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 statements has Zohran Mamdani made about Palestinian groups or Hamas?
Executive Summary
Zohran Mamdani has made a series of public statements and past creative expressions that align him with pro-Palestinian activism while also rejecting or criticizing specific violent acts; his remarks have been variously framed as support for Palestinian rights, ambiguity toward slogans associated with violence, and explicit condemnation of Hamas’s October 7 attacks. Reporting shows a mix of past lyrics, endorsements of nonviolent tactics like BDS, descriptions of Israeli actions as “genocide,” and selective refusals to disavow certain slogans or figures — all of which have produced sharp partisan responses and sustained scrutiny [1] [2] [3] [4].
1. What critics seized on: a resurfaced rap and alleged praise of convicted activists that inflamed headlines
A 2017 rap track titled “Salaam” by Mamdani resurfaced in 2025 and is cited as containing lyrics that praise the Holy Land Five, a group later convicted in U.S. courts for funneling money to Hamas, a U.S.-designated terrorist organization; critics argue the song glorifies those convictions and raises questions about his judgment and affiliations [1]. Coverage emphasizes that the Holy Land Five were convicted for sending millions to Hamas during the Second Intifada and that critics link those historical facts to concerns about Mamdani’s suitability for mayoral office. The reporting also notes that Mamdani’s initial reluctance to explicitly repudiate the song’s lines has been seized upon by opponents as evidence of sympathy with people convicted of materially supporting Hamas, even as other accounts emphasize subsequent condemnations of violence [1] [5].
2. Public stance: condemnations of violence mixed with structural critiques of Israel
Multiple reports record Mamdani explicitly condemning Hamas’s October 7 attacks as “horrific war crimes” while simultaneously calling Israeli conduct in Gaza a “genocide” and advocating for Palestinian rights, including support for Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) and equal rights frameworks rather than recognition of Israel as a Jewish state [4] [3] [2]. He frames his position as opposing structures of inequity and occupation and insists on humanitarian access and accountability, which he places alongside a stated goal of combating antisemitism in New York. These elements create a public posture that is both critical of armed Palestinian groups’ tactics and concentrated on systemic outcomes and human-rights language concerning Israel’s policies [3] [2].
3. Ambiguity on slogans and refusal to embrace certain condemnations that fueled controversy
Reporting documents Mamdani’s refusal at times to condemn the phrase “Globalize the intifada,” later saying he would discourage the phrase because of its potential violent interpretations; opponents portray that initial reluctance as tacit approval of violent uprising, while supporters say his comments attempted to capture solidarity language without endorsing violence [6] [7]. He has also declined, according to some accounts, to definitively answer whether Hamas should lay down arms in certain interviews, prompting criticism from political rivals who argue that equivocation on disarmament is disqualifying for executive leadership. Those moments of ambiguity have become focal points for media and political attacks, even as other appearances record explicit condemnations of Hamas’s violence [5] [8].
4. Allies and critics: partisan lines and organizational endorsements shape interpretation
Supporters point to Mamdani’s long record of pro-Palestinian advocacy — founding a Students for Justice in Palestine chapter and endorsements from groups like Jewish Voice for Peace — as evidence of principled human-rights activism rather than militancy; critics counter that his associations and rhetorical choices evidence poor judgment or worse [7] [3]. Politicians such as Rep. Mike Lawler and others have issued sharply worded rebukes focused on specific interview answers and fundraising links to organizations criticized over ties to militant actors, while Jewish organizations and some elected officials stress concern over language perceived as minimizing violence against Israelis or failing to sufficiently distance from antisemitic rhetoric [5] [2]. The media framing thus often reflects partisan agendas on both sides.
5. What the coverage omits and what still matters for public evaluation
Coverage aggregates his positions but leaves gaps: there is less documentation of sustained, detailed policy proposals linking his mayoral duties to these foreign-policy positions, and limited public record of a comprehensive, unequivocal condemnation of all armed Palestinian factions paired with a detailed security plan for Jewish and Arab New Yorkers. Reports note his condemnations of civilian killings and stated intention to combat hate crimes, yet critics emphasize past ambiguous language and creative works that predate his political campaigns as evidence of enduring sympathies; supporters point to later clarifications and condemnations as contextual rebuttals [2]. Voters evaluating Mamdani must weigh past rhetoric, artistic outputs, consistent policy stances, and clarifying statements when determining how these positions would translate into municipal governance [3] [4].