
NYC mayoral wannabe Mamdani keeps struggling to defend ‘globalize the intifada' rallying cry — as even cross-endorser Lander piles on
Mayoral contender Zohran Mamdani on Thursday continued to stumble defending the 'globalize the intifada' rallying cry – as even fellow Democratic candidate Brad Lander, who cross-endorsed him, joined a pileup of criticism.
The usually smooth-talking Mamdani devolved into word salad as he maintained the phrase is not an incitement to violence against Jews.
'These words have different meanings for many different people, and my point is rather to say that each and every New Yorker deserves that safety and that my focus is going to be on making this an affordable city,' Mamdani said at a news conference.
'I've been clear that any incitement of violence is something that I'm in opposition to.'
3 Zohran Mamdani keeps struggling to defend his refusal to denounce the rallying cry, 'Globalize the infitada.'
Bloomberg via Getty Images
The Democratic socialist's awkward response came after he not only refused to denounce the anti-Israel cry but argued he viewed it as a call to stand up for Palestinian human rights.
He also tried to downplay the term by noting the US Holocaust Memorial Museum used the Arabic word 'intifada' to describe the 1943 Warsaw Ghetto Uprising by Polish Jews against the Nazis.
The museum slapped down Mamdani's argument — as did his critics, who view the Queens state assemblyman as, at best, being blind to antisemitism.
Thursday's backlash included Lander, the lefty city comptroller who last week vowed to rank Mamdani second on his ranked-choice city ballot — a pledge his friendly rival returned.
The pair's cross-endorsement could carry weight in the ranked-choice voting primary, where voters pick up to five candidates in order of preference.
Even if a voter's first choice is eliminated in successive rounds of ranked-choice calculations, their other picks – from second on down – could still be in the mix and emerge as the eventual overall winner with more than 50% of the vote.
3 Mayoral contender Brad Lander criticized Mamdani's remarks but still ranked him second in the primary.
Michael Nagle
Lander told the 'Pod Save America' podcast Tuesday that the phrase 'globalize the intifada' carries violent associations for Jews such as himself, especially after the recent assassination of two Israeli Embassy staffers and a Molotov cocktail-hurling wacko's attack in Colorado.
'Maybe you don't mean to say it's open season on Jews everywhere in the world, but that's what I hear,' Lander said of those who use the term.
'And I'd like to hear that from other people as well,' he said of his comments, implicitly knocking Mamdani.
But Lander still insisted during the podcast that he doesn't believe Mamdani is antisemitic — and noted his own problems with Israel's war in Gaza and treatment of Palestinians.
He repeated his measured criticism Thursday of Mamdani's defense of 'globalize the intifada' and overall support of his rival's character as he voted early in the primary.
'I believe that Zohran Mamdani is a person of decency and integrity, and I am therefore encouraging people to rank him number two,' Lander said.
'We do not agree on everything about Israel and Palestine, but I do believe that he will protect Jewish New Yorkers and our rights, and I was proud to rank him myself.'
3 Mamdani has said he rejects any incitement to violence.
Bloomberg via Getty Images
Former Gov. Andrew Cuomo, who has seen his polling lead in the mayoral primary chipped away by Mamdani, didn't miss the chance to lambast his opponent after a brief speech at a Bronx Juneteenth celebration.
Cuomo twice mispronounced Mamdani's name — as he did during a recent debate, drawing an emphatic correction from his rival — while he accused him of 'inciting violence against the Jewish community worldwide.
'He is divisive across the board,' Cuomo said.
Lander, during his podcast interview, argued it was Cuomo — not Mamdani — who failed to try to unite New Yorkers during that debate.
'I do not agree with him on Israel and Palestine on every issue, and that's appropriate,' Lander said of Mamdani, before adding, 'Cuomo did not try one iota to speak to Muslim New Yorkers or signal that he will bring people together.'
Mamdani would be the first Muslim mayor of New York City, if elected.
— Additional reporting by Carl Campanile and Craig McCarthy
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


New York Post
17 minutes ago
- New York Post
Don't fall for ‘regime change' myths — US power is a force for good
MAGA celebrity Charlie Kirk, attempting to balance support for the administration and appeal to online isolationists, maintains that the 'regime change war machine in DC' is pushing President Donald Trump into 'an all-out blitz on Iran.' He's not alone. The question is, what does 'regime change war' mean in simple language? Does it mean, as 'non-interventionists' suggest, invading Iran and imposing American democracy on its people? Because, if so, there's virtually no one pushing for that. And I only add 'virtually' in case I somehow missed a person of consequence, though it is highly unlikely. Trump, from all indications, is using the threat of the US joining the war to push Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei into surrender. Though taking out Iran's nuclear program would end the war quicker. Or does opposing 'regime change' mean actively thwarting the Iranian opposition from overthrowing the fundamentalists who took power via a violent revolution in 1979? Does it mean ensuring that Khamenei survives, because a resulting messy post-war fight for power is worse? It seems the latter. Kirk says, 'There is a vast difference between a popular revolution and foreign-imposed, abrupt, violent regime change.' Surely, he doesn't believe the mullahs will gradually propose liberal reforms for the people and become peaceful neighbors on their own? If Iranians revolt, it's because of the violence now being imposed on the regime. The ideological overcorrection due to the failures of Iraq's rebuild now has non-interventionists accusing anyone who proposes that it's better if anti-American dictatorships fall of being 'neocons,' perhaps the most useless phrase in our political lexicon. Forget for a moment that Iran has been an enemy of the United States for 45 years. Not an existential threat, no, but a deadly one, nonetheless. The non-interventionist is not bothered by the Islamic Republic's murder of American citizens, or its crusade for nuclear weapons — until Khamenei drops Revolutionary Guard paratroopers into San Diego, they don't think it's any of our business. Because of this overcorrection, non-interventionists, both left and right, simply can't fathom that exertion of American power could ever be a good thing. They now create revisionist histories blaming the United States for virtually all the world's ills. 'It was Britain, and (funded by) the United States that overthrew a democratically elected Iranian Prime Minister Mossedegh in 1953 by using hired mobs in a coup that lead [sic] to the installation of the Shah Pahlavi's 27 year reign of authoritarianism and human rights abuses,' wrote Trump-supporting comedian Rob Schneider in a viral post. 'All in the name of Iranian Oil.' 'Remember,' Kirk told his followers, 'Iran is partially controlled by mullahs today because we designed regime change to put the shah back in power.' Boy, I wish people would stay off Wikipedia for a while, because this fantasy, spread by blame-America leftists for decades, is now being picked up by the right. The notion that Iran would have been a thriving democracy in 1954 had the US not gotten involved — and our involvement is way overstated — is more ridiculous than blaming us for the 1979 revolution nearly 30 years later. It is far more likely Iran would have emerged as a Soviet client state, destined to fall anyway when fundamentalists swept the Islamic world in the 1970s. Realpolitik is ugly. Non-interventionists love to harp on the deadly byproducts of our intrusions into world affairs — and there have been many — without ever grappling with the counterfactual outcome. For instance, the contention that 'regime change' never works is incredibly simplistic. Regime change was a success in Germany and Japan. And I bet the Hungarians, Czechs, Slovenians, Estonians and many others were all on board for regime change, as well. None of that happens without US intervention in conflicts, cold and hot, around the world. People will rightly point out that Europe is not the Middle East. In that regard, Iran is not Iraq or Syria. Schneider contends that '90 million people will fight for their survival again,' as they did in Iraq. Sure, some Iranians might fight to preserve the brutal Islamic regime. Many would not. The real fear should be that a civil war would break out if Iran's regime collapses. There are numerous minorities in Iran, but Persian national consciousness goes back to antiquity. If the mullahs fall, a majority of Iranians may turn out to fight for a better life free of needless conflicts with the West. It may go south. It may not. I have no idea how that turns out, and neither do you. Except for one thing: Whoever wins won't have nuclear weapons. David Harsanyi is a senior writer at the Washington Examiner.


CNN
24 minutes ago
- CNN
How Tucker Carlson went from war hawk to skeptic
CNN's Donie O'Sullivan explores the transformation of Tucker Carlson, from one-time CNN host advocating for the Iraq War to his current status as an influential MAGA podcaster criticizing possible US involvement in Israel's conflict with Iran.


CNN
39 minutes ago
- CNN
Israel: At Least 271 Hospitalized After Iranian Strikes - The Lead with Jake Tapper - Podcast on CNN Audio
Israel: At Least 271 Hospitalized After Iranian Strikes The Lead with Jake Tapper 87 mins After days of keeping the world guessing whether the United States will take military action against Iran, President Trump now says he will decide within the next two weeks. This as the White House claims Iran has never been closer to having a nuclear weapon. CNN has teams on the ground at the White House, in Iran, and in Israel.