In a stunning political turn, New York City mayoral frontrunner Zohran Mamdani has shifted his stance on one of the most controversial phrases in Middle Eastern politics, sparking debate just weeks before the city heads to the polls. Mamdani, a Democratic Socialist who has built his campaign on bold progressive ideas, had previously taken a neutral position on the phrase “globalize the intifada.” While he once said he would not personally use the slogan but also would not condemn others for doing so, he now says he would actively discourage its usage. The reversal, which came during a televised interview with Rev. Al Sharpton on MSNBC’s PoliticsNation, has left supporters scrambling for answers and provided opponents with a fresh line of attack.
Mamdani explained that the change came after difficult conversations with Jewish leaders and constituents who spoke to him personally about the phrase’s impact. One rabbi recalled living through bus bombings in Haifa and restaurant attacks in Jerusalem, telling Mamdani that hearing the slogan used so casually in New York reopened old wounds and fears that such violence could one day reach their own community. Mamdani said he realized that while some activists use the phrase to protest Israeli occupation, others interpret it as an incitement to violence. The gap between intent and impact, he noted, made him reconsider his position. “As someone seeking to be mayor for all New Yorkers,” Mamdani told Sharpton, “I cannot ignore the pain it causes. That matters just as much as the political message behind it.”
This was not the first time Mamdani had addressed the phrase. Back in June, he told NBC’s Meet the Press that he did not believe it was the role of a mayor to “police” speech, striking a balance between defending free expression and avoiding endorsement. His refusal to take a stronger stance drew criticism from Jewish groups but also won him praise from left-wing activists who view the phrase as symbolic resistance. By July, The New York Times reported that Mamdani had quietly begun advising some supporters against using it, but his public comments remained carefully neutral. His sharp change in tone this September, especially on a national platform, signaled not only a political calculation but a recognition of how the controversy could undermine his chances in the general election.
The response has been immediate and polarizing. Supporters who admired Mamdani’s earlier willingness to defend activist rhetoric are accusing him of bowing to political pressure. Some progressive organizers say they feel abandoned and question whether he can be trusted to stand firm on other contentious issues. Meanwhile, his opponents have seized the moment to paint him as inconsistent, arguing that his change of heart proves he is too inexperienced or unreliable to lead the nation’s largest city. Several centrist Democrats, as well as Republican rivals, have pointed out that consistency and credibility are crucial qualities in a mayor, especially in a time of rising political tension.
Still, Mamdani is pressing ahead with a campaign that remains ambitious and wide-ranging. He has proposed government-run grocery stores to tackle food insecurity, a bold plan that he promoted recently during an appearance on CNN. The proposal reflects his broader vision of using city resources to address inequality and provide essential services to communities that often feel left behind by private industry. Earlier this month, he also hosted a high-profile town hall in Brooklyn with Sen. Bernie Sanders, who endorsed Mamdani’s platform and railed against extreme wealth inequality. Sanders singled out billionaire Elon Musk as an example of how wealth concentration distorts American democracy and vowed, alongside Mamdani, to fight for policies that redistribute resources more fairly.
As the election nears, the stakes for Mamdani’s campaign could not be higher. Polls continue to show him with a lead, but the controversy over his sudden change of heart on “globalize the intifada” has introduced uncertainty at a critical moment. For his supporters, the reversal raises difficult questions about whether he can navigate the pressures of leadership without losing sight of the ideals that made his candidacy so appealing in the first place. For his critics, it is an opportunity to hammer home doubts about his readiness for the office. And for undecided voters, the episode may ultimately become less about the specific phrase itself and more about what it reveals of his judgment, empathy, and political instincts. Whether the flip-flop weakens him or helps him connect with a broader swath of New Yorkers will soon be decided at the ballot box.
