Last week, President Donald Trump took to Truth Social to voice his displeasure over Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s corruption trial.
According to Trump, the charges of bribery and fraud across three separate cases constitute a “POLITICAL WITCH HUNT.”
“It is terrible what they are doing in Israel to Bibi Netanyahu. He is a War Hero, and a Prime Minister who did a fabulous job working with the United States to bring Great Success in getting rid of the dangerous Nuclear threat in Iran,” Trump wrote.
Trump punctuated his rant by suggesting that the U.S. could cut off military aid to Israel if the trial continues.
“The United States of America spends Billions of Dollar a year, far more than on any other Nation, protecting and supporting Israel,” declared Trump. “We are not going to stand for this.”
“U.S. presidents have long treated aid to Israel as a sacrosanct, bipartisan commitment,” reads a post from Axios’s Barak Ravid. “Trump’s unprecedented intervention appeared to tie the security of 10 million Israelis to the criminal prosecution of one man.”
Shortly after the threat, the Trump administration announced that it was approving another massive arms deal for Israel. This time it’s a $510 million sale of bomb guidance kits.
“The proposed sale will enhance Israel’s capability to meet current and future threats by improving its ability to defend Israel’s borders, vital infrastructure, and population centers,” said the US Defense Security Cooperation Agency (DSCA) in a statement.
“The United States is committed to the security of Israel, and it is vital to US national interests to assist Israel to develop and maintain a strong and ready self-defense capability,” it continued.
AIPAC celebrated the deal in an email to its supporters.
“The United States must continue to stand with Israel for as long as it takes and increase the pressure on Hamas and its sponsors in Qatar, Turkey, and Iran to free all 50 hostages still held in Gaza,” declared the lobbying group.
This is business as usual, and it seems like Trump’s “unprecedented intervention” can safely be disregarded.
However, the President’s unhinged posts and the arms deal approval pave the way for another Netanyahu visit.
The prime minister will arrive back in the U.S. next week to meet with Trump, Vice President Vance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff, and a number of congress members.
Netanyahu says the visit comes in “the wake of the great victory” over Iran. Trump echoed these sentiments while speaking to reporters outside The White House.
“We’re going to talk about the great success we had in Iran … That was a precision war strike — and the word ‘obliteration’ can now be used,” claimed Trump.
In Middle East Eye, former Italian diplomat Marco Carnelos provides a much different assessment.
“Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu may emerge as the biggest loser,” writes Carnelos. “He apparently did not achieve the destruction of Iran’s nuclear programme, nor was he able to drag the US into a prolonged military confrontation with Iran – and it is highly likely that his decades-long dream of regime change in Tehran will remain just that: a dream.”
“Beyond all the western media spinning, however, the real winner – unrecognised of course – could be Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei,” he continues. “Iran ultimately resisted the joint military pressure of Israel and the US, displaying a remarkable capacity to retaliate by severely depleting Israel’s missile-defence system. This will be the key takeaway for the region, and for those around the world – especially in the Global South – who grasp its significance.”
Dems and Mamdani
Despite Zohran Mamdani’s decisive win in the NYC’s mayoral primary, a number of New York Democrats have yet to endorse his candidacy.
Governor Kathy Hochul, Sen. Chuck Schumer, Rep. Hakeem Jeffries, Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, Rep. Laura Gillen, Rep.Ritchie Torres, Rep. Tom Suozzi, Rep. Dan Goldman, and Rep. George Latimer have all refrained from backing Mamdani thus far.
A number of these politicians have expressed concerns about what Mamdani’s win could mean to Jewish New Yorkers. This apprehension seems largely generated by Mamdani’s refusal to condemn a slogan that he doesn’t actually use: “Globalize the Intifada.”
“That’s not language that I use,” Mamdani recently told told Meet the Press. “The language that I use and the language that I will continue to use to lead the city is that which speaks clearly to my intent, which is an intent grounded in a belief in universal human rights.”
“Ultimately, that’s what is the foundation of so much of my politics, the belief that freedom and justice and safety are things that have meaning, have to be applied to all people, and that includes Israelis and Palestinians,” he added.
When pressed further by anchor Kristen Welker about condemning it, Mamdani said, “I’ve heard those fears, and I’ve had those conversations, and ultimately, they are part and parcel of why in my campaign, I’ve put forward a commitment to increase funding for anti-hate crime programming by 800%.”
“I don’t believe that the role of the mayor is to police speech,” he added.
Mamdani’s comments probably seem pretty clear to most, but Democratic leaders are seeking more clarity.
“Globalizing the Intifada, by way of example, is not an acceptable phrasing,” Hakeem Jeffries told ABC News. “He’s going to have to clarify his position on that as he moves forward. With respect to the Jewish communities that I represent, I think our nominee is going to have to convince folks that he is prepared to aggressively address the rise in antisemitism in the city of New York, which has been an unacceptable development.”
In a Brian Lehrer Show appearance, Kirsten Gillibrand claimed that Mamdani had made multiple references to “global jihad,” which had “alarmed” her.
When Lehrer asked if Gillibrand had any actual evidence of Mamdani supporting violence, the Senator said that she didn’t have “all the data and information.”
That’s for sure.
Gillibrand’s press secretary eventually issued a statement saying she “misspoke” and had conflated “Globalize the Intifada” with “global jihad.” She’s since apologized to Mamdani for the remarks.
In a CNN appearance, Ritchie Torres criticized Mamdani for not distancing himself from the phrase. “It is deeply offensive. Every elected official, without exception, should condemn it,” said Torres.
Former House member Mondaire Jones pushed a similar narrative, telling MSNBC that Mamdani should acknowledge that the Jewish community finds the phrase “hurtful.”
To his credit, host Ayman Mohyeldin pushed back on this idea.
Why is a young Muslim lawmaker being subjected to a purity test “to convince everyone he meets their standard of safety?” Mohyeldin asked. After all, there’s “no evidence whatsoever that he has ever espoused anything that is remotely antisemitic.”
One can take this point at least a few steps further.
Not only has Mamdani not said anything remotely antisemitic, but he also spoke eloquently about antisemitism on the campaign trail, linking it with the fight against Islamophobia. He cross-endorsed Jewish candidate Brad Lander, who undoubtedly helped him beat Cuomo by double-digits. He secured an historic victory in the most Jewish city in the country. He polled second in Jewish support during the race. He was endorsed by Jewish Voice for Peace Action and The Jewish Vote.
These Jewish people seemingly don’t matter to the aforementioned Democratic lawmakers, as they are primarily concerned about the pro-Israel crowd. They won’t say it directly, but Anti-Defamation League (ADL) CEO Jonathan Greenblatt certainly will.
Speaking like a Mafia Don on MSNBC, Greenblatt proclaimed, “He doesn’t get to pick and choose which Jewish people he talks to. He needs to come to us.”
Why does Mamdani need to make right by the ADL, a phony civil rights group that equates support for Gaza with antisemitism? Polling shows us that the Democratic base (especially the young people who turned out in record numbers for Mamdani) want Palestine to be free and Israel to face accountability. Who is Greenblatt to be demanding anything after an election that confirmed something we already knew: Zionism is no longer a winning an issue.
Furthermore, why should Mamdani be taking advice or instruction from establishment Democrats, when their approval ratings remain dismal, and he just built an unprecedented coalition and beat a former governor?
“It could be a one off, but Gillibrand being forced to apologize while the manufactured hysteria over Zohran’s refusal to condemn every word in the Arabic language fades without him giving an inch feels like a watershed moment,” notes reporter Austin Ahlman. “I think we’re playing by a different set of rules now.”
There’s an incredible disconnect inherent in all of this outrageous discourse. Greenblatt and the Democrats smearing Mamdani, have supported a genocide for almost 21 months. If anyone should be forced to answer tough questions about people’s safety, you’d think it would be them.
Odds & Ends
🪖 What comes next following the U.S.-Israeli war on Iran?
🚢 Mask off Maersk campaign pressures shipping giant to drop Israeli settlements
📰 ‘New York Times’ editorial on antisemitism is just pro-Israel advocacy
📺 Dr. Assal Rad on the “12-Day War”, Western Media and Israel
🗞️ The biggest loser besides Cuomo in the NY mayoral race was The New York Times
🔎 From COINTELPRO to Project Esther: The evolution of domestic counterinsurgency in the U.S.
🗣️ In These Times: Zohran Mamdani and the Anatomy of a Bogus “Antisemitism” Scandal
🌴 Florida Politics: Florida defunds ‘academic boycotts’ of Israel
☢️ Common Dreams: Trump’s Iran Attack Was a Dangerous Showcase of Why Nuclear Apartheid Must End
🗺️ The Nation: The Never-Trump Crowd Still Loves Middle East Wars
📻 Defector: Kirsten Gillibrand Has A Racist Meltdown Over Zohran Mamdani On Public Radio
🚫 The News & Observer: NC Democrats approve resolution calling for embargo on US military support of Israel
🗳️ Jewish Currents: Left Electoralism After Mamdani: A Roundtable
🇮🇱 Truthout: Internet Access Is a Lifeline for Us in Gaza — So Israel Attacked It
🌟 Counterpunch: Mamdani’s Magnificent Primary Win—What Follows
🗽 The Guardian: Trump threatens to cut off New York City funds if Mamdani ‘doesn’t behave’
🇺🇸 The Intercept: U.S. Military Under Attack Again for Joining Israel’s Wars
👭 Zeteo: When Will the West Stop Exploiting Women’s Rights for Imperial Aims?
📱 Drop Site News: Leaked Chats Show Pro-Israel Extremist Group Betar Organizing Street Confrontations
⚖️ Axios: Trump’s pro-Bibi pressure campaign
🇮🇷 Responsible Statecraft: First it was regime change, now they want to break Iran apart
✊ In These Times: Chicago Jewish Activists Embark on Indefinite Hunger Strike Over Gaza
But wait a moment! You’re saying that maybe Mamdani isn’t the anti-semitic monster he’s made out to be, but his commie economic policies will destroy New York! Well, the New Yorker has done some analysis on his radical socialist ideas and, in a nutshell, they turn out to be policies any progressive economist would sign on to. In fact, some of them have:
https://www.thenation.com/article/economy/economists-zohran-mamdani-new-york-city/
“Economists Support Zohran Mamdani’s Plan for New York City…Zohran Mamdani’s mayoral platform is a practical blueprint to tackle some of New York City’s most pressing problems….We write, as economists from across the world, to support Zohran Mamdani’s mayoral platform as a bold yet practical blueprint to tackle some of New York City’s most urgent challenges…
I recommend reading the above piece if you’re worried about Mamdani’s policy proposals. Here’s a brief quote from the New Yorker piece:
…the New York Times’ editorial board said that a rent freeze “could restrict housing supply and make it harder for younger New Yorkers and new arrivals to afford housing.” ...she said that it was important to realize that Mamdani’s call for a rent freeze is accompanied by a pledge to build an additional two hundred thousand rent-stabilized units over the next ten years; his campaign plans to accomplish this by expanding public investments, changing zoning laws, and fast-tracking planning approvals.
The Case for Zohranomics…As some Wall Street billionaires melt down over Zohran Mamdani’s policy platform, a prominent progressive economist argues that it meets the moment.
( not sure if this is open access )
https://www.newyorker.com/news/the-financial-page/the-case-for-zohranomics
Mr. Arria, Do you live in NYC? Have you ever lived in NYC? Here’s a level headed description of the bind that Mister Mamdani has created for the idea of domestic tranquility and comity in NYC. https://jewishphilosophyplace.com/2025/07/03/new-york-city-new-york-jews-mamdani/?fbclid=IwY2xjawLUCwdleHRuA2FlbQIxMQBicmlkETE3S1E2SDNscVdkdHJrRnQxAR4mUko3m8OiMA0OrypM99DBsMYcVqNybDBjzcBNsKVIeUp8L8bX1Xz5UVoyHQ_aem_8wMTjErjGGLLjLbPPN-SMQ
Just because anti semitism and anti zionism are not congruent, does not mean that a mayor who announces, “I am an enemy to all supporters of Israel” is not a problem in NYC. Or even “I am an ally to all haters of Israel”. It is very much a problem.