Can you link authenticatic sources to back those claims up?

Do you even know what the intifada means? Or are you using foreign words to make it sound scary?

When the definite form is used , and certainly when used in English and in the context of global events, The Intifada (emphasis added on the to highlight that this is used in definite form) refers to the Second Palestinian Intifada - which was characterized random violent attacks against civilians such as suicide bombings and shootings. Calls to Globalize the Intifada are calls for violent attacks against civilian targets around the world and especially against Jews.

> The Intifada refers to the Second Palestinian Intifada

Source pls?

I understand this is what a lot of people who HEAR “the intifada” believe - but is it what a lot of people who SAY “the intifada” believe?

So, it's against the Jews worldwide, not against the Zionists (including Christian American Zionists) illegal settlers that kill the Palestinian people and steal their land?

> This is basically just criticizing Israel for having the means.

No, it’s criticizing israel for the will, the means, and the action of murdering tens of thousands and starving millions.

> Hamas, who run Gaza, want to "Globalize the Intifada" and bring violence to Jews worldwide

This is one interpretation of that phrase. Intifada means roughly “shaking off”. A call for international support for shaking off the oppression of Palestinians is how it’s usually understood. I’m not here to defend hamas, but using the words of hamas to excuse the genocide of all palestinians (including in the west bank where hamas does not exist) is disgusting. Like using the words of trump to justify shooting up a walmart.

But you are right in that if hamas was doing the same thing that israel is doing UNESCO and UNICEF would be “getting political” about that too.

> This is one interpretation of that phrase.

And I could always say "the final solution" is referring to my math homework. In the context of the Palestinian occupation, intifada ALWAYS is meant as violent. There is no other interpretation.

Pretending that it doesn't is both bad faith and classic taqiyya.

> The First Intifada was characterized by protests, general strikes, economic boycotts, and riots[1]

Sounds like violence was a small component of the first intifada. So, tell me again how it always means violence? And also how did you get from violence against israeli occupation to violence against all jews?

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Globalize_the_intifada

taqiyya is a new word to me. I can’t help but feel it’s being used as a bit of a slur here - not sure, but just in case i’ll point out that there are examples of basically every religious group hiding their faith when threatened. Jews during the holocaust and in inquisition spain, and catholics in elizabethan england, are historic examples i’m familiar with.

You sure post a lot about without knowing a lot about the culture of whom you're talking about. That word also doesn't mean what you think it does, and even has different meanings to different groups that use it.

I was only raised in it. I couldn't possibly know anything.

Taqiyya is a big part of right-wing conspiracy theories about how Muslims who integrate into Western societies are just faking it and cannot be trusted even if they are model citizens - supposedly they are just biding their time until they are the majority, and then they'll vote the extremists in.