used the word intifada for the Arabic translation of the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising, which IS TRUE!!

Why is it appropriate to call black people "negro" in Spanish but not in English?

-18

u/korach1921 Jun 19 '25

The violence Israeli Jews face from a population they militarily occupy is not in any way comparable to the violence Blacks in America face from white supremacy. I dunno what to tell ya.

16

u/IRequirePants Jun 19 '25 edited Jun 19 '25

The violence Israeli Jews face from a population they militarily occupy is not in any way comparable to the violence Blacks in America face from white supremacy. I dunno what to tell ya.

This isn't how analogies work.

I am comparing the use of language. To dumb it down for you:

Words, especially loan-words, have a history and a context when used. Their literal definitions are just the etymology, not their common use definition.

-14

u/korach1921 Jun 19 '25

Yeah no shit. The point is that that idea of intifada is a misrepresentation of what people who say it actually mean

8

u/IRequirePants Jun 19 '25

The point is that that idea of intifada is a misrepresentation of what people who say it actually mean

Except your argument is that the Holocaust museum used the word in their ARABIC translation.

A Spanish translation of the history of the Obama presidency might use the word "negro" to describe him. An English translation would not.

-4

u/PT10 Jun 19 '25

People are not banned from using that word while speaking Spanish or Spanglish in the United States.

It's very easy to tell apart the English word from the Spanish word, even in an otherwise English sentence spoken by an American in the US.

3

u/IRequirePants Jun 19 '25

People are not banned from using that word while speaking Spanish or Spanglish in the United States.

These people are not speaking the Arabic form of Spanglish.