New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani referenced the “genocide” of Palestinians during a St. Patrick’s Day event Tuesday at Gracie Mansion.

Mamdani made the remarks at a breakfast honoring Irish New Yorkers, where he praised former Irish President Mary Robinson for her record on human rights and her support for Palestinians. 

“I say this as over the past few years, as we’ve witnessed a genocide unfold before our eyes, there has been deafening silence from so many,” Mamdani said. “For those who have long cared about universal human rights and the extension of them to Palestinians, silence, however, is nothing new – for Palestinians are so often left to weep alone. Yet former President Robinson has never been silent.”

Mamdani tied Irish history to broader themes of solidarity, calling it “no coincidence” and asking, “Who can better understand those who weep than those who have been made to weep for so long?”

MAMDANI’S WIFE LIKED SOCIAL MEDIA POSTS ‘CHEERING ON’ HAMAS’ OCT 7 MASSACRE OF ISRAELIS: REPORT

“The story of the Irish, both in Ireland and in New York City, is at one time a story of oppression, of subjugation, and of discrimination,” the mayor told attendees.

HAMAS REASSERTS CONTROL IN GAZA AS IRAN WAR DOMINATES REGIONAL ATTENTION AND GLOBAL FOCUS

Robinson spoke after Mamdani, describing St. Patrick’s Day as a celebration of Irish culture, music and laughter.

She acknowledged the ongoing suffering in conflict zones around the world, including Iran, Lebanon, Gaza, Ukraine, Sudan and the Democratic Republic of Congo, saying the holiday is also a time to recognize those “living under the shadow of war and suffering.”

POPULAR ST PATRICK’S DAY PARADES AROUND UNITED STATES

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

“For many Irish people, these realities resonate deeply, as the mayor has said. Our own history holds memories of famine, exile and conflict,” Robinson added. “Perhaps because of that many recognize echoes of Ireland’s past and the suffering of others today and the pain of displacement and the enduring human longing for dignity, justice and self-determination.”

BEIRUT — Israel said on Tuesday it had assassinated Iran’s top security official, Ali Larijani, a move that — if confirmed — represents a palpable hit to an Iranian leadership that has shown little interest in compromise after almost three weeks of war with the U.S. and Israel.

Killing Larijani, who led the country as de facto wartime leader after Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei died on the first day of the war, eliminates a veteran official seen as the consummate insider despite not having the religious credentials for the Islamic Republic’s highest offices.

For all his bellicose comments since the war began, Larijani was also seen as a pragmatist, and observers say his death might strengthen the resolve of what’s left of Iran’s leadership, rather than induce a willingness to compromise.

His post as secretary of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council gave Larijani control of the country’s top security body, where he tasked government forces with deploying deadly force to subdue anti-regime protests in January.

Also killed in the strikes, according to the Israeli military, was Gen. Gholam Reza Soleimani, the head of the Basij, the volunteer auxiliary wing of the Revolutionary Guards and an integral part of the state’s ability to keep order.

“Larijani and the Basij commander were eliminated overnight and joined the head of the annihilation program, Khamenei, and all the eliminated members of the axis of evil, in the depths of hell,” said Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz in a statement on Tuesday.

Israeli officials have employed “axis of evil” to refer to Iran and its allied paramilitary groups, including Hamas and Hezbollah.

Larijani had served as parliamentary speaker for 12 years and became the point man on the nuclear negotiations as well as relations with allies such as China and Russia. He often acted as the government’s representative in the media.

Iran’s government did not confirm he and Soleimani had been killed. But soon after Katz’s announcement, Iranian authorities released an undated note said to have been written by Larijani in which he honored Iranian sailors killed in a U.S. attack. The image of the note was also posted to Larijani’s account on X.

There was no explanation why the note was released and whether it is signified Larijani was still alive.

“We are undermining this regime in the hope of giving the Iranian people an opportunity to remove it,” said Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in a statement, adding that such an outcome “will not happen all at once, and it will not happen easily.”

“But if we persist,” Netanyahu added, “we will give them the chance to take their destiny into their own hands.”

Netanyahu and President Trump have repeatedly called on regular Iranians to topple the government.

Though assassinating Larijani counts as yet another intelligence coup for Israel and the U.S., both may come to regret the loss of a figure who, despite his defiant rhetoric since the war began Feb. 28, was considered a realist.

His killing adds to the evisceration of Iran’s upper echelons, raising the question as to who is left to negotiate an end of the war, but also who would have enough influence to make Iran’s deep state accept compromise.

Some observers say that’s the point.

“Why did the Israelis take out Larijani in this moment? Because Netanyahu is focused on blocking Trump’s pathways for a ceasefire and follow-up negotiations with Iran,” said Ellie Geranmayeh, a senior policy fellow at the European Council for Foreign Relations, adding that “Larijani would have been the man to get that job done.”

Khamenei’s assassination, Geranmayeh said, had already empowered more hard-line figures in government, and Larijani’s death “could act as an accelerator to that path.”

“Israel seems to be turning its attention to targeting those that could push for a political solution to the current crisis,” she said.

Larijani’s death would add to the murkiness surrounding Iran’s leadership. After Khamenei was killed and it remained unclear who would replace him, Trump added to the uncertainty by saying that the country’s new leader would need his approval, but also that the U.S. had killed many of the leaders whom he would have deemed acceptable.

After Khamenei’s son, Mojtaba Khamenei, was named the new supreme leader, Trump expressed his displeasure but repeatedly dodged questions about what the transition under the younger Khamenei would mean for the U.S. war effort and any potential path toward a resolution.

After the elder Khamenei’s death, Larijani emerged as a high-profile voice for Iran, saying that Trump must “pay the price” for the U.S. strikes on the country.

In response, Trump acted as if he didn’t know who Larijani was.

“I have no idea what he’s talking about, who he is. I couldn’t care less,” Trump told CBS News.

Benjamin Radd, a political scientist and senior fellow at the UCLA Burkle Center for International Relations, said Larijani was perceived to be “the last of the competent bunch” within Iranian leadership — an intellectual who had a complex understanding of the geopolitical reality on the ground, who had negotiated with the U.S. in the past, and who was “adept at maneuvering” all the various parts of the Iranian power structure.

Radd said Larijani “lost that mantle of being the pragmatist” when he strongly backed the deadly January crackdown on protesters, for which he was “more responsible than anyone else.”

He “absolutely was responsible for a tremendous amount of carnage and death and destruction,” Radd said.

And yet, with his death, “all of that diplomatic, institutional experience” that he did have “is gone” from within Iranian leadership, Radd said.

Those left in power, he said, are “generally not the sharpest people, they’re not the people who understand the subtleties of diplomacy, of what negotiating with the U.S. is like.”

Bulos reported from Beirut and Rector from Washington.

A bipartisan group of Minnesota lawmakers has proposed a bill seeking to ban warrants allowing law enforcement to gather data revealing which cellphones and other devices that were near a crime scene at a specific time.

Democrat state Sen. Erin Maye Quade introduced a Senate bill to ban those warrants in most cases, with Sens. Omar Fateh, also a Democrat, and Eric Lucero, a Republican, joining as original sponsors.

The bill would also allow anyone whose information was obtained during the search to sue law enforcement.

Lawmakers argue the warrants should be prohibited except in emergency situations. They said reverse location warrants, sometimes called “geofence” or “dragnet” warrants, are too broad and violate Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures.

YOUR PHONE IS NOW A CRIME SCENE IN YOUR POCKET

Critics of the warrants say authorities can gather data on thousands of people near a particular area, including those who attended an event that could be of interest to law enforcement, such as a protest.

“We do believe that we have to balance our constitutional rights and public safety so that we’re not essentially sending law enforcement in to search for a needle in a haystack by exponentially increasing the size of the haystack,” Maye Quade said during a hearing on March 9.

Law enforcement groups, including the Minnesota Chiefs of Police Association and the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension, contend that the bill is too broad, although both have suggested a willingness to negotiate with lawmakers about data privacy concerns.

“We recognize and share the Legislature’s commitment to protecting individual privacy and civil liberties. However, as drafted, this bill would impose an outright prohibition on investigative tools that are lawful, court-supervised, and, in many cases, critical to solving serious crimes and protecting public safety,” the Minnesota Chiefs of Police Association said in a letter to lawmakers.

Senate lawmakers first discussed the bill in the Senate Judiciary and Public Safety Committee on March 9. House lawmakers discussed a companion bill, originally proposed by Rep. Sandra Feist, a Democrat, in the Judiciary Finance and Civil Law Committee on Feb. 24.

This comes amid an ongoing case at the national level, in which the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in April on the constitutionality of reverse location warrants.

Between 2018 and 2020, the number of reverse location warrants in Minnesota jumped from 22 to 173.

In 2023, Google said it would stop storing location data in a way that would make it susceptible to reverse location warrant requests. By July of last year, the company said all location history data previously stored on its servers had been wiped or moved to on-device storage.

But groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union and Electronic Frontier Foundation have raised concerns about whether that change is enough.

The warrants appear to still be used in Minnesota, as law enforcement groups argue they play a key role in solving investigations.

Bureau of Criminal Apprehension Superintendent Drew Evans said a ban on those warrants “would have a major detrimental effect on public safety in Minnesota.”

“There are numerous examples of case investigations where reverse location data has saved lives, even just recently,” Evans said in a letter to lawmakers, although he added that he supports “reasonable safeguards for data privacy protections” and would be “more than willing to collaborate on possible solutions to implement more safeguards while still preserving such an important technological tool.”

As written, the Senate bill would prohibit warrants to collect information on devices that searched for a specific keyword, phrase or website. It would also ban similar collection of GPS coordinates, cell tower and Wi-Fi connectivity data.

GRASSLEY: BIDEN DOJ BYPASSED CONSTITUTIONAL SAFEGUARDS BY SUBPOENAING SENATOR PHONE RECORDS

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

Lucero said during the March 9 hearing that the bill should not be viewed as anti-law enforcement, arguing it promotes pro-constitutional principles.

“We simply want to make sure that those time-tested principles are protected in the new digital realm,” Lucero said.

Lucero referenced the Fourth Amendment, which protects against unreasonable searches and seizures unless a warrant specifies a particular place and the person or thing to be seized.

“Reverse search warrants are the antithesis of that,” he said.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.