"Globalize the Intifada" Slogan Sparks Widespread Debate Over Interpretations and Incitement

The phrase "globalize the intifada," as highlighted in a recent tweet by Sam Sheffer, continues to be a focal point of intense debate and controversy regarding its meaning and implications. Sheffer's tweet, stating "precisely what 'globalize the intifada' means by the way," underscores the varied and often conflicting interpretations of the slogan. The term "Intifada" itself is an Arabic word meaning "uprising" or "shaking off," historically referring to two significant Palestinian uprisings against Israeli occupation in 1987-1993 and 2000-2005.

The call to "globalize the intifada" suggests extending the spirit and actions of these uprisings beyond the immediate regional conflict to a worldwide movement. Proponents of the slogan often describe it as a symbolic call for Palestinian human rights, self-determination, and resistance against what they perceive as colonial violence and oppression. They argue that the term can encompass non-violent forms of resistance and civil disobedience, drawing parallels to broader concepts of popular uprisings.

However, the phrase is widely criticized by numerous Jewish organizations and public figures, including the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) and the American Jewish Committee (AJC). Critics interpret "globalize the intifada" as an endorsement of violence, terrorism, and antisemitism, pointing to the more violent aspects of the First and particularly the Second Intifada, which included suicide bombings targeting Israeli civilians. They contend that the slogan incites aggression against Israelis and Jewish communities globally, regardless of the speaker's intent.

Recent events have amplified these concerns, with the slogan appearing in numerous pro-Palestinian demonstrations globally, including in major cities like New York and London. In some instances, groups have used the phrase in conjunction with maps identifying locations of businesses and institutions perceived as supportive of Israel, leading to accusations of targeting and incitement to violence against Jewish individuals and establishments. This usage has prompted strong condemnation from elected officials and community leaders.

The ongoing controversy reflects a deep divide in how the historical context of the Intifadas is understood and how calls for resistance are interpreted. While some view the slogan as a legitimate expression of solidarity and a demand for justice, others see it as a dangerous call for violence that fuels antisemitism. The debate highlights the sensitive nature of language in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and its potential for diverse and often polarizing interpretations.