Brace yourself for a story that cuts through the noise of campus politics and progressive rhetoric with a sharp edge of controversy. A Columbia University professor, Mahmood Mamdani, has come under fire for social media posts that showcase a deeply critical view of Israel, sparking debates about free speech, antisemitism, and the influence of radical ideologies in academia and beyond. This isn’t just about one man’s opinions—it’s about the ripple effects on a major political campaign.
According to Fox News, at the heart of this issue is Mahmood Mamdani, a 79-year-old anthropology professor at Columbia, whose online presence and affiliations have drawn scrutiny, especially as his son, Zohran Mamdani, runs as a socialist candidate for New York City mayor.
Back in May 2021, during a violent clash between Israel and Hamas, Mamdani took to X with pointed commentary on the conflict. He framed the situation as a “colonial occupation,” not a mere dispute, and championed what he saw as a justified resistance. His words weren’t just academic musings—they carried the weight of activism.
“The resistance this time began in Jerusalem and spread to Gaza, now the West Bank and Palestinian communities beyond,” Mamdani wrote on X in early May 2021. While he hailed this as the “birth of the Third Intifadah against settler colonialism,” many see such language as a dangerous call to arms, especially given the historical violence tied to past intifadas. It’s a framing that sidesteps the complexity of the region for a one-sided narrative.
Just weeks later, on May 21, 2021, Mamdani doubled down and posted, “When all ranks of the Occupation… claim 'the right of self-defense', what language is left… but the right to resist?” His passionate rhetoric outright dismisses Israel’s security concerns and paints a picture of oppression without acknowledging the other side of the conflict. This kind of selective storytelling fuels division rather than dialogue.
Mamdani hasn’t limited his controversial remarks to a single instance on X; he has repeatedly described Israel’s policies using terms like “settlers” and “colonialism.” Fox News Digital also reported that he belongs to an anti-Israel group advocating boycotts and sanctions. These affiliations raise eyebrows about the extent of his ideological commitments.
In the aftermath of the tragic October 7 Hamas attack, Mamdani actively participated in campus tensions at Columbia, a hotbed of pro-Palestine protests. He joined other faculty members who wore orange vests and linked arms to block a Jewish student, Avi Weinberg, and others from entering a pro-Palestine encampment. This act didn’t just make a statement—it excluded others in a way that many found troubling.
Critics, including Canary Mission, have labeled Mamdani a “Marxist” academic with an intense focus on colonialism and anti-Israel views. While labels can oversimplify, his actions and words do align with a worldview that challenges traditional American values of balance and fair debate. It’s a reminder of how campuses can become echo chambers for radical thought.
Then there’s his past social media tribute in October 2014 to Ali Mazrui, an African political activist with a record of inflammatory remarks about Jewish people. Mazrui’s comparisons of Jews to “Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde” with an “evil identity” are the kind of rhetoric that crosses into dangerous territory. Mamdani’s admiration for such a figure only deepens the unease about his perspectives.
The controversy doesn’t stop with Mamdani himself—his son Zohran, the mayoral hopeful, has faced similar criticism from Jewish groups for not denouncing calls for a “global intifada.” Such calls are often interpreted as endorsing violence against Israel, a charge both father and son reject. Yet, their shared stances keep the issue front and center in the political race.
Human rights attorney Brooke Goldstein didn’t mince words, telling Fox News Digital, “Zohran Mamdani has built his political brand on the same radical… ideology his father… has spent decades promoting.” She argues this mindset “demonizes Jewish people” and undermines democratic values. While her critique is sharp, it echoes a broader concern about whether such views belong in public office.
Goldstein further warned, “The Jew-hatred the Mamdani family peddles is fundamentally anti-American.” Her point is that America’s strength lies in tolerance and protecting minority rights, not in ideologies that divide. It’s a call for unity that feels urgent in today’s polarized climate.
Still, there’s a flip side worth considering: Mamdani’s right to express his views, however contentious, is part of the academic freedom that defines institutions like Columbia. The challenge lies in where critique of policy ends and perceived hostility begins—a line that’s blurry at best. This debate isn’t just about one professor; it’s about how far dissent should go before it’s seen as destructive.
As Zohran Mamdani campaigns, recently photographed at events in Harlem and celebrating with family including his father, the shadow of these controversies looms large. Jewish groups continue to voice alarm over both men’s statements, seeing them as potential antisemitism, though the Mamdani family pushes back against such claims. The question remains: can a candidate distance himself from familial views, or do they inevitably shape voter perceptions?
