Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
What is the groyper view of hamas?
Executive summary
Available reporting shows Groypers — followers of Nick Fuentes — reacted to Hamas’s October 7, 2023 attack and the subsequent Israel–Hamas war with a mixture of denial, conspiracy, pro-Palestinian signaling, and classic antisemitic tropes; Fuentes has publicly characterized the attack as “staged” and denied many reported atrocities [1] [2]. Analysts and monitoring groups document Groypers amplifying antisemitic imagery and narratives online around the conflict and note the movement’s broader white‑nationalist, nativist, and anti‑LGBTQ orientation [3] [4] [1].
1. Who are the Groypers and why their view on Hamas matters
Groypers are a loose movement centered on Nick Fuentes that critics describe as white nationalist, antisemitic, nativist, homophobic and an attempt to rebrand alt‑right tendencies; their social media reach and activist tactics have made their positions more visible during the Israel–Hamas war [4] [5]. Because they actively target conservative spaces and media, their statements about Hamas circulate beyond fringe forums into broader conservative debates, amplifying disinformation and conspiratorial framings [4] [6].
2. Denial and “staged” narratives promoted by Fuentes
Nick Fuentes has publicly denied many of the reported atrocities from October 7, 2023, calling elements of the attack “staged” and suggesting the event was used to justify wider military moves in the region; he reiterated such claims on anniversaries of the attack [1] [2]. ADL reporting cites livestreams and posts in which Fuentes disputed documented accounts — including sexual violence and murders — framing them as lies or propaganda [1].
3. Online activity: antisemitic tropes and visual propaganda
Monitoring groups and reporting document Groyper accounts posting antisemitic imagery tied to the Israel–Hamas fighting, including “blood libel” style memes and posts that mock Jewish suffering or deny the scale of atrocities; these posts frame Jews as dishonest or conspiratorial actors and explicitly reference Hamas‑related narratives [3]. Tech Transparency Project coverage highlights how specific Groyper accounts grew follower counts in October 2023 while pushing such imagery [3].
4. Political messaging: from skepticism of Israel to outright hostility
Fuentes and some Groypers have urged skepticism toward Israeli and pro‑Israel narratives, framing Israeli government actions as politically motivated and suggesting mainstream Jewish voices are exaggerating events; New Lines Magazine documents Fuentes urging followers to adopt hashtags like #GazaGenocide and to distrust Jewish accounts of October 7 [7]. This stance sits alongside the broader Groyper critique of mainstream conservatives they see as too accommodating to diverse or pro‑Israel positions [4] [6].
5. Broader ideological context within the movement
The Groypers’ positions on Hamas cannot be separated from their wider ideology: advocates emphasize “America First” ethno‑nationalist themes, oppose immigration and LGBTQ rights, and often traffic in racist and antisemitic rhetoric; ADL and other analysts frame their views on the Israel–Hamas war as consistent with those long‑standing biases [1] [4]. Reporting also notes that devotion to Fuentes personally can be as important as doctrinal coherence, making the movement variable but predictably hostile to Jewish and liberal voices [4].
6. Competing perspectives and limits of current reporting
Some commentary inside broader conservative circles expresses restraint or different tactical positions on Israel and Gaza; New Lines Magazine and other outlets show debate within the right over how to respond to the conflict, with Groypers occupying a distinctly conspiratorial and antagonistic corner [7]. Available sources do not mention systematic polling of Groyper rank‑and‑file views beyond monitoring of public posts, so assessing how representative the loudest online messages are of every self‑identified Groyper is not possible from the current reporting [4] [3].
7. Why this matters for discourse and policy
Because Groypers blend online agitation, conspiracy claims, and real‑world organizing, their narratives about Hamas can contribute to antisemitic incidents, polarize campus and political debates, and complicate coalition‑building among conservatives who support Israel; monitors warn their amplification of hateful imagery and denialist claims fuels broader antisemitism during the Israel–Hamas conflict [3] [8]. Policymakers and platforms face the twin challenges of countering disinformation while protecting legitimate debate — a balance made harder when a movement mixes ideological grievance with targeted harassment [8] [4].
If you’d like, I can pull specific Fuentes quotes and dated social‑media posts from the cited reports, or summarize how mainstream conservative organizations have publicly reacted to Groypers’ positions (not found in current reporting unless you want further extraction from the same sources).