In a moment that stunned late-night viewers and sent political commentators scrambling, New York State Assemblymember Zohran Mamdani sparked nationwide controversy during his recent appearance on The Late Show with Stephen Colbert.
What began as a routine campaign interview to promote progressive policies quickly escalated into one of the most polarizing moments in recent political memory when Colbert posed a direct question about Israel’s right to exist. Mamdani’s response ignited fierce backlash and impassioned support in equal measure — drawing sharp lines in an already tense political climate.
Here’s a breakdown of what happened, why it matters, and what it could mean for Mamdani’s political future.
A Political Star on the Rise
Zohran Mamdani, a Democratic Socialist representing Astoria, Queens in the New York State Assembly, has risen to prominence through his unapologetically left-wing platform. A vocal advocate for tenants’ rights, police reform, and Palestinian solidarity, Mamdani has built a passionate base among progressives in New York City and beyond.
His recent decision to enter the crowded New York City mayoral race placed him in the national spotlight, and with that came greater scrutiny. While his economic proposals — including universal rent control, public housing expansion, and fare-free public transit — have drawn applause from the left, his foreign policy positions have proven more contentious, especially within the city’s large and politically active Jewish population.
The Interview That Changed Everything
Appearing alongside fellow progressive and New York City Comptroller Brad Lander, Mamdani sat down with Stephen Colbert to discuss their ranked-choice voting alliance. The initial conversation was cordial and centered on their shared policy goals: increasing social spending, addressing climate change, and combatting systemic inequality in New York City.
Then Colbert shifted the tone with a pointed and loaded question:
“Does the State of Israel have the right to exist?”
For a moment, the studio fell silent. It was a question few candidates want to answer in public — not because it’s difficult in principle, but because of the political firestorm it can ignite depending on the wording.
Mamdani’s reply was deliberate:
“I believe that every nation and people have the right to exist in peace, with dignity, and in accordance with international law. What we must not do is use that existence to justify the oppression of another people.”
Colbert, appearing visibly surprised, followed up:
“So, to be clear, do you believe that Israel, as a Jewish state, has the right to exist?”
Mamdani paused, then responded:
“I believe in the right of all people — Jewish, Muslim, Christian, secular — to live together in equality. I do not support the idea of ethno-nationalism, whether in Israel or anywhere else.”
The Studio Reacts
The audience, unsure whether to applaud or gasp, did a bit of both. The energy in the room shifted instantly. Colbert, to his credit, didn’t let the moment pass without context.
He asked Mamdani how he would reassure Jewish New Yorkers — many of whom have felt increasingly vulnerable in recent years — that his leadership would protect them from antisemitism.
Mamdani, maintaining a calm tone, responded:
“No one should feel unsafe in our city because of their religion, heritage, or politics. As mayor, I would invest heavily in anti-hate initiatives, community education, and targeted protection for all communities. That includes our Jewish neighbors — Orthodox, Conservative, Reform, secular — everyone.”
But the tension remained palpable. For many watching, it was not just what Mamdani said — it was what he didn’t say. He did not explicitly affirm Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state. To some, this was a principled rejection of religious nationalism. To others, it was a glaring omission.
A Firestorm Ignites
By the next morning, clips of the interview had gone viral. On social media, the reactions were immediate and divisive.
Critics accused Mamdani of dodging a simple question and of harboring anti-Zionist — and by extension, antisemitic — views. Several Jewish organizations released statements condemning the response as “dangerous,” “inflammatory,” and “irresponsible.”
Others rallied to his defense, praising him for refusing to reduce a complex issue to a soundbite. Progressive organizations and civil rights groups applauded his commitment to equality and international law. Some hailed him as the rare politician willing to say publicly what others only whisper in private meetings.
Previous Controversies Resurface
The controversy around Mamdani’s Late Show appearance didn’t emerge from a vacuum. He has long been one of the most outspoken critics of Israel’s occupation of the West Bank and Gaza, and he has been a visible supporter of the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement.
In 2024, Mamdani came under fire for refusing to condemn the slogan “Globalize the Intifada,” which appeared on protest banners and social media during pro-Palestinian rallies. Critics argued the phrase glorified violence, while Mamdani defended it as a call for global solidarity with oppressed people.
More recently, he was criticized for not co-sponsoring a symbolic resolution in the State Assembly commemorating Holocaust Remembrance Day. While he later issued a statement affirming his support for Holocaust education and remembrance, his absence on the bill raised concerns among some Jewish voters.
Each of these moments had stirred debate — but none as intensely as his exchange with Colbert.
Brad Lander’s Measured Response
Sitting next to Mamdani during the interview was Brad Lander, a Jewish progressive known for his policy acumen and bridge-building efforts. After Mamdani’s remarks, Colbert turned to Lander and asked how he interpreted the exchange.
Lander responded with care:
“I respect Zohran’s commitment to justice. I also believe Israel has the right to exist as a Jewish and democratic state. The safety of Jewish people in New York and around the world is deeply personal for me. We need to engage these conversations with respect, but also clarity.”
Lander’s position stood in contrast to Mamdani’s and highlighted the divide within progressive circles. Both men support Palestinian rights. But where Mamdani questions the legitimacy of Jewish ethno-nationalism, Lander defends Israel’s existence as both a refuge and a homeland.
Impact on the Campaign Trail
Within days, the “Colbert Moment” became a defining event in Mamdani’s mayoral bid. Fundraising spiked on both sides. Activists launched petitions — some demanding he drop out of the race, others urging more airtime for his platform.
Supporters argued that Mamdani was being punished for saying what many progressives believe but are afraid to admit publicly: that the conversation around Israel must include criticism of occupation and inequality. Detractors warned that his stance alienated Jewish constituents and undermined social cohesion.
Some political analysts believe the moment will galvanize his core supporters, particularly younger voters and Muslim Americans. Others suggest it could become a ceiling, making him unelectable in a city that prides itself on multiculturalism but is also home to over one million Jewish residents.
Late-Night Politics and Public Reckoning
The Mamdani-Colbert exchange speaks to a broader dynamic: the increasing collision between foreign policy and local politics. In an interconnected world, positions on international issues carry real consequences at home.
For late-night hosts like Colbert, who straddle the line between comedy and journalism, the moment was a demonstration of how entertainment platforms now serve as arenas for political accountability. It was not a gotcha question — it was a litmus test for leadership in a divided and increasingly volatile cultural landscape.
The Road Ahead
As the mayoral primary approaches, Mamdani remains defiant. He has not apologized or retracted his comments. Instead, he has doubled down on his messaging: equality for all, dignity for Palestinians and Israelis alike, and a rejection of what he calls “performative politics that evade the hard truths.”
Whether that message resonates with the broader electorate remains to be seen. For now, one thing is clear: a single question, delivered in a studio filled with lights and laughter, has reignited one of the most polarizing debates in American politics — and thrust Zohran Mamdani into the center of it.
Leave a Reply