Mamdani’s Refusal to Condemn “Globalize the Intifada” Sparks National Debate on Double Standards in American Politics

NYC Mayoral Candidate Faces Demands to Disavow Slogan He Never Used, Highlighting Challenges for Muslim Americans in Public Life

Zohran Mamdani, the presumptive Democratic nominee for New York City mayor, has become the center of a heated national controversy after repeatedly refusing to condemn the phrase “globalize the intifada”—a slogan he neither coined nor used—amid mounting pressure from political opponents and media figures in the days leading up to and following the June 24, 2025, primary. The episode, which unfolded in New York but reverberated across the country, underscores persistent double standards faced by Muslim Americans in politics and raises questions about the boundaries of political accountability, free speech, and religious identity.

The Manufactured Controversy

The controversy erupted when a radio host asked Mamdani, a progressive state legislator and the first Muslim to win a major-party mayoral nomination in New York, to comment on “unnamed pro-Palestinian activists” who allegedly used the phrase “globalize the intifada.” Rather than issue a blanket condemnation, Mamdani responded, “I know people for whom those things mean very different things.” He explained that, for some, the phrase expresses “a desperate desire for equality and equal rights in standing up for Palestinian human rights,” and he noted that the U.S. Holocaust Museum had used the word “intifada” in Arabic-language descriptions of the 1944 Warsaw Uprising against Nazi Germany.

Despite clarifying that the phrase was not his own and that he would not use it, Mamdani’s nuanced remarks were quickly seized upon by opponents. Former New York Governor Andrew Cuomo and Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, among others, amplified claims that Mamdani had used or defended the slogan, fueling calls for him to denounce it explicitly.

“That’s not language that I use. The language that I use and the language that I will continue to use to lead this city is that which speaks clearly to my intent, which is an intent grounded in a belief in universal human rights.”
— Zohran Mamdani, as quoted by Politico and Times of India

Media, Politics, and the “Condemnation Game”

The phrase “globalize the intifada” has become a lightning rod in American political discourse, especially in the context of rising tensions over Israel-Palestine policy and the war in Gaza. While some pro-Israel organizations and politicians equate the phrase with calls for violence, others argue it is a nonviolent rallying cry for global solidarity with Palestinians facing occupation and apartheid.

Mamdani’s refusal to play what some have called the “condemnation game” has drawn both criticism and support. Critics, including Republican lawmakers and some Jewish organizations, argue that public figures must draw clear moral lines and denounce any language that could be interpreted as inciting violence. Supporters, including civil rights advocates and progressive commentators, contend that Mamdani is being unfairly targeted because of his Muslim identity and that he is being held to a standard not applied to non-Muslim politicians.

“For decades, Muslims in America have been held to a ridiculous, bigoted double standard which demands that we condemn violence that we had nothing to do with and renounce comments that we have never made.”
— Common Dreams

The Meaning and Misuse of “Intifada”

The Arabic word “intifada” literally means “to shake off” or “uprising.” It has been used to describe grassroots resistance movements, including the largely peaceful Arab Spring protests and the Palestinian uprisings against Israeli occupation. Activists assert that the slogan “globalize the intifada” is a call for justice and solidarity, not violence or hatred against any group.

“Let’s be clear about what ‘Globalize the Intifada’ actually means. In Arabic, intifada means ‘to shake off’ or ‘uprising’—a grassroots resistance to oppression and military occupation, not a religious war or ethnic hate. Activists use the slogan to express global solidarity with Palestinians enduring Israeli apartheid, ethnic cleansing and ongoing genocide. It is a call for justice, not violence—not against Jews or anyone else.”
— Middle East Monitor

Nevertheless, the phrase has been weaponized in American political discourse. Opponents claim it is linked to violent movements and use it to demand public denunciations from Muslim politicians, even when those politicians have not used or endorsed the slogan.

A Double Standard for Muslim Americans

The controversy has reignited longstanding debates about the treatment of Muslim Americans in public life. Advocates argue that only Muslims are routinely asked to denounce violence or controversial statements they did not make. At the same time, non-Muslim politicians critical of Israeli policy are rarely subjected to similar demands.

“There are plenty of other politicians opposed to the genocide and critical of the Israeli government, including Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Rep. Alexandria Ocasio Cortez (D-N.Y.) and former Rep. Jamaal Bowman (D-N.Y.). Has anyone ever asked them to condemn the phrase ‘globalize the intifada?’ Of course not.”
— Common Dreams

This double standard, critics say, serves to marginalize Muslim voices and discourage political participation by holding them responsible for the words and actions of others. Mamdani’s decision to resist the pressure and “still win the Democratic primary” is seen by some as a watershed moment that could help free Muslim politicians from a “double standard that has haunted them for decades”.

Public Reaction and Political Fallout

The issue has divided New Yorkers and national observers alike. Polls indicate that many voters, including a significant share of Jewish Democrats, support Mamdani’s broader message of universal human rights and his refusal to be drawn into what they see as a manufactured controversy.

Meanwhile, right-wing commentators and some pro-Israel groups have continued to link the phrase to violence and terrorism, citing its historical associations and the context of ongoing conflict in the Middle East. The U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum, for example, issued a statement condemning the “exploitation” of its references to the Warsaw Uprising in discussions about “globalize the intifada,” arguing that such comparisons are “outrageous and especially offensive to survivors”.

Media Coverage and the Search for Soundbites

The controversy has also raised questions about the role of the media in amplifying or distorting political debates. Some analysts argue that mainstream outlets and political opponents have focused on soundbites and manufactured outrage rather than substantive policy discussions, particularly on issues of crime, housing, and education that directly affect New Yorkers.

“Rather than engaging with Mamdani’s positions on crime, housing, transportation, or education—issues that directly impact New Yorkers—mainstream media and traditional politicians are fixated on a phrase rooted in Arabic, distorted beyond recognition by Israeli apologists ignorant of its linguistic meaning or context.”
— Middle East Monitor

Islamophobia and Political Participation

The Mamdani episode is part of a broader pattern of Islamophobia and the policing of Muslim speech in American politics. Civil rights organizations have documented similar patterns in previous election cycles, where Muslim candidates are asked to prove their patriotism or denounce violence in ways that non-Muslims are not.

The controversy also comes amid rising anti-Muslim sentiment and hate crimes in the United States, with advocacy groups warning that such political targeting can have real-world consequences for the safety and inclusion of Muslim communities.

Implications for American Democracy

As Mamdani prepares for the November general election, the debate over “globalize the intifada” is likely to persist. The outcome may set important precedents for how Muslim Americans and other minorities are treated in public life, and whether political discourse in the United States can move beyond manufactured controversies to focus on substantive policy issues.

The episode has already prompted reflection among journalists, politicians, and activists about the responsibilities of the media, the dangers of double standards, and the importance of protecting free speech and religious liberty for all Americans.

“By refusing to play the condemnation game this time and still winning the Democratic primary, he may have helped free Muslims in political life from a double standard that has haunted them for decades.”
— Common Dreams

A Test of Principles and Precedents

The controversy surrounding Zohran Mamdani’s refusal to condemn a slogan he never used reveals deep fault lines in American politics—about identity, accountability, and the meaning of solidarity. As debates over Israel-Palestine, free speech, and minority rights continue to shape the nation’s political landscape, the Mamdani episode stands as a test of whether American democracy can live up to its ideals of fairness, inclusion, and equal treatment under the law.

The coming months will show whether this moment marks a turning point for Muslim participation in public life—or whether the “condemnation game” will remain a fixture of American political discourse.

This report is based on primary analysis of the original Common Dreams opinion piece and corroborating coverage from Middle East Monitor, The News, Times of India, and other reputable news organizations. All quotes and information are attributed to their original publishers in accordance with the highest standards of journalistic ethics and digital media best practices.