Rabbi's Week in Review Blog

Over the past week, there has been a significant focus on the phrase “Globalize the Intifada,” it’s use by those who would describe themselves as supporters of Palestinian self-determination and whether it is at its core an anti-Semitic slur. More to the point, whether it exhorts people to commit violence against Jews.

The phrase has come to the fore in two areas:  most recently it has been an intense focus in relation to the horrific killing of fifteen Jews in Australia, and whether it is that phrase that motivated a father and son to murder Jews for no other reason than they were Jews.  The other instance, which had been personally asserted to me, is whether now Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani, in avoiding answering questions posed by media as to whether he would condemn the use of the phrase, has put Jewish lives at greater risk.

I have given much thought over the last week as to how the phrase (or slogan if you will) Globalize the Intifada is understood and used. There have been a number of articles written in relation to both the Australia murder of Jews, and to how Mamdani has (or has not) approached the use of the phrase. (The most recent being this morning on Peter Beinert’s Substack.) Wrapped up in all this are discussions of Israel-Palestine, how we as Jews fight antisemitism, and where are the greatest threats to Jewish security and safety.

Seeing these discussions along a spectrum, on one end of the spectrum is the conviction that, when someone exhorts to Globalize the Intifada, it is tantamount to encouraging the killing of all Jews. On the other end of that spectrum, is the view I have heard expressed that, Globalize the Intifada is the basis for a non-violent movement for Palestinian self-determination and the freedom for Palestinians to be free to autonomously control their future and their destiny.

I do want to state at the outset that, while I spoke with people on both ends of the spectrum, and some in between, in addition to researching articles to try and come to a reasoned perspective as to how the term Globalize the Intifada is used and whether it has the potential to harm Jews, there is an emotional reality that permeates beyond whatever factual information I can glean from doing research. The pain we as Jews feel over lost lives and an increase in antisemitic rhetoric is real. I have also spoken with Palestinians who have suffered the loss of family in Gaza - one family who counted some 300 family members who were killed by IDF actions.

I have no right to expect, nor do I expect acceptance of my perspective, wherever I land on the issue.  I do see an obligation to be with people who are in pain, wishing, yet knowing, I cannot take away that pain. At the same time I have an obligation to forge the best path forward so possibly others will not suffer great loss, to seek a different path to break the cycle of violence, whether on a beach in Australia, or in Gaza or the West Bank.

While not expressed in a global context, I have had experience in my past with Intifada in Israel, specifically the Second Intifada. Two of my three sons were participants in high school semesters in Israel during the Second Intifada. The eldest was in a Café Hillel in Jerusalem’s German Colony in which the following night, a surgeon and his daughter were killed by a suicide bomber. I vividly remember getting the call that went out by the director of the program to parents letting us know of the killing, and that our own kid was okay. 

I was part of a national, eight-person Jewish Federation, thirty-six-hour mission to Israel; visiting with then Israeli President Shimon Peres, meeting with Tel Aviv’s mayor and emergency response team and visiting sites in Jerusalem where Israelis had died due to suicide bombings during the Second Intifada.  Downtown Jerusalem was a ghost-town during my time on this mission.

While not the space/time here to do an in-depth study and explanation of the First Intifada and the Second Intifada, my understanding is that the First Intifada, at least at its inception, was centered around civil disobedience; the Second, as I described, was violence centered. As a broad statement, an Intifada - which is translated to be an uprising, can be seen by its adherents as killing Jews, or a non-violent movement, or both. In my discussion with Palestinian and Palestinian allies here in Kansas City, (I am part of a group of Palestinians and Jews who have come together to work for a better way forward, which includes difficult conversations. We met over a dinner celebrating Chanukah last week.) they maintained and I have no doubt that they adhere to the idea of Globalizing the Intifada as a non-violent movement to garner world support for Palestinian self-determination. I also believe that no one of those Palestinians wants to kill me or any Jews. 

As Rabbi Jay Michaelson has aptly pointed out in what he described as idealistic hope, “there may be hundreds of thousands of ISIS and Hamas supporters, there are two billion Muslims in the world and they hold a wide range of beliefs.” Michaelson points to one of the heroes in the tragic Australian story, Ahmed al Ahmed, a Muslim that risked his own life to save Jewish lives. [As an aside, Jay Michaelson has been in the past a scholar-in-residence at Congregation Kol Ami.]

This leads me to the tragedy in Australia. There has been a rush in the aftermath by Jewish leaders such as Deborah Lipstadt, David Frum, and Bret Stephens to attack what people mean by Globalize the Intifada, what Michaelson describes as the cri de coeur of some Palestinian protesters. Michaelson notes that the father and son murderers were ISIS and not Hamas, and that ISIS and Hamas loathe each other. That ISIS opposes Palestinian nationalism and thus the Intifada. Michaelson’s overarching takeaway is that we should avoid using any one terrorist attack to confirm prior beliefs. The attack in Australia does not confirm anyone’s belief regarding the phrase Globalize the Intifada. Don’t get me wrong. ISIS is happy killing Jews but, in this instance, it is not related to the phrase under discussion.

The piece of this regarding Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani is in regard to his failure to give an answer to whether he will reject the phrase Globalize the Intifada. This began to come to a head when Rabbi Elliot Cosgrove of Park Avenue Synagogue gave a sermon urging his congregants to oppose Mamdani in his run for NYC mayor. From that sermon, came a letter titled the Jewish Majority, expressing concern what was described as Mamdani’s anti-Zionist views and rhetoric.

In response to that letter a letter was drafted with the title, Jews for a Shared Future. I signed on to the letter, and by doing so it was interpreted that I had supported Mamdani’s candidacy - at least publicly. The inference being that, if I supported Mamdani then I had failed in my obligation to condemn him for his failure to reject the phrase Globalize the Intifada.

Before I get into a further discussion regarding Mamdani’s actions I did want to clarify what the letter I signed did or did not say. It is not a letter endorsing Mamdani’s candidacy. The letter commits two sentences that reference Mamdani and they read as follows: “In response to Jewish concerns about the New York mayoral race, we recognize that candidate Zohran Mamdani’s support for Palestinian self-determination stems not from hate, but from his deep moral convictions. Even though there are areas where we may disagree, we affirm that only genuine solidarity and relationship-building can create lasting security.”

The letter goes on to talk about the inspiration drawn from the many Israelis and Palestinians who are creating spaces of caring and mutual respect notwithstanding profound divides.  In other words, the letter supports a path advocating for Israelis, Diaspora Jews, and Palestinians to work for a different shared pathway forward, something I strongly believe is the best path forward. 

All of which is to say, that the letter I signed on to did not express support for Mamdani’s candidacy, nor, in looking back on past blogs and sermons did I give such an endorsement. I say this as it is my policy not to endorse candidates publicly (I have turned down two requests recently from local candidates to give them endorsements), either in printed word or from the pulpit.

As for Mamdani, yes I think he should have been able to, in a forthright way answer the questions regarding Globalize the Intifada. I think, at the very least, he should have acknowledged that there are those who do not use the phrase as a motivation for violence, and others that do. Never mind that the question he got, that no other candidate was asked, was due solely to the fact that he was a Muslim.
Whatever Mamdani’s rhetoric has been, at the very least he has made extraordinary efforts more recently to connect with the Jewish community and Jewish leaders in NYC. Jewish NYC comptroller Brad Lander who cross-endorsed Mamdani has said that no one had visited more shuls than Mamdani. Of greater and more recent relevance, Mamdani, after the tragedy in Australia came out with an unambiguous and strong statement standing with the Chabad community, specifically mentioning Rabbi Eli Schlanger z”l, and his deep ties to Crown Heights, home of the Chabad headquarters in Brooklyn. Moreover, Mamdani visited what is known as the Rebbe’s Ohel, the resting place in Queens for the two most recent leaders of the Chabad movement, Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson and Rabbi Yosef Yitzchak Schneerson.  He did so without any fanfare or share anything public about the visit.

I have heard it being said of Zohran Mamdani that his efforts to connect with the Jewish communities in New York are merely for political purposes. If so then I say good on us for practicing good, effective politics. Beyond that, I do believe that Mamdani has an overarching universal belief in fighting against baseless hate for all communities, including our Jewish community.

As not much of an aside, in addressing the harm done by violent rhetoric, we should be looking at the Mark Zuckerbergs, and Elon Musks of the world who have encouraged extremist, violent rhetoric on their social platforms, all for the sake of billions of dollars.

I would love to have a conversation with Mayor-elect Mamdani regarding the use of the phrase Globalize the Intifada, what he thinks it means, and the potential impact rhetoric can have, much as I had the conversation with a gathering of Palestinians and Jews this past week, celebrating Chanukah. One idea expressed in this group that has left the most lasting impression is that we all need to spend more time listening to gain better understanding of the other, rather than only wanting to be heard and proving the rightness of our position. 

Whomever from our Jewish community who is in real conversation with Zohran Mamdani, I know they will do more to protect our people than those Jewish organizations that say they will “monitor” Mamdani. As Jay Michaelson said, “If we want relatively moderate Muslims, Palestinians, and pro-Palestinian activists to reduce the appeal of ISIS, Hamas and other terrorist organizations, we have to strengthen their hand against the fundamentalists. But the Israeli and American governments, and much of the Jewish community, have been rushing in the opposite direction for decades now.”

In looking at the different dynamics surrounding the phrase Globalize the Intifada, I do believe it has been and can be used to promote a violent response. I also have listened to the voices of people who use the phrase to coalesce around a non-violent approach to achieving Palestinian self-determination. I have come to know those people as well, and believe we make progress when we can share our views and our serious concerns. In expressing our Jewish pain and fear, we need to make space to hear the pain and fear of Palestinians. When we see each other’s humanity and dignity, we can begin the process of seeking a real and lasting peace. It is the prayer of peace I pray every day.