Sorry Zaid, I must completely disagree with this article. First off, you are overrating and overhyping Democratic New York City Mayoral Candidate Zahran Mamdani. Comparing him to MLK is just ridiculous and nonsensical. Second, Mamdani is a dangerous man with dangerous ideas who absolutely should NOT become Mayor of one of the biggest cities in this country. It’s not just his antisemitism and anti-Israel position that makes him dangerous, but also his policy platform. Free transit for all residents of New York, city-run grocery stores, fully defunding the NY PD, taxing white people more purely for their skin color, etc.
Second, comparing the fragmented, poorly led and misguided mess that is the Pro-Palestinian Movement to the Civil Rights Movement of the 1950s and 1960s with no disrespect intended, is laughable. It’s not remotely the same thing. The Civil Rights Movement was a well-organized, has centralized well-led, had a clear set of goals and values they stood for, were non-violent, were conscious of their public image, and reached out to and built bridges with white Americans. The Pro-Palestinian Movement has no clear leadership structure, uses the complete wrong tactics, often engages in violence, has no clear goals or principles, is plagued by antisemites and jihadists, refuses to accept Israel and Zionism, is a disorganized mess, and eskews all dialogue with those they disagree with.
Furthermore, their barking up the wrong tree. The Palestinian people are oppressed and live in terrible conditions. But who is responsible for that? That would be Fatah, Hamas and the Arab countries. Not Israel. As to the occupation you mentioned, the reason it is needed is because of the terrorism inflicted by the PA through pay for slay and Hamas and their fellow militant groups in the Palestinian Territories. The Nakba never would’ve happened in the first place of the Palestinian leadership and the Arab nations had accepted the creation of Israel. You also fail to mention the real apartheid against Palestinians in the Arab countries. There is NO apartheid against Palestinians in Israel or the West Bank. But there most certainly is in Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Iraq, Lebanon, and every other Arab nation.
Whatever it’s peaceful origins, the use of the term “intifada” now has come to mean violence against innocent civilians including men, women, children, babies, and old people. It means blowing up buses, shops, nightclubs, and restaurants. But that’s not all that occurred during the Second Intifada. You left out that Israeli soldiers and civilians including innocent children were kidnapped. There were also shootings, assassinations, stabbings, and lynchings as well as rockets fired into Israel.
Your assertion that the violence in the First Intifada was mostly on the Israeli side is no offense intended, absurd. You fail to mention that 100 Israeli civilians were murdered during that time. 822 Palestinians were also executed although that had evidence against fewer than half of them, by their own people for “collaborating with Israel.” Returning to the term itself, you are right it needs to be dropped. But what should replace it is a call for peace and coexistence. Also, one Pew Research Center study does not a larger trend make. That doesn’t prove that the world has turned against Israel.
The idea Israel is committing genocide in Gaza is false. There is no genocide and never was. How can it be a genocide if still to this day the Palestinian population continues to grow? Also, why would Israel want to commit a genocide? To steal the land? That makes no sense. Israel occupying Gaza would be unsustainable and foolhardy. The IDF also has the lowest combatant to civilian killed ratio in this history of warfare. Zaid is a great writer and a good person whom I have nothing against but respectfully, I must completely disagree with this piece.
Agree. Just man or women up to the disgusting horrible concept that the so called Pali resistantance, for the most part, aims to kill and destroy Israel and Jews.. that's it.. full stop
The young commie wanna be mayor will not condemn the phrase cause he agrees with it.
Hopefully once day the above will not be true and actual coexistance will occur.. It is surely possible.. With the right leadership and culture
One thing in Mamdani's favor is that the ones spending the most time on this are already deeply unpopular. The base is fed up with Jeffries, so his criticism is seen as the distraction that it is. I will say it's at least nice to see a Democrat not immediately flip on the slightest controversy.
The Democrat party is near dead. Makes me sad. If all pull in one direction, the world will keel over. D’s are on the wrong side of nearly every 80/20 issue. And supporters of Mamdani are the 1% of crazy. The only ‘base’ the D’s have anymore is whoever they deem the victim class. American men of all races and ethnicities are giving that a giant middle finger. Who wants to live that way? A weakling cowering behind their computer in their parent’s basement? A Bernie bro w/ too many tattoos who wants a free lunch? That’s not what most masculinity is striving for and to be. And without us men, D’s are flatlining.
I think so far Mamdani is threading the needle on this fairly well. The whole 'controversy' is a completely manufactured one as Mamdani himself has never used this phrase- the idea is to generate a 'Mamdani refuses to condemn globalize the intifada' news cycle, which is a lose-lose for him. If he doesn't condemn the phrase, they'll try to paint him as an extremist- but if he does condemn the phrase (which again, he never used himself), in addition to alienating his base, he indulges this idea that he has some obligation to comment on this at all, and it's never going to end- there's going to be another news cycle about him apologizing for something he never actually did, which makes him look weak, and then they're going to come up with some new thing that has nothing to do with him that they'll demand he account for. It's very much like when Obama was campaigning in '08 and the media ginned up a whole thing about things his pastor had said decades prior and asked him to comment on that, as though he's supposed to apologize for everyone he's ever known instead of being judged on his own ideas.
So far Mamdani has just been saying 'I don't use this phrase myself but it means different things to different people and it's not my role to go around language policing.' He should stick to this line and reframe the discussion around working for the people of New York instead of being distracted by this nonsense, which worked well for him in the debate.
This is spot on. The media and Dem establishment have not gotten the memo that people are very sick of their games with semantics. The word Nazis thought they had this in the bag with this 'gotcha'...delusional.
Your claim that intifada is anything other than violence is either cope or a deliberate lie.
And if the Israeli campaign is as brutal and senseless as you claim, all Hamas needs to do to end it is give up the hostages (or their remains) and surrender.
As usual, you offer us a valuable perspective on contemporary politics. Your comparison of the "black power" idea and "global antifada" is on point. But you failed to acknowledge how King highlighted the positives of the black power slogan before noting it's clear negatives.
In the same interview you reference, King says, "I think everybody ought to understand that there are positives in the concept of Black Power and the slogan, and there are negatives."
In explaining the positives King said, "The word black itself in our society connotes something that is degrading. It was absolutely necessary to come to a moment with a sense of dignity. It is very positive and very necessary. So if we see Black Power as a psychological call to manhood and black dignity, I think that's a positive attitude that I want my children to have. I don't want them to be ashamed of the fact that they are black and not white."
King is willing to highlight his objections to certain ways in which the concept of black power is utilized. But he is unwilling to renounce the concept all together. In fact he takes the question of what he thinks about black power to speak about the legitimate psychological motivation behind the idea, mainly the symbolic association of blackness with filth and all things bad.
Perhaps even more to the point, King is willing to explain why rioting, violence, and slogans like black power are strategically and morally unsound, but he refuses to let white supremacists culture off the hook for being the ultimate instigator of the rioting and of the impulse to turn to violent means to resolve racial terrorism. People deprived of their basic right to life and freedom, backed into a corner, will behave in unpredictable and often destructive ways. The fault for such behavior ultimately falls upon the shoulders of those with the greatest power and therefore responsibility for creating the conditions of that oppression.
The philosopher Immanuel Kant continues to be indispensable on matters such as these. His simple yet profound concept that "ought implies can" reminds us we cannot make moral demands upon people who are deprived of reasonable alternatives to desperate measures of survival.
I would not be surprised if the use of terms like "intifada" is designed to scare away people who might be too moderate but that could just be me galaxy braining myself into a dumb take.
Sorry Zaid, I must completely disagree with this article. First off, you are overrating and overhyping Democratic New York City Mayoral Candidate Zahran Mamdani. Comparing him to MLK is just ridiculous and nonsensical. Second, Mamdani is a dangerous man with dangerous ideas who absolutely should NOT become Mayor of one of the biggest cities in this country. It’s not just his antisemitism and anti-Israel position that makes him dangerous, but also his policy platform. Free transit for all residents of New York, city-run grocery stores, fully defunding the NY PD, taxing white people more purely for their skin color, etc.
Second, comparing the fragmented, poorly led and misguided mess that is the Pro-Palestinian Movement to the Civil Rights Movement of the 1950s and 1960s with no disrespect intended, is laughable. It’s not remotely the same thing. The Civil Rights Movement was a well-organized, has centralized well-led, had a clear set of goals and values they stood for, were non-violent, were conscious of their public image, and reached out to and built bridges with white Americans. The Pro-Palestinian Movement has no clear leadership structure, uses the complete wrong tactics, often engages in violence, has no clear goals or principles, is plagued by antisemites and jihadists, refuses to accept Israel and Zionism, is a disorganized mess, and eskews all dialogue with those they disagree with.
Furthermore, their barking up the wrong tree. The Palestinian people are oppressed and live in terrible conditions. But who is responsible for that? That would be Fatah, Hamas and the Arab countries. Not Israel. As to the occupation you mentioned, the reason it is needed is because of the terrorism inflicted by the PA through pay for slay and Hamas and their fellow militant groups in the Palestinian Territories. The Nakba never would’ve happened in the first place of the Palestinian leadership and the Arab nations had accepted the creation of Israel. You also fail to mention the real apartheid against Palestinians in the Arab countries. There is NO apartheid against Palestinians in Israel or the West Bank. But there most certainly is in Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Iraq, Lebanon, and every other Arab nation.
Whatever it’s peaceful origins, the use of the term “intifada” now has come to mean violence against innocent civilians including men, women, children, babies, and old people. It means blowing up buses, shops, nightclubs, and restaurants. But that’s not all that occurred during the Second Intifada. You left out that Israeli soldiers and civilians including innocent children were kidnapped. There were also shootings, assassinations, stabbings, and lynchings as well as rockets fired into Israel.
Your assertion that the violence in the First Intifada was mostly on the Israeli side is no offense intended, absurd. You fail to mention that 100 Israeli civilians were murdered during that time. 822 Palestinians were also executed although that had evidence against fewer than half of them, by their own people for “collaborating with Israel.” Returning to the term itself, you are right it needs to be dropped. But what should replace it is a call for peace and coexistence. Also, one Pew Research Center study does not a larger trend make. That doesn’t prove that the world has turned against Israel.
The idea Israel is committing genocide in Gaza is false. There is no genocide and never was. How can it be a genocide if still to this day the Palestinian population continues to grow? Also, why would Israel want to commit a genocide? To steal the land? That makes no sense. Israel occupying Gaza would be unsustainable and foolhardy. The IDF also has the lowest combatant to civilian killed ratio in this history of warfare. Zaid is a great writer and a good person whom I have nothing against but respectfully, I must completely disagree with this piece.
Agree. Just man or women up to the disgusting horrible concept that the so called Pali resistantance, for the most part, aims to kill and destroy Israel and Jews.. that's it.. full stop
The young commie wanna be mayor will not condemn the phrase cause he agrees with it.
Hopefully once day the above will not be true and actual coexistance will occur.. It is surely possible.. With the right leadership and culture
One thing in Mamdani's favor is that the ones spending the most time on this are already deeply unpopular. The base is fed up with Jeffries, so his criticism is seen as the distraction that it is. I will say it's at least nice to see a Democrat not immediately flip on the slightest controversy.
The Democrat party is near dead. Makes me sad. If all pull in one direction, the world will keel over. D’s are on the wrong side of nearly every 80/20 issue. And supporters of Mamdani are the 1% of crazy. The only ‘base’ the D’s have anymore is whoever they deem the victim class. American men of all races and ethnicities are giving that a giant middle finger. Who wants to live that way? A weakling cowering behind their computer in their parent’s basement? A Bernie bro w/ too many tattoos who wants a free lunch? That’s not what most masculinity is striving for and to be. And without us men, D’s are flatlining.
Gimme a break..Everyone using this term knows what it implies and or calls for....Violence, murder, killing innocents, etc.
For the few dolts who do not know what it implies but use it anyways, they need to attend a better university or do some reading....
The BS gaslighting is getting heavy.. Come on and just own up to the ugliness
I think so far Mamdani is threading the needle on this fairly well. The whole 'controversy' is a completely manufactured one as Mamdani himself has never used this phrase- the idea is to generate a 'Mamdani refuses to condemn globalize the intifada' news cycle, which is a lose-lose for him. If he doesn't condemn the phrase, they'll try to paint him as an extremist- but if he does condemn the phrase (which again, he never used himself), in addition to alienating his base, he indulges this idea that he has some obligation to comment on this at all, and it's never going to end- there's going to be another news cycle about him apologizing for something he never actually did, which makes him look weak, and then they're going to come up with some new thing that has nothing to do with him that they'll demand he account for. It's very much like when Obama was campaigning in '08 and the media ginned up a whole thing about things his pastor had said decades prior and asked him to comment on that, as though he's supposed to apologize for everyone he's ever known instead of being judged on his own ideas.
So far Mamdani has just been saying 'I don't use this phrase myself but it means different things to different people and it's not my role to go around language policing.' He should stick to this line and reframe the discussion around working for the people of New York instead of being distracted by this nonsense, which worked well for him in the debate.
Or he could just not be a terrorist symp commie !
How about that ?
This is spot on. The media and Dem establishment have not gotten the memo that people are very sick of their games with semantics. The word Nazis thought they had this in the bag with this 'gotcha'...delusional.
Your claim that intifada is anything other than violence is either cope or a deliberate lie.
And if the Israeli campaign is as brutal and senseless as you claim, all Hamas needs to do to end it is give up the hostages (or their remains) and surrender.
He's a socialist fool.
As usual, you offer us a valuable perspective on contemporary politics. Your comparison of the "black power" idea and "global antifada" is on point. But you failed to acknowledge how King highlighted the positives of the black power slogan before noting it's clear negatives.
In the same interview you reference, King says, "I think everybody ought to understand that there are positives in the concept of Black Power and the slogan, and there are negatives."
In explaining the positives King said, "The word black itself in our society connotes something that is degrading. It was absolutely necessary to come to a moment with a sense of dignity. It is very positive and very necessary. So if we see Black Power as a psychological call to manhood and black dignity, I think that's a positive attitude that I want my children to have. I don't want them to be ashamed of the fact that they are black and not white."
King is willing to highlight his objections to certain ways in which the concept of black power is utilized. But he is unwilling to renounce the concept all together. In fact he takes the question of what he thinks about black power to speak about the legitimate psychological motivation behind the idea, mainly the symbolic association of blackness with filth and all things bad.
Perhaps even more to the point, King is willing to explain why rioting, violence, and slogans like black power are strategically and morally unsound, but he refuses to let white supremacists culture off the hook for being the ultimate instigator of the rioting and of the impulse to turn to violent means to resolve racial terrorism. People deprived of their basic right to life and freedom, backed into a corner, will behave in unpredictable and often destructive ways. The fault for such behavior ultimately falls upon the shoulders of those with the greatest power and therefore responsibility for creating the conditions of that oppression.
The philosopher Immanuel Kant continues to be indispensable on matters such as these. His simple yet profound concept that "ought implies can" reminds us we cannot make moral demands upon people who are deprived of reasonable alternatives to desperate measures of survival.
I would not be surprised if the use of terms like "intifada" is designed to scare away people who might be too moderate but that could just be me galaxy braining myself into a dumb take.