Hey, everyone. The Democratic Party welcomes everyone as the “big tent party!”
Yes, that welcome includes antisemites and those who want to destroy Israel.
Amna Nawaz confronted DNC Chair Ken Martin over socialist Zohran Mamdani, the next person likely to lead New York City, refusing to condemn the phrase “globalize the intifada.”
I hope by now you all know why “globalize the intifada” is a dangerous phrase. If not, read about why it’s antisemitic and the history..
Martin acts like it’s no biggie:
NAWAZ: What about concerns from some of your Jewish colleagues, in particular about him [Mamdani] not outright condemning the phrase “globalize the intifada?” In a recent interview, some of your Jewish colleagues have said that that could be very disturbing, potentially dangerous. Do you agree with that?MARTIN: There’s no candidate in this party that I agree 100% of the time with, to be honest with you. There’s things that I don’t agree with Mamdani that he said.But at the end of the day, I always believe, as a Democratic Party chair in Minnesota for the last 14 years, and now the chair of the DNC, that you win through addition, you win by bringing people into your coalition.We have Conservative Democrats. We have centrist Democrats. We have labor progressives like me, and we have this new brand of Democrat, which is the leftist. And we win by bringing people into that coalition and at the end of the day, for me, that’s the type of party we’re going to lead. We are a big tent party.Yes, it leads to dissent and debate, and there’s differences of opinions on a whole host of issues. But we should celebrate that as a party and recognize at the end of the day, we’re better because of it.
Dude.
This isn’t about taxes, Medicaid, or immigration.
“Globalize the intifada” is literally about destroying Israel. What happens when you destroy Israel?
You liquidate Jews.
“Globalize the intifada” is literally calling for the elimination of Jews.
These people are literally asking everyone around the world to take up arms against Israel and extinguish Jews.
My goodness, it doesn’t help that Mamdani tried to justify his decision by connecting “intifada” to the Warsaw Ghetto uprising. Even Jonathan Chait at The Atlantic knows this guy is not an ally of Jews:
Mamdani may sincerely believe this, as do some of his supporters. But he then delved into the semantics of intifada, citing the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum’s use of the word as the translation of “uprising” in an Arabic version of an article the museum published about the Warsaw Ghetto. This comparison, to a Jewish armed rebellion against the Nazis, hardly dispels concern about the incendiary implications of the slogan. If the intifada is akin to the ghetto uprising, then it is a call for violence. If its theater of operations is global, then it is necessarily directed against civilians.
(Granted, Chait made quite an effort to convince his readers that “globalize the intifada” has two meanings, violence and non-violence. Don’t want to upset The Atlantic‘s regular lefty readers after all!)
What kind of person thinks it is okay to apply the word “intifada” to the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising?
What kind of person then thinks, “I should totally say that out loud!” Holy moly.
I seriously had to read that part of Chait’s article at least five times because I never ever once thought a person would use a word to describe movements to murder Jews to a Jewish uprising against their murderers.
The fact is, as shown since October 7, 2023, those screaming “globalize the intifada” are calling for one thing: violence against Jews and Israel.
Wait, let me correct myself. Those screaming “globalize the intifada” since the First Intifada are calling for one thing: violence against Jews and Israel.
CLICK HERE FOR FULL VERSION OF THIS STORY