Por Renan Filho · 2026-10-08**Lead**
Mahmood Mamdani, the prominent Ugandan-born academic and Columbia University professor, has refused to retract or soften his widely condemned characterization of Hamas’s October 7, 2023, attack on Israel, instead doubling down on his assertion that the assault was “a response to apartheid.” In a series of statements and interviews following a firestorm of criticism, Mamdani has insisted that his framing is historically and analytically sound, even as U.S. lawmakers, Jewish advocacy groups, and fellow academics have denounced his remarks as morally indefensible and factually misleading. The controversy has reignited debates over academic freedom, the boundaries of legitimate political speech, and the role of university faculty in discussing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
**Contexto**
Mamdani, a professor of anthropology and political science at Columbia University, first made the remarks during a public lecture at the University of Cape Town in late September 2026, where he argued that the October 7 attack—which killed approximately 1,200 Israelis and resulted in the abduction of over 200 hostages—could not be understood outside the context of what he termed “Israel’s apartheid regime.” The lecture, which was recorded and later circulated online, drew immediate backlash from pro-Israel groups, Holocaust remembrance organizations, and several U.S. politicians, who accused Mamdani of justifying terrorism and whitewashing Hamas’s actions.
In response to the outcry, Mamdani published an op-ed in a South African newspaper on October 5, 2026, in which he not only stood by his original statement but expanded on it, writing that “to call the October 7 attack a terrorist act without acknowledging the decades of dispossession, occupation, and systemic discrimination that preceded it is to engage in historical erasure.” He further argued that international law recognizes the right of peoples under occupation to resist, including through armed struggle, a position that critics say conflates legitimate resistance with the deliberate targeting of civilians.
Columbia University, which has been at the center of multiple controversies over campus speech related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict since October 2023, issued a carefully worded statement on October 6, 2026, reaffirming its commitment to academic freedom while noting that “the views expressed by Professor Mamdani are his own and do not represent the university.” The statement stopped short of condemning his remarks, drawing criticism from alumni and donors who have urged the university to take a stronger stance against what they describe as antisemitic rhetoric.
**Analise**
Mamdani’s refusal to back down is significant not only because of his stature as a globally recognized scholar—he is the author of several influential books, including “Good Muslim, Bad Muslim” and “Saviors and Survivors”—but because it highlights a deepening fault line in American and global discourse about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. For many of his supporters, Mamdani’s position represents a necessary corrective to what they see as Western media and political establishments’ reflexive condemnation of Palestinian resistance while ignoring Israeli state violence. For his detractors, his framing is a dangerous apologia for terrorism that undermines efforts to combat antisemitism and delegitimizes Israel’s right to self-defense.
The controversy also has direct implications for campus security and the broader climate of safety for Jewish students in the United States. Since October 2023, the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights has opened multiple investigations into universities, including Columbia, over allegations of antisemitic harassment. Mamdani’s remarks, and the university’s tepid response, are likely to intensify scrutiny from both federal regulators and Congress. Several Republican lawmakers have already called on Columbia to terminate Mamdani’s employment, while some Democratic members have urged the university to issue a clearer condemnation without infringing on academic freedom.
From a security perspective, the normalization of rhetoric that frames the October 7 attack as a legitimate act of resistance poses a challenge for law enforcement and intelligence agencies monitoring domestic extremism. The FBI has reported a sharp increase in threats against Jewish institutions since the attack, and analysts have noted that academic justifications for violence can serve as ideological fuel for lone actors. While Mamdani himself has not called for violence, his framing provides intellectual cover for those who might seek to emulate the attack, according to counterterrorism experts.
**Fontes**
- Columbia University official statement on Professor Mamdani’s remarks, October 6, 2026. - Op-ed by Mahmood Mamdani published in the Mail & Guardian (South Africa), October 5, 2026. - U.S. Department of Education Office for Civil Rights, list of pending investigations into antisemitic incidents on college campuses, updated October 2026. - FBI annual report on hate crimes and domestic terrorism threats, 2025 edition (most recent available). - Statements from the Anti-Defamation League and the American Jewish Committee regarding Mamdani’s remarks, October 2026.