Imagine a group of white people brandishing white supremacist symbols marching through the streets of a major American city, chanting “revive the lynch mob,” only to have their spokespeople later say the slogan should not be taken literally as a call for violence against black people, but merely as a demand for stricter justice for criminals.
Tough to imagine? You bet it is. Because it wouldn’t happen. Because it wouldn’t be tolerated. Because steps would be taken – swiftly and decisively – to prevent that kind of hate speech from poisoning the public square.
Yet when it comes to Jews, that degree of sensitivity – or rather, simple common sense – often seems absent. Which is why, since October 7, it has become not only acceptable but, in some circles, even fashionable – a kind of radical chic – to chant “globalize the Intifada.”
In the context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the term intifada does not signify Nelson Mandela–style civil disobedience. It refers to suicide bombings at packed discos and Passover seders, drive-by shootings, and the murder of families in their homes.
Though the word may literally mean “uprising” or “shaking off,” in practice it is inseparable from the First and Second Intifadas in Israel and from sustained campaigns of violence against Jews.
It is a shame it took an atrocity like the one at Bondi Beach to drive this point home. But finally, belatedly, some are beginning to acknowledge a basic truth: words matter. Language that normalizes or romanticizes violence creates an environment in which violence is more likely to flourish.
For that reason, authorities in New South Wales – the Australian state where Sydney is located – as well as in London and Manchester should be applauded for finally drawing a line. NSW Premier Chris Minns announced reforms to hate speech regulations that would ban the “globalize the Intifada” chant.
In Britain, the London Metropolitan Police and Greater Manchester Police have said officers will arrest those chanting the slogan or displaying it on placards.
“Words have meaning and consequence,” the two police forces said, citing both the Bondi attack and a Yom Kippur assault on a synagogue in Manchester where two people were killed. “We will act decisively.”
In Britain, arrests have already followed.
United States must act against antisemitic chants
Similar clarity is needed in the United States, where the chant has become ubiquitous at anti-Israel demonstrations.
In November, outside the Park East Synagogue in Manhattan, where Nefesh B’Nefesh was holding an aliyah fair, protesters shouted “globalize the Intifada,” alongside other chants such as “death to the IDF,” “Intifada revolution,” and “Resistance, you make us proud, take another settler out.”
Nevertheless, some political leaders – including Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani – have declined to condemn the “globalize the Intifada” chant outright, with Mamdani saying he would merely “discourage” its use. That approach treats the slogan as overheated and excessive rhetoric rather than as language inseparable from violence and its real-world consequences.
That distinction matters. Discouragement is not condemnation, and ambiguity in the face of incitement is not neutrality. In a city where Jews are being threatened and attacked, the refusal to clearly denounce language so closely associated with violence sends its own message – one heard not only by those being targeted, but also by those testing how far they can go.
The issue is especially acute in New York, where violent attacks against Jews have surged and where social media routinely circulates footage of assaults on subways and city streets.
Democracies already understand that some phrases, bound up historically with violence, cross a line. They grasp that the issue is not necessarily literalism, but rather how words are heard, how they resonate, and how they can legitimize action.
That is why chants invoking lynching, or acts of terror against specific ethnic groups, are not treated metaphorically, but as real threats to public order.
The same standard should apply here as well. Calling for a globalized Intifada is not an innocent critique of Israeli policy; it is the invocation of a violent past to encourage future action.
Protecting free speech does not require tolerating language that normalizes violence against a minority already under assault.
The question is not whether societies can draw this line – they demonstrably can. The question is whether leaders, in Sydney, London, New York and beyond, are willing to do so before the next attack.