In the aftermath of an ISIS-inspired attack in New York City, it wasn’t just CNN that became the target of widespread scorn. As CNN’s report of the would-be terrorist bombing focused on the weather and the alleged perpetrators, New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani was also lambasted for beginning his address by focusing on Islamophobia.
“On Saturday, a protest was held outside Gracie Mansion, where I live with my wife, Rama. Neither of us were home at the time. This was a vile protest rooted in white supremacy entitled, ‘Stop the Islamic takeover of New York City.’ I’m the first Muslim mayor of our city. Anti-Muslim bigotry is nothing new to me,” Mamdani began in a brief speech, with this particular part going viral as if Mamdani’s focus had been on Islamophobia.
Now, it’s true that whataboutism always emerges in the immediate aftermath of Islamic terrorism in a deliberate attempt to conflate antisemitism and anti-Muslim bigotry. But this wasn’t such an example. Following his viral comments, Mamdani continued:
“While I found this protest appalling, I will not waver in my belief that it should be allowed to happen. Ours is a free society where the right to peaceful protest is sacred. It does not belong only to those we agree with. It belongs to everyone. I will defend that right every day that I am mayor, even when those protesting say things that I abhor.”
This is the United States of America, and our First Amendment includes the freedoms of speech and assembly. Mamdani defended these freedoms while being well within his right to abhor the protest itself. In isolation, there was nothing wrong with what he said.
But there’s a deeper problem here that goes far beyond a scripted speech. A problem that relates to Dana Rubinstein’s argument for The New York Times is that Mamdani replicated the same strategy used when protesters chanted “death to the IDF,” “globalize the intifada,” or pro-Hamas bile outside New York synagogues.
When it comes to Islamophobia, Mamdani comes out guns blazing. When it comes to Islamic terrorism, however, his usual communications style is replaced with something reserved, edited, and controlled.
Why? Well, because Mamdani still wants to globalize the intifada, and his base — as shown by his administration appointments — demonstrates his continued embrace of radicals. Let alone his wife, whose social media activity contains a long list of pro-terrorism content, including liking a post that presented Hamas’s rape rampage of Oct. 7, 2023, as a New York Times hoax.
MAMDANI CELEBRATES RAMADAN WITH MAHMOUD KHALIL ONE YEAR AFTER HIS DETENTION
Even if you think Mamdani’s speech was sufficient as proof of his rejection of Islamic terrorism, only a fool would ignore what Mamdani has done and is still doing. For me, it’s going to take far more than one speech to convince me that Mamdani is not the same person he’s always been. After all, this is the same Mamdani who supposedly decried Islamic terrorism before immediately welcoming Mahmoud Khalil over for dinner. Mamdani was even “honored” to host Khalil, a Syrian-born activist and fomenter of Hamas propaganda on American college campuses who called the slaughter of Jews an unavoidable moment justified by Hamas’s “struggle.”
As long as Mamdani embraces the Mahmoud Khalils of the world behind closed doors, I’m not buying that Mamdani cares about the realities of Islamic terrorism.
Ian Haworth is a syndicated columnist. You can find his work on Substack.