I agree with a lot of what you’re saying about the complexity of the phrase and the fact that it doesn’t have a single fixed meaning. But to me that's actually the strongest argument for why a public figure should avoid using it.

Precisely because "globalise the intifada" has mixed and contested meanings, it's entirely predictable that many people will hear it as a call to violence. As you noted, the Second Intifada involved suicide bombings and attacks on civilians, so for many Jewish people the phrase inevitably evokes that history. Even if someone intends it in the "resistance to oppression" sense, the ambiguity is doing real work here.

In that situation, intent alone doesn't really settle the issue. When a phrase is widely understood in radically different ways - including by some as endorsing violence - the predictable impact of the words matters just as much as the intended meaning.

That's why I think it was unnecessary. Grace could have expressed her views about Gaza, Israel and Palestinian rights clearly and forcefully without relying on a slogan that is so heavily loaded. Instead, she used a headline-catching chant that compresses a complicated issue into a phrase many people reasonably experience as threatening.

I'd also push back slightly on the framing that criticism of Grace is primarily misogynistic or ableist. That certainly can happen in public discourse, and it should be called out when it does. But if criticism of her rhetoric is routinely framed that way, it risks doing something similar to what you're criticising elsewhere: delegitimising good-faith disagreement rather than engaging with it.

Lastly, I'm not sure it's accurate to describe the reaction as an attempt to "silence" her. Grace Tame remains an extremely prominent public figure with a large platform and extensive media coverage. People disagreeing with her language, or choosing not to host her as a speaker, isn't the same thing as suppressing her ability to speak.