“Spark an Intifada”? A dangerous and hypocritical poster on Auckland campus

A new poster recently appeared on the University of Auckland campus under the banner of the Palestine Student Action Committee.

At first glance, it might seem like another activist event invitation. But the headline is chillingly clear: “Spark an Intifada.” The accompanying text describes a “study group learning tactics, strategies and methods to build a better world,” with bullet points including “study the intifadas,” “learn from solidarity actions,” and “organise for a demilitarised world.”

For those unfamiliar with the historical and moral weight of the term, intifada refers to two violent Palestinian uprisings against Israel—the First (1987–1993) and the far deadlier Second (2000–2005). Far from being noble struggles, both intifadas were marked by widespread terrorism, including suicide bombings, stabbings, shootings, and the deliberate targeting of civilians. The Second Intifada alone claimed the lives of more than 1,000 Israelis—many of them children and teenagers—killed in cafes, buses, nightclubs and markets.

To “spark an intifada” is not to seek peace. It is to glorify violence. It is to invoke a movement defined by terror and the spilling of innocent blood. One would expect such a slogan to be universally condemned, especially in a university setting where values of diversity, inclusion, and non-violence are ostensibly upheld.

Instead, we are met with silence.

Not an Academic Exercise

The organisers may try to frame this as an educational activity. The words “study group” appear prominently, as if this were a neutral historical seminar. But no serious student of history would describe the intifadas without acknowledging their core feature: violence aimed at civilians, justified as resistance.

A genuine study of the intifadas would confront their devastating human toll, not romanticise their “tactics and strategies” as a roadmap for modern activism. This is not scholarship. It is indoctrination—intended not to understand the past, but to replicate it.

The Hypocrisy of Selective Outrage

Imagine for a moment if another student group put up a poster that read: “Spark a Crusade. Study militant Christendom. Organise for a pure world.” The outcry would be immediate. The university would launch an investigation. Media would condemn it as hate speech. And rightly so.

Yet when a group invokes the intifada—a movement whose central tactic was mass murder, so long as the victims were Jews—the reaction is muted. Worse, it is often quietly supported under the guise of “decolonial resistance.”

It is a disturbing reality that when antisemitism is cloaked in the language of social justice, too many are willing to look the other way.

A “Demilitarised World”?

The poster also claims to aim for a “demilitarised world.” But the very movements it draws inspiration from—the intifadas—were far from demilitarised. They were spearheaded by armed factions, often backed by foreign governments and fuelled by the same ideologies that led to the atrocities of October 7, 2023.

Groups like Hamas and Islamic Jihad didn’t fight for a peaceful, demilitarised society. They fought—and continue to fight—for a world without Israel. That is the model being held up as an example.

To invoke their tactics as a blueprint for “a better world” is an insult to every value our academic institutions claim to hold dear.

Words Have Consequences

In today’s climate, calls for violent resistance are not abstract. The October 7 Hamas massacre, which saw the systematic murder, rape, and abduction of Israeli civilians, was openly celebrated by similar “student action” groups around the world. When these same slogans appear on New Zealand campuses, they are not disconnected from real-world violence—they are part of the same ecosystem of incitement.

The phrase “mourn for the dead, fight like hell for the living” may seem poetic to some. But when paired with a call to reignite an intifada, it becomes a chilling directive.

There is nothing noble about terrorism. There is nothing progressive about encouraging more of it.

Where Is the Accountability?

The University of Auckland must ask itself: does this rhetoric belong on campus? Are calls to emulate a violent uprising consistent with the university’s values of safety, inclusion, and intellectual integrity?

And the wider community must also ask: why is it that when Jewish lives are targeted, the slogans of those who glorify the violence are tolerated—if not applauded?

This is not just a campus issue. It is a societal one. When hate is normalised under the banner of activism, the consequences are felt far beyond the classroom.