Democratic National Committee Chairman Ken Martin defended himself on Friday amid criticism that his response to a question about New York City Democratic mayoral nominee Zohran Mamdani’s refusal to condemn the “globalize the intifada” slogan did not sufficiently express his own view that the phrase should be condemned.

“The right-wing lie machine is at it again. That’s not what I said in this interview. I’ve never supported or condoned the phrase ‘globalize the intifada’, a phrase which is reckless and dangerous, as it can been [sic] seen as a green light to terror, and it should be unequivocally condemned,” Martin wrote in a response on X to the Washington Free Beacon.

“Let me be clear, at a time of rising antisemitism, there’s no place for rhetoric that can be seen as a call to violence,” he added.

Several Jewish Democrats and organizations that represent them defended Martin’s handling of the Wednesday “PBS NewsHour” interview fallout.

Halie Soifer, CEO of the Jewish Democratic Council of America, told Jewish Insider on Friday that, “We welcome the clarification from Chair Martin that the phrase ‘globalize the intifada’ is reckless and dangerous because it can be seen as a green light to terror. Chair Martin has never supported or condoned this phrase, and has now made it clear that there’s no place for rhetoric that can be seen as a call to violence in the Democratic Party.”

“He also said that this phrase should be unequivocally condemned, and we would like to see all Democrats do exactly that,” Soifer told JI. 

The Democratic Majority for Israel said in a statement that the group “appreciates the recognition by DNC chair Ken Martin that the phrase ‘Globalize the Intifada’ is a dangerous call to incite violent action against Jews & Israelis.” 

“During the last two intifadas, thousands of innocent Israelis — Arabs and Jews — were victims of Palestinian terrorism. Words have meanings, and the meaning of that phrase is clear to those who have experienced the intifadas. This incitement of violence should never be acceptable and must be condemned unequivocally,” the statement continued.

Martin’s Friday comment was met with criticism from several Jewish Democrats.

Georgia Democratic state Rep. Esther Panitch took issue with the DNC chairman’s response, writing on X, “I am not right-wing, and I know what I heard. You have welcomed the person who refused to condemn the phrase you call dangerous. Why?”

Sara Forman, the executive director of the New York Solidarity Network, an organization representing Jews in New York, criticized Martin in a lengthy X post on Friday for his handling of the interview question and his subsequent tweet clarifying his position. 

“There is no excuse the chair of @TheDemocrats could come up with to put the toothpaste back into the tube. Ken Martin is the chair of the DNC and his idiotic ‘big tent’ comment is now a party position with a high cost – the loss of normal Democrats around the country,” Forman wrote.

“Incumbents will be held accountable for his words against Republican challengers who will make it very difficult and expensive to hold swing districts. And D challengers will be playing right into the hands of their Republican incumbent opponents when they distance themselves from his comments,” she continued. “For a party chair to fundamentally misunderstand his role, which is to fundraise so Democrats can win elections, is insane.”

Democratic National Committee Chairman Ken Martin declined on Wednesday to criticize New York City Democratic mayoral nominee Zohran Mamdani’s refusal to condemn the “globalize the intifada” slogan. The DNC chair, who was elected earlier this year, praised the party for being a “big tent” comprising different ideologies, including “leftists” such as Mamdani.

Asked during a “PBS NewsHour” interview about concerns from Jewish Democrats regarding Mamdani’s refusal to condemn the phrase, Martin replied, “There’s no candidate in this party that I agree 100 percent of the time with, to be honest with you. There’s things that I don’t agree with Mamdani that he said.”

Martin said that he had learned through his 14 years as chairman of the Minnesota Democratic Party and his tenure at the DNC “that you win through addition. You win by bringing people into your coalition. We have conservative Democrats. We have centrist Democrats. We have labor progressives like me, and we have this new brand of Democrat, which is the leftist.”

“We win by bringing people into that coalition. And at the end of the day, for me, that’s the type of party we’re going to lead. We are a big tent party. Yes, it leads to dissent and debate, and there’s differences of opinions on a whole host of issues. But we should celebrate that as a party and recognize, at the end of the day, we’re better because of it,” Martin said.

Martin also argued that national Democrats could learn from Mamdani’s primary campaign performance in terms of focusing their message away from President Donald Trump and toward a forward-looking vision.

“He campaigned for something. And this is a critical piece. We can’t just be in a perpetual state of resisting Donald Trump. Of course, we have to resist Donald Trump. There’s no doubt about it for all the reasons we just talked about. But we also have to give people a sense of what we’re for, what the Democratic Party is fighting for, and what we would do if they put us back in power,” Martin said.

“One of the lessons from Mamdani’s campaign is that he focused on affordability. He focused on a message that was resonant with voters and he campaigned for something, not against other people or against other things. He campaigned on a vision of how he was going to make New York City a better place to live,” he continued.

Martin praised the methods by which Mamdani’s campaign got its message out.

“The other lessons, of course, is the tactics he used to get his message out, both a very aggressive in-person campaigning, meeting voters where they’re at, and then also in those digital spaces, using very creative messaging to cut through the noise and to get to voters in an inexpensive but authentic way,” he said.

Gen. Dan Caine, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said on Sunday morning that the U.S. operation in Iran overnight had hit all of its planned targets and that initial assessments showed that the strikes had inflicted extensive damage on Iran’s nuclear facilities. But Caine said that a full assessment of whether the Iranian nuclear program had been fully destroyed would take more time.

Speaking alongside Caine at a Pentagon press briefing, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth emphasized that the strike was limited and strictly targeted at Iran’s nuclear program and was not designed to prompt regime change. He added that the U.S. continues to seek peace with Iran.

“Final battle damage will take some time, but initial battle damage assessments indicate that all three sites sustained extremely severe damage and destruction,” Caine said. Pressed on whether Iran retains any nuclear capability, Caine said that a full assessment “is still pending, and it would be way too early for me to comment on what may be there.”

Hegseth added that the U.S. believes it “achieved the destruction of capabilities” at the Fordow nuclear facility, which he described as the “primary target.”

The operation, dubbed Midnight Hammer, involved seven B2 stealth bombers which dropped a total of 14 bunker-buster bombs on Fordow and Natanz, accompanied by more than two dozen cruise missiles fired at Esfahan. Officials described Fordow as the primary U.S. target. 

More than 100 other aircraft were involved in support capacities, and Caine said that Iran did not fire a single shot at U.S. forces or even deploy its fighter jets during the operation.

Plans for the strike were kept to a limited number of officials, and the U.S. conducted a deception effort to disguise its preparations. Caine said that Israeli operations over the past week had helped pave the way for the U.S. strike but Israel was not directly involved in the overnight operation.

Hegseth said that congressional leaders were notified about the strike after U.S. aircraft had left Iranian airspace.

He stressed that the strike “did not target Iranian troops or the Iranian people” and reiterated that Trump continues to seek peace with the Iranian regime.

“The United States does not seek war,” Hegseth said. “But let me be clear: We will act swiftly and decisively when our people, our partners or our interests are threatened. Iran should listen to the president of the United States and know that he means it every word.”

He emphasized that the operation was “most certainly not open-ended” but that the U.S. would “respond if necessary.”

Hegseth said the U.S. had sent public and private messages to Iran to ask its leaders to come to negotiations.

“They understand precisely what the American position is, precisely what steps they can take to allow for peace, and we hope they do so,” he continued.

Asked about whether U.S. assessments or intelligence about the status of Iran’s nuclear weaponization effort had changed since March, when Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard said Iran was not actively building a nuclear weapon, Hegseth did not specifically contradict Gabbard.

“I would just simply say that the president has made it very clear he’s looked at all of this, all of the intelligence, all of the information, and come to the conclusion that the Iranian nuclear program is a threat, and was willing to take this precision operation to neutralize that threat in order to advance American national interests,” Hegseth said.

Caine said that U.S. forces throughout the region had stepped up measures to protect U.S. forces from retaliation.

“Our forces remain on high alert and are fully postured to respond to any Iranian retaliation or proxy attacks, which would be an incredibly poor choice. We will defend ourselves. The safety of our service members and civilians remains our highest priority,” Caine said.