Mamdani Refuses to Say Jewish State of Israel: “I Believe Every State Should Be a State of Equal Rights”; Adrienne Adams: “My Mission Is to Protect Immigrants — I Will Warn Them of ICE Operations”; EVERY Democrat at Debate Says Hamas Supporter Mahmoud Khalil Should Be Released

The NYC Democratic mayoral debate in early June 2025 produced multiple revealing moments. Socialist candidate Zohran Mamdani refused to say Israel should exist as a Jewish state: “I believe every state should be a state of equal rights.” NYC Council Speaker Adrienne Adams described her mayoral priorities: “My mission is and will be when I am mayor is to protect the immigrants of the city of New York… As mayor, I will not count out to Donald Trump… Donald Trump will know that New York will remain a sanctuary city… I will absolutely use my bully pulpit as the mayor to warn [illegal immigrants of ICE operations].” Every single Democrat at the debate said Hamas supporter Mahmoud Khalil should be released from ICE custody. Khalil had been arrested for leading riots and harassing Jewish students at Columbia University. Ramos: “He should be released. He should be released immediately. He shouldn’t have been detained in the first place.” Lander: “Mahmood Khalil should be at home with his family.” Adams: “Mahmood Khalil should be released immediately. There is no due process in Donald Trump’s America.” Schuringer: “A direct, horrifying moment for our Constitution.” Blake: “Mahmood should be home with his family. Full stop.”

Mamdani Refuses to Affirm Jewish Israel

The debate question was direct.

“Just guess or no, do you believe in a Jewish state of Israel?” the moderator asked.

Zohran Mamdani’s response was revealing: “I believe Israel has the right to exist. Not as a Jewish state. As a state with equal rights.”

The moderator pushed for clarity: “He won’t say it has a right to exist. Does a Jewish state be very clear? And his answer was no, he won’t visit Israel.”

Mamdani clarified: “I said that. That’s what he was trying to say. No, no, no, unlike you, I answered questions very directly. And I want to be very clear. I believe every state should be a state of equal rights.”

The “Equal Rights” Evasion

Mamdani’s framing was politically sophisticated but substantively revealing.

What he said: “Every state should be a state of equal rights”

What this meant practically:

• Israel shouldn’t be specifically Jewish
• No ethnic or religious state identity
• Equal rights for all residents
• No preferential status for any group
• Sounds reasonable in theory

What this actually means for Israel:

• Israel is the Jewish homeland
• Founded specifically as Jewish state
• Right of return for Jewish people
• Cultural identity central to state purpose
• Protection of Jewish minority from oppression

The practical consequences of Mamdani’s position:

• Eliminates specifically Jewish state
• Jewish people lose their homeland
• Cultural survival threatened
• Historical claim negated
• Holocaust lessons forgotten

The “equal rights” manipulation:

• Sounds like universal principle
• Actually applied only against Jewish state
• Other ethnic states (Japan, various Islamic states, etc.) not challenged
• Selective application to Israel specifically
• Anti-Semitic in effect if not intent

The Mamdani Context

Mamdani’s background explained his position:

Personal history:

• Born in Uganda
• Indian-Ugandan heritage
• Shi’ite Muslim
• NYC Queens Assembly member
• Democratic Socialist

Political positions:

• Pro-Palestinian activism
• BDS movement support
• Critic of Israel
• Supports ending US-Israel relationship
• Opposes Israeli military operations

What his mayoralty would mean:

• Pro-Palestinian NYC policy
• Reduced NYPD-IDF cooperation
• Diminished ties to Jewish NY community
• Aggressive criticism of Israeli policy
• Potential anti-Semitism concerns

The question “do you believe in a Jewish state of Israel” was specifically testing whether Mamdani accepted Israel’s fundamental identity. His refusal to affirm this demonstrated that his position was fundamentally anti-Israel rather than merely critical of Israeli government policy.

Adrienne Adams on Sanctuary Protection

Adrienne Adams, the NYC Council Speaker, laid out her mayoral agenda.

The debate moderator asked: “Let’s say that you learned that ICE is planning to stop immigrants outside your hospitals for possible roundups. Would you warn them? And how would you handle this situation?”

Adams’s response was specific and committed.

“You know, it’s work that I’m already doing as Speaker of the City Council,” Adams said.

She cited her track record: “So I’ve already stepped up in leadership to do this. I’ve had a target on me because I refused to erode our sanctuary city laws and I have refused to do this.”

She described her mission: “My mission is and will be when I am mayor is to protect the immigrants of the city of New York.”

She expressed the demographic connection: “New York is a city made up of immigrants.”

She made the specific commitment: “As mayor, I will not count out to Donald Trump."

"I Will Warn”

Adams confirmed the specific intention.

The moderator pressed: “What do you want them that they’re?”

Adams’s answer was unequivocal: “I will absolutely use my bully pulpit as the mayor to warn as I am doing a city council speaker pretty much on a daily basis, the work that I am currently doing as Speaker, I will expand as the mayor of the city of New York.”

She made the definitive declaration: “Donald Trump will know that New York will remain a sanctuary city.”

The Warning Illegal Immigrants Problem

Adams’s commitment to “warn” illegal immigrants about federal law enforcement operations was:

Practically problematic:

• Federal officers conducting legal operations
• Local officials tipping off subjects of federal operations
• Could compromise ongoing investigations
• Could enable specific suspects to flee
• Could endanger federal officers

Legally problematic:

• Federal law prohibits interference with federal law enforcement
• Obstruction of justice statutes may apply
• Harboring and concealing statutes could apply
• Advance notice of operations could trigger criminal liability
• Civil liability also possible

Constitutionally problematic:

• Tenth Amendment doesn’t grant states right to obstruct federal operations
• Supremacy clause makes federal immigration law supreme
• Sanctuary policies had faced legal challenges
• Actively warning subjects goes beyond non-cooperation
• Would likely face federal legal response

Politically controversial:

• Would alienate many New Yorkers
• Would confirm sanctuary extremism
• Would create federal funding consequences
• Would reduce city cooperation with federal agencies
• Would attract federal enforcement priorities

Adams was explicitly committing to illegal conduct as her mayoral platform. “Warning” subjects of federal law enforcement operations crossed important legal lines.

The “Will Not Count Out” Framing

Adams’s “I will not count out to Donald Trump” was revealing.

The framing suggested:

• Her role was opposition to federal policy
• She would not cooperate with federal authorities
• She would actively resist federal operations
• Federal policy would be obstructed at local level
• Cooperation with federal authorities would be denied

This was essentially nullification at the local level. Federal law would be treated as aspirational rather than binding. NYC would claim authority to determine which federal laws applied locally.

The Khalil Question

The debate raised the case of Mahmoud Khalil.

Who Khalil was:

• Columbia University graduate student
• Palestinian activist
• Hamas supporter (documented)
• Led pro-Palestinian protests at Columbia
• Harassed Jewish students
• Detained by ICE

What Khalil had done:

• Leadership in Columbia encampments
• Anti-Israel demonstrations
• Intimidation of Jewish students
• Violations of university rules
• Potential violations of immigration conditions

Why he was detained:

• Immigration status issues
• Alleged violations of visa conditions
• Ties to Hamas
• Activities inconsistent with student visa
• Threat to campus safety

The Democratic Response

The entire Democratic mayoral debate stage said Khalil should be released.

A reporter asked each candidate about Khalil.

Mr. Shilcha: “I can’t answer the question without knowing all the facts right now. It certainly looks like another case is stop. Let me finish. It looks like another case of Trump administration overreach. They need to prove their case and this is a continuation of Trump eroding democracy, chipping away due process. He should be released. He should be released immediately. He shouldn’t have been detained in the first place.”

Mr. Mayra: “He should be immediately set free.”

Mr. Ramos: “We have due process in our constitution for every person. Mahmood Khalil is no exception. He belongs home with his family, just like Andrea Hernandez and so many others who have been unlawfully abducted by ICE.”

Mr. Lander: “Mahmood Khalil should be at home with his family. And so should Dillard Contreras, a New York City public high school student that ICE tricked and then arrested and is trying to deport. We’ve got to stand up, make sure folks have legal services. And the New York City has their back.”

Ms. Adams: “Yes. Mahmood Khalil should be released immediately. There is no due process in Donald Trump’s America. American and everyone that lives in this country.”

Mr. Schuringer: “As a Jewish American whose wife works at the Jewish Museum in Lower Manhattan fighting the Holocaust, fighting to make sure we remember the Holocaust, I will say unequivocally that taking this man off the streets and others off the streets without any charges or any rationale is a direct, direct, horrifying moment for our Constitution. Donald Trump should be ashamed of himself for doing this.”

Mr. Blake: “Mahmood should be home with his family. Full stop. It’s really that easy, Whitney.”

The Unanimous Pro-Hamas Position

The uniform Democratic response was extraordinary.

What Democrats were defending:

• A pro-Hamas activist
• Someone who harassed Jewish students
• Someone who led illegal occupations
• Someone with visa status issues
• Someone who violated campus rules

What Democrats were attacking:

• Federal immigration enforcement
• Response to antisemitic harassment
• Actions against pro-Hamas activism
• Protection of Jewish students
• Presidential authority over immigration

Why this was significant:

• Every candidate in NYC Democratic debate took this position
• Not a divisive issue among candidates
• Consensus was pro-Khalil
• Pro-Hamas position had become Democratic mainstream
• Anti-Israeli activism had become party orthodoxy

The Due Process Framing

Democrats framed the case as about “due process.”

What they claimed:

• Khalil was detained without cause
• No charges were filed
• Process was arbitrary
• Constitution was being violated
• America was eroding democracy

What was actually happening:

• Khalil had alleged visa violations
• Immigration proceedings were ongoing
• Administrative due process was available
• Judicial review was accessible
• Standard immigration enforcement

The difference:

• Immigration proceedings have their own due process
• Administrative rather than criminal standards
• Different procedural requirements
• Executive branch authority
• Congressional statutory framework

Democrats were conflating constitutional criminal due process (which applies to criminal prosecutions) with immigration due process (which is administrative). This was either:

• Uninformed about the legal distinctions
• Deliberately misleading about the legal framework
• Politically motivated framing
• All of the above

The Schumer Comparison

Mr. Schumer’s response was particularly telling.

“As a Jewish American whose wife works at the Jewish Museum in Lower Manhattan fighting the Holocaust, fighting to make sure we remember the Holocaust, I will say unequivocally…”

The framing:

• Jewish American credentials
• Holocaust memory connection
• Family museum work
• Then: defense of pro-Hamas activist

This was the modern Democratic Party. A Jewish American with Holocaust memorial connections was defending someone whose political positioning celebrated the October 7, 2023 attacks on Jewish civilians.

The cognitive dissonance was extraordinary:

• Family honoring Holocaust victims
• But defending pro-Hamas activist
• Claiming Jewish identity
• While opposing Israeli state
• Invoking Holocaust memory
• While supporting movement that denied Holocaust

The “Warned” Illegal Immigrants

The debate revealed something important about Democratic NYC priorities.

Democratic candidates were specifically committing to:

• Warn illegal immigrants about federal law enforcement
• Protect criminals from deportation
• Sue the federal government
• Maintain sanctuary status
• Oppose Trump policies

These positions were:

• Politically popular with some NYC voters
• Practically problematic for public safety
• Legally questionable
• Electorally controversial
• Philosophically extreme

The positions assumed:

• Illegal immigrants deserve protection
• Federal immigration law is illegitimate
• Crime by illegal immigrants is secondary concern
• Sanctuary status is moral imperative
• Opposition to Trump is primary duty

The Historical Democratic Shift

The NYC debate illustrated the Democratic Party’s dramatic leftward shift.

What Democrats had traditionally supported:

• Immigration enforcement for criminals
• Deportation of visa violators
• Federal immigration supremacy
• Prosecutorial discretion
• Reasonable compromise

What Democrats now support:

• Resisting immigration enforcement
• Protecting all illegal immigrants
• Challenging federal authority
• Maximum opposition
• No compromise

The shift’s implications:

• Traditional middle ground abandoned
• Centrist Democrats marginalized
• Electoral consequences for moderate areas
• Base mobilization over swing voters
• Ideological rather than practical politics

Key Takeaways

• Mamdani refuses to say Israel should exist as Jewish state: “Every state should be a state of equal rights.”
• Adrienne Adams vows to warn illegal immigrants of ICE operations as mayor: “My mission is to protect immigrants.”
• Adams: “Donald Trump will know that New York will remain a sanctuary city.”
• Every single Democrat at NYC mayoral debate said pro-Hamas activist Mahmoud Khalil should be released.
• Democratic Party’s extraordinary shift: From enforcement tradition to maximum opposition within a generation.