During a heated exchange on WNYC radio, Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., called on New York City mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani to unequivocally denounce the phrase ‘globalize the intifada,’ which she claims has been interpreted by many as a call to ‘slaughter the Jews.’ The discussion followed a caller’s accusation that Mamdani had glorified Hamas and its associated violence from the intifada, a term referring to the 1990s Palestinian uprising against Israel. Gillibrand emphasized the gravity of the issue, warning that such rhetoric could create fear in Jewish communities and endanger lives.
Gillibrand argued that the phrase, while not explicitly advocating violence, is often received by the public as a call to violence, which she said could have serious consequences for Jewish communities in New York. She urged Mamdani to assure all New Yorkers that he would protect Jewish people, houses of worship, and not-for-profit organizations that serve these communities. Lehrer challenged Gillibrand’s assertion, pointing out that Mamdani had previously clarified that the term ‘global intifada’ refers to broader resistance movements and not violent jihad. The exchange underscored the tension between how language is intended versus how it is perceived, highlighting the importance of addressing inflammatory rhetoric in public discourse.
Lehrer pushed back on Gillibrand’s insinuation that Mamdani had called for a ‘global intifada,’ asking if she doubted his prior statements committing to protecting Jewish people in New York City. Gillibrand responded that she had requested an in-person meeting with Mamdani to discuss the matter, emphasizing the need for clarity and accountability, particularly in a highly diverse and politically charged environment. The conversation revealed broader concerns about the role of rhetoric in political discourse and the potential impact of certain phrases on community safety and cohesion.
Following the exchange, Lehrer reiterated that there was no evidence that Mamdani had supported Hamas or violent jihad, pointing out that the term ‘global intifada’ was used in discussions of other parties and not by Mamdani himself. However, Gillibrand maintained that the phrase could be misinterpreted and that as a leader, Mamdani needed to be aware of the emotional and psychological impact of his words on various community groups, including LGBTQ, Black, Hispanic, and Jewish communities.
The interaction between Gillibrand and Lehrer highlighted the complexities of political communication, particularly in times of heightened social and political tension. It also underscored the challenges of balancing free speech with the responsibility to ensure that language does not incite violence or foster division. As the New York City mayoral race heats up, the controversy over Mamdani’s rhetoric has become a focal point for discussions about leadership, public safety, and the role of political figures in shaping community discourse.