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 did Zohran Mamdani say about Hamas support or condemnation in 2023?
Executive Summary
Zohran Mamdani publicly mourned civilian deaths from the October 7, 2023 Hamas-led attacks and repeatedly condemned the killing of civilians as a "horrific war crime," while also criticizing Israel’s subsequent military campaign and U.S. support for it; at the same time he has sometimes declined to issue blanket statements about Hamas’s political future or endorse one-line condemnations of the movement, producing divergent readings of his stance [1] [2] [3]. Competing accounts and political opponents emphasize his past reluctance to explicitly denounce slogans like “Globalize the intifada” or definitively call for Hamas to disarm, creating controversy and a range of interpretations of his 2023 remarks [4] [5] [6].
1. How Mamdani framed the October 7 attacks — moral clarity and legal language that condemned civilian killing
In multiple contemporaneous and later recountings, Mamdani described the October 7, 2023 Hamas-led attack as a “horrific war crime” and expressed mourning for the civilians killed on both sides, signaling moral condemnation of violence against noncombatants while situating his critique in international-legal terms [1] [2]. His statements repeatedly distinguished sorrow for loss of life from political positions: he emphasized that support for Palestinian liberation should not be conflated with celebrating civilian deaths and publicly condemned events or rhetoric that appeared to glorify the October 7 violence, including demonstrations that celebrated the attack [3]. This strand of his record shows explicit rejection of celebrating civilian massacres even while maintaining a broader critique of occupation and Israeli policy.
2. Where Mamdani stopped short — reluctance to pronounce on Hamas’s future or endorse simplistic condemnations
At times Mamdani declined to offer a definitive view on whether Hamas should lay down arms or relinquish leadership, saying he “doesn’t really have opinions” on Hamas’s future beyond insisting actions adhere to international law and that parties abide by legal standards; he did, however, call for the return of hostages’ bodies [4]. That posture—insisting that his critiques apply equally to armed actors and state militaries and prioritizing legal frameworks over declarative political judgments—left space for opponents to argue he was evading a direct denunciation of Hamas as an organization [4] [7]. The result is a record that mixes explicit condemnations of civilian killing with procedural and legalist hedges about the organizational fate of Hamas.
3. Accusations and political context — claims he failed to condemn calls for violence and flirted with controversial slogans
Conservative and some centrist critics, including think tanks and political opponents, have seized on episodes in which Mamdani did not explicitly denounce slogans such as “Globalize the Intifada,” arguing this amounted to tacit tolerance of rhetoric widely perceived as a call to violence against Jews; some reports cite social media posts and on-stage confrontations that critics interpret as evidence he refused to disavow violent slogans [5] [6]. These critiques frame his legalistic posture as insufficient moral clarity amid communal concerns and have been used to question his trustworthiness with Jewish voters; those critiques rely on selective readings of his statements and particular events while downplaying his explicit condemnations of civilian killings [5] [8].
4. Mamdani’s broader critique — tying condemnation of violence to opposition to occupation and U.S. policy
Across accounts, Mamdani has consistently tied his condemnations of civilian killing to broader political claims about the occupation, apartheid, and the need for diplomatic solutions rather than further escalatory warfare; he has accused Israeli actions in Gaza of amounting to or risking “genocide” and has criticized U.S. financial and military support as enabling that campaign [1] [7]. That framing reframes his statements about Oct. 7 and subsequent conduct not as exculpatory of militant violence but as part of a dual critique—rejecting terror against civilians while demanding accountability for state conduct that produces mass civilian suffering, a stance that satisfies some constituencies and alarms others [2] [3].
5. What the different portrayals mean — contested record shaped by context, wording, and political stakes
The factual record shows Mamdani condemned civilian killings and publicly mourned victims of Oct. 7 while simultaneously avoiding categorical pronouncements about Hamas’s organizational legitimacy or explicit, shorthand denunciations of every slogan associated with Palestinian resistance; critics treat that reluctance as evidence of tolerance for violent rhetoric, while defenders point to his explicit condemnations and focus on international law [1] [4] [8]. The divergence in portrayals stems from which statements are highlighted—moral condemnations of civilian slaughter or legalistic hedges about disarmament—and from the intense political environment in which these utterances were made, producing competing narratives that remain active in evaluating Mamdani’s 2023 record [5] [3].