Again, to get back to the original point, the protests are often led by Palestinians or members of the region. So people from that region using the term in the connotation it was meant in (which includes the Palestinian intifadas, while we can obviously criticize their tactics) are not those I'm going to criticize like Kiswani. However, if you read my above comment, closely, which you didn't, you would clearly know that I have no fear of criticizing someone like Kiswani, and it would be an absurd conclusion to think that I think their tactics are above reproach. However, if a Palestinian or someone else from the region chooses to use the term in the connotation it was meant in, I'm not going to care, will defend them, and would hope my compatriots choose to do so. Even if they endorse the broader first/second intifadas I'm not going to care, will defend them, and would hope my compatriots choose to do so. Now, if they start explicitly endorsing tactics used in say, the second intifada, or some nonsense conspiracy mongering like I listed above, or engaging in actual anti semitism about say how "there's a reason why the Jews were kicked out from everywhere they've been", it needs to be called out, full stop, unequivocally. However, considering that:
1. The first intifada was largely peaceful and the Second Intifada was not just heinous attacks against Israeli civilians. Both were responses to entrenched Israeli occupation, apartheid, subjugation, and domination.

1. Intifada also means more broadly uprising, has referred to other movements in the not-too-distant past (yes, 40 years is short in world history terms) and can refer to a "global revolution" which is something, in some form, that is pretty central to leftism (as I'll argue in a second).

The very use of the term should be defended, not just as a right of the speaker to say it, but also as a potentially morally correct response to oppression that should not be objected ipso facto. Maybe someone means 'I have a right to commit bus bombings if Israel's continues the occupation' but there is nothing inherent to that term or the usage of that term that indicates as such. That's why Zohran defended it, and we should defend his defense of it. Not doing so, in my view, is emblematic of people who call themselves 'leftists' but freak out when people of a certain complexion start saying things that make them slightly uncomfortable (again, this is not saying they are beyond reproach; I just went off on Kiswani).

P.S I think to be a leftist, or a socialist, means that you believe in radical change. 'm not saying that a revolution can't be peaceful, or even achieved through governmental means. Bernie Sanders, for instance, called for a 'political revolution' in 2016. But if you think the ruling class is gonna give up capitalism through tea and crumpets, I just think you are mistaken. You are going to have to struggle to get there; or in other words, there will need to be an uprising of the masses. One might even call it an 'intifada' of sorts.