Zohran Mamdani on "Globalize the Intifada"
This is not an evaluation of Mamdani as a human being, as a politician, or as a New York City Mayoral candidate.
It's not a critique of his politics or his character.
I'm limiting the scope of this analysis to less than three minutes of his interview on NBC's Meet the Press on June 29th 2025 in which he's asked three times why he will not condemn "globalize the intifada."
If you haven't seen it and you'd like to watch the three minutes for yourself before reading further, do.
Mamdani was asked three times on NBC News whether he condemns the phrase "globalize the intifada," and he never answered directly.
To many Arabs and Jews, "Intifada" evokes years of violence, including bombings and civilian deaths. So when a mayoral candidate sidesteps the question, people notice.
Let's take apart his three non-answer responses.
Response 1:
"That's not language I use" + pivot to human rights
What he said:
"That is not language I use... my intent [is] grounded in the release of human rights… for Israelis and Palestinians alike."
What he did:
Disassociated himself without denouncing the slogan.
Redirected to a general moral framework.
The problem:
It's a dodge. "Not my words" avoids judgment altogether.
Universal human rights sound nice but don’t address whether the phrase itself is inflammatory or threatening.
Fallacies/tricks:
Red herring. He changes the subject to broader values.
Confidence he's dodging:
High.
Response 2:
Empathy + policy pivot + free speech defense
What he said:
"I've heard those fears... we've pledged to increase anti-hate programming by 800%... I don't believe the role of the mayor is to police speech."
What he did:
Acknowledged Jewish concerns about antisemitism.
Promoted his campaign platform.
Changed the topic from ethics to legality.
The problem:
Personal condemnation of violent rhetoric isn't policing speech. He's being asked for a moral stance, not a legal action.
Again, no engagement with the actual slogan or what it represents.
Fallacies/tricks:
Equivocation: Dishonestly pretends personal condemnation would be government censorship.
Appeal to fear: Dishonestly suggests condemning rhetoric would lead to criminalizing speech.
Confidence he's dodging:
Very high.
Response 3:
Slippery slope argument
What he said:
"My concern is... walking down the line of language... putting people in jail for writing an op-ed."
What he did:
Pretended his personal condemnation of violent rhetoric would lead to authoritarian censorship.
Brought up Donald Trump jailing people for speech-related offenses.
The Problem:
Nobody asked for legal action, just moral clarity.
Comparing condemnation to imprisonment is misleading and inflammatory.
Fallacies/tricks:
Straw man: Distorts the request into something it's not.
False analogy: Moral disapproval ≠ state oppression.
Confidence he's dodging:
Extremely high.
After three questions, Mamdani still wouldn't condemn a phrase many interpret as a call to violence. His responses were all deflection, over-abstract framing, and rhetorical sleight of hand.
Possible explanations for why he won’t condemn the phrase
Maybe he's signaling to his political base
Many activists see the phrase as resistance and he doesn't want to alienate them.
Maybe he's maintaining strategic ambiguity
He wants to appeal to both radicals and moderates. Declining to answer lets him maintain flexibility.
Maybe he values radical rhetoric
Some believe provocative slogans shake the system. He may see them as useful.
Maybe he's performing ideological purity
In activist circles, rejecting establishment pressure is seen as strength.
Maybe he fears backlash from the left
Condemning the slogan could trigger protests or public criticism.
Maybe he personally supports the sentiment
These are all plausible.
When someone is asked to draw a moral line and instead draws a rhetorical circle...it tells us a lot. It's disgusting behavior from any political perspective, but it's particularly worrying from one end of the horseshoe.
Mamdani, in these three minutes, is at the very least a sleazy, dishonest politician.
