On Tuesday, CNN’s The Situation Room had on Mahmoud Khalil, a green card holder and former Columbia University student, as he attempted to downplay claims from the Department of Homeland Security that he was a terrorist sympathizer. Co-host Pamela Brown seemed to give him a layup by asking him if he condemns the terrorist group Hamas, but he just couldn’t say the words.
Instead of taking the chance to clear his name by condemning a literal terrorist group, Khalil skirted around the question so hard, CNN had to press further:
BROWN: Just to be clear here though, do you specifically condemn Hamas, a designated terrorist organization in the United States, not just for their actions on October 7th?
KHALIL: I condemn the killing of all Pales– of all civilians, full stop, but what I don’t want to get into—-
BROWN: But do you condemn Hamas specifically?
KHALIL: No— I — I am very clear with condemning all civilians, I’m very straight in my position in that part. But it’s disingenuous to ask about condemning Hamas while Palestinians are the ones being starved now by Israel. It’s not condemning October 6th, where 260 Palestinians were killed by Israel on October — before October 7th.
So, I hate this selective outrage of condemnation, because this is not — this wouldn’t lead to a constructive conversation and this is also like what we want to deal with is the root causes of why that happened and it’s in no way anyone can justify the killing of civilians—-
Instead of flat out saying ‘no,’ Khalil left the door of sympathy wide open when he said he condemned the killing of all civilians, but that it’s disingenuous to condemn Hamas when Palestinians were the ones dying.
He called Brown’s simple question a “selective outrage of condemnation,” and essentially called the October 7th attacks a result of October 6th, where “260 Palestinians were killed by Israel.”
He cited a claim that 260 Palestinians were killed on October 6th, a completely fabricated story that can’t be fact checked to anything. He tried to use that as justification for Hamas and their terrorist attacks on October 7th by calling Brown's question ineffective in dealing with "the root causes of why that happened.”
Brown looked stunned as she pressed the question for a third time, citing that the topic was what the Trump administration was going after him for:
BROWN: Just to be clear, Mahmoud, we did ask about — you know we talked at length about your views, of course, on the Palestinians, but it is fair to ask you about whether you condemn Hamas because the Trump administration has claimed that you are a Hamas sympathizer. So, it’s very important to actually ask that question in this broad conversation.
KHALIL: Yeah. I simply asked and protested the war in Palestine, that’s what I did. That’s my duty as a Palestinian, as a human being right now, is to ask for the stop of the killing in my home country, and that's consistent with who I am. I’m a firm believer in international law and human rights and all my values come from that point.
It’s just like to me, it’s always, as I said, disingenuous and absurd to ask such questions when literally 62,000 Palestinians have been killed by Israel, and that’s why I wouldn’t really engage in much into such questions on condemnation or not. Because selective condemnation is not — wouldn’t get us anywhere, it’s just like hypocrite, to be honest.
Khalil said the question was disingenuous and absurd, and that was why he wouldn’t “engage in much into such questions on condemnation or not.”
It’s important to note that Mahmoud Khalil was a spokesperson and negotiator for the Columbia University Apartheid Divest. The group's official Substack showcased what can only be described as a manifesto of Jewish hate and a reverence of terrorism.
Some views included calling the October 7th attack on Israel “heroic” while praising the “heroic resistance fighters of Palestine, Lebanon, and Yemen.” It then delved into a multi-paragraph tribute to the killed Hamas leader and mastermind of the October 7th attacks, Yahya Sinwar.
The full transcript is below. Click "expand" to view:
CNN’s The Situation Room
11:15:10 AM ET
July 22nd, 2025(…)
PAMELA BROWN: Just to be clear here though, do you specifically condemn Hamas, a designated terrorist organization in the United States, not just for their actions on October 7th?
MAHMOUD KHALIL: I condemn the killing of all Pales– of all civilians, full stop, but what I don’t want to get into—-
BROWN: But do you condemn Hamas specifically?
KHALIL: No— I — I am very clear with condemning all civilians, I’m very straight in my position in that part. But it’s disingenuous to ask about condemning Hamas while Palestinians are the ones being starved now by Israel. It’s not condemning October 6th, where 260 Palestinians were killed by Israel on October — before October 7th.
So, I hate this selective outrage of condemnation, because this is not — this wouldn’t lead to a constructive conversation and this is also like what we want to deal with is the root causes of why that happened and it’s in no way anyone can justify the killing of civilians—-
BROWN: Just to be clear, Mahmoud, we did ask about — you know we talked at length about your views, of course, on the Palestinians, but it is fair to ask you about whether you condemn Hamas because the Trump administration has claimed that you are a Hamas sympathizer. So, it’s very important to actually ask that question in this broad conversation.
KHALIL: Yeah. I simply asked and protested the war in Palestine, that’s what I did. That’s my duty as a Palestinian, as a human being right now, is to ask for the stop of the killing in my home country, and that's consistent with who I am. I’m a firm believer in international law and human rights and all my values come from that point.
It’s just like to me, it’s always, as I said, disingenuous and absurd to ask such questions when literally 62,000 Palestinians have been killed by Israel, and that’s why I wouldn’t really engage in much into such questions on condensation or not. Because selective condemnation is not — wouldn’t get us anywhere, it’s just like hypocrite, to be honest.
(…)
