What is the background and historical context behind people calling zohran mamdani an antisemite, supporter of Hamas and hater of israel
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
A string of public statements, past artistic work, and campaign-era responses to the Israel–Gaza war coalesced into repeated accusations that Zohran Mamdani is antisemitic, a supporter of Hamas, and a hater of Israel; critics point to his language about “genocide,” his reluctance at times to explicitly condemn Hamas or certain slogans, and a decade-old rap lyric praising figures later convicted of aiding Hamas [1] [2] [3]. Supporters and some commentators say those claims are exaggerated or weaponized, arguing Mamdani’s record is mainly anti-occupation and pro-Palestinian rights rather than antisemitic, and that attacks have followed a clear playbook by political opponents and pro-Israel groups [4] [5] [6].
1. How specific words became artillery: “genocide,” “globalize the intifada,” and silence
Critics seized on Mamdani’s use of incendiary language—he has described Israeli actions in Gaza as “genocide” in public remarks, and on multiple occasions declined to fully embrace or repeatedly disavow the slogan “globalize the intifada,” a phrase many Jews and Jewish organizations view as a call to violent uprising—creating an impression that he is unwilling to reject rhetoric that can be antisemitic or violent [1] [2] [7]. Journalists and advocacy groups flagged those remarks as central evidence, and when Mamdani at times did not immediately or fully condemn Hamas or say it should disarm, opponents used that hesitancy to argue he is soft on a terrorist organization that carried out October 7, 2023’s deadly attacks [1] [7].
2. Old songs and new politics: the “Holy Land Five” lyric and what it means
Reporting showed that Mamdani, who formerly recorded as a rapper, included a shout-out in a 2017 song to the “Holy Land Five,” leaders of a U.S. charity later convicted of providing material support to Hamas; critics pointed to that lyric as evidence of sympathy for groups tied to Hamas, while defenders note it was artistic work from years before his political rise and argue musical lines aren’t proof of policy endorsement [3] [8]. The lyric has been repeatedly cited by mainstream outlets and opponents to tie Mamdani to problematic actors, even as other outlets place the line in broader context of his subsequent public record [3] [4].
3. Institutional alarms: ADL, AJC, congressional criticism and monitoring
Major Jewish organizations publicly expressed alarm: the American Jewish Committee and AJC New York issued warnings over his rhetoric and urged course changes, and the Anti‑Defamation League announced a “Mamdani Monitor” to track policies and incidents after asserting his views could create a “permission structure” for antisemitic acts [1] [9] [10]. Bipartisan members of Congress and local Jewish leaders also criticized his stances, including his opposition to certain definitions of antisemitism and perceived equivocations, which fed media narratives that he posed a risk to Jewish New Yorkers [11] [9].
4. Defense, context and counterarguments: weaponization and misreading
Allies and several commentators argue the allegations are amplified or fact‑free: progressive outlets and columnists contend Mamdani’s record is a critique of Israeli policy and occupation rather than hostility to Jews, and say pro-Israel actors have followed a playbook to conflate anti‑Zionism with antisemitism to discredit him [4] [5] [6]. Reporting also documents that Mamdani has at times condemned antisemitic attacks and expressed concern for Jewish safety, underscoring disputes over whether criticism of Israel crosses into antisemitism or remains legitimate political dissent [12] [2].
5. The political calculus: why the allegations stuck and who benefits
The charges gained traction because they tapped into real communal fears after October 7, 2023 and because Jewish organizations and political rivals had incentives to raise security alarms in a city with a large Jewish population; opponents could leverage any ambiguity to sway undecided voters and national groups could amplify local disputes for influence [9] [5]. Conversely, Mamdani’s base frames the uproar as an attempt by establishment forces to sideline a critic of Israeli policy and of powerful political actors who prefer the status quo [4] [5].
6. What reporting does and does not prove
Available reporting establishes that Mamdani used contentious language about Israel, hesitated on certain condemnations, recorded a rap lyric referencing people later convicted in a Hamas‑related case, and faced formal rebukes and monitoring from Jewish organizations and lawmakers; it also records forceful defenses that those facts do not equate to proven antisemitism or support for terrorism [1] [3] [10] [4] [5]. Sources diverge sharply on interpretation: where some see a pattern of dangerous equivocation, others see political targeting and mischaracterization, and reporting does not yield a single incontrovertible verdict but a contested political and moral landscape [4] [6] [5].