Media Review: Trump’s Forced Smiles Conceal Deep Anxiety as Rising Star Mamdani Threatens Political Narrative

Media Review: Trump’s Forced Smiles Conceal Deep Anxiety as Rising Star Mamdani Threatens Political Narrative

    Tuesday, November 25, 2025   No comments

In an apparent display of civility, former U.S. President Donald Trump met newly elected New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani in the Oval Office on November 21, 2025—two figures who, despite having branded each other in incendiary terms, posed for cameras with practiced composure. Yet beneath the handshakes and shared jokes, British journalist Michael Day argues in The Independent, lies a far more revealing story: Trump’s calm demeanor and wide, artificial smiles mask a profound unease—an anxiety rooted not just in personal pride, but in the existential threat Mamdani represents to the Republican Party’s political narrative.

Just weeks before the meeting, Trump had dismissed Mamdani as a “100% insane communist,” while Mamdani, an unapologetic democratic socialist, had once labeled Trump a “fascist.” Their ideological chasm could hardly be wider. Yet in Washington, the two avoided direct confrontation, instead exchanging platitudes about their mutual love for New York City and pledges to support its growth. To Day, this surface-level harmony is a carefully constructed illusion—“a mask worn for the cameras”—hiding a deeper tension.

At 34, Mamdani—a Muslim of Indian-Ugandan heritage—has achieved what many deemed improbable: defeating the politically entrenched Cuomo dynasty and capturing City Hall on a platform of bold progressive reform, including rent freezes, universal public services, and aggressive wealth redistribution. For Trump, a man who prides himself on winning and venerates winners, Mamdani’s meteoric rise is not merely impressive—it is unsettling. As Day notes, Trump himself acknowledged Mamdani had waged “an incredible race against very smart people,” a rare admission of respect tinged unmistakably with apprehension.

Why the anxiety? Mamdani’s success signals a new, viable path for the American left: a charismatic, digitally savvy, grassroots-driven socialism that resonates powerfully with younger, multiracial, and working-class voters—exactly the coalition the GOP has struggled to neutralize. His campaign, built around a laser-focused message of lowering the cost of living and leveraging innovative digital outreach, mobilized a broad coalition that defied traditional political expectations. To Trump, whose political dominance has long depended on framing Democrats as elitist, out-of-touch, or extremist, Mamdani’s authenticity and electoral potency disrupt that script. He is not a caricature Trump can easily ridicule—he is a winner, and that makes him dangerous.

Compounding Trump’s unease is a week of personal and political turbulence: although he recently secured massive Saudi investments, he was forced—amid renewed scrutiny of the Epstein case—to release previously withheld documents, a development that reportedly angered and unnerved him. In this fragile moment, Day suggests, Trump could not afford to appear weakened or reactive in front of Mamdani. Instead, he defaulted to deflection and dark humor. When a journalist asked whether he minded Mamdani calling him a fascist, Trump quipped, “I’ve been called worse than fascist”—a line that drew laughter but betrayed strategic evasion.

Yet the stakes extend far beyond Trump’s ego. Day warns that Mamdani’s ascent risks triggering a crisis of identity within the Democratic Party itself. While the progressive left celebrates his victory as vindication, the party’s moderate wing grows increasingly wary of his socialist agenda—fearing a backlash in swing districts and national elections. This internal rift was starkly illustrated the day before the White House meeting, when 86 House Democrats joined Republicans in passing a resolution condemning “the terror of socialism.” To Day, this was a profound misstep: targeting Mamdani-style progressivism, he argues, while ignoring the very real threat of a second Trump term, reveals a party at odds with its own future.

Ultimately, Day concludes, the cordial photo-op between Trump and Mamdani obscures a seismic political shift. Mamdani embodies a new generational energy—one that challenges both Republican hegemony and Democratic orthodoxy. His rise signals the emergence of a new political archetype: pragmatic yet radical, local yet nationally resonant, deeply ideological yet electorally effective.

As Trump watches this young mayor assume power in America’s largest city, he does so not just as a former president—but as a seasoned political predator keenly aware that the rules of the game may be changing. And for the first time in years, it’s not Trump setting the pace.

Media Review: Erdogan says agreement reached with Trump on Gaza ceasefire and "lasting peace"

Media Review: Erdogan says agreement reached with Trump on Gaza ceasefire and "lasting peace"

    Friday, September 26, 2025   No comments

Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan said he had reached an understanding with US President Donald Trump on steps to secure a ceasefire and "lasting peace" in Gaza and Palestine following their talks at the White House on Thursday.

"Our meeting was very important in terms of putting forth the will to end the massacres in Gaza. Mr. Trump stated during the meeting the need to end fighting in Gaza and reach lasting peace," Erdogan told reporters, according to a transcript released by his office on Friday.

"We explained how a ceasefire can be achieved in Gaza and the whole of Palestine, and lasting peace afterwards. An understanding was reached there," he added. "We said that the two-state solution was the formula for lasting peace in the region, that the current situation cannot continue."

Trump: “I’m not allowing Israel to annex the West Bank”

US President Donald Trump on Thursday said that he will not allow Israel to annex the occupied West Bank.

Trump’s response came after he was asked whether he had promised Arab leaders during a meeting at the United Nations this week that he would prevent any annexation.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has vowed not to allow a Palestinian state, and far-right members of his cabinet have threatened to annex the West Bank in response to the recent recognition of a Palestinian state by several Western countries. He was met by boos and walk out at the UN on Friday.

Netanyahu at the UNGA: "We'll never accept a Palestinian state. I say to the European and Western leaders; you cannot shove this Palestinian state down our throats, just because you don't have the guts to stand up against the antisemitic media... Unfortunately, the Western media is pro-Khamas"

Humanitarian Flotilla attacked, Italy Spain Sent military ships to help

Video footage taken by journalists aboard the lead ship of the Global Sumud Flotilla shows an Italian navy ship near the fleet in the Mediterranean Sea.

Italian Defence Minister Guido Crosetto said on Thursday that a second naval frigate will be deployed to support the Flotilla after it came under at least 13 drone attacks since the late hours of Tuesday.

Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez said on Wednesday that Spain would also be sending a navy ship to assist the flotilla.

Media Review: Nationalism, Distrust, and the Specter of Regime Change

Media Review: Nationalism, Distrust, and the Specter of Regime Change

    Wednesday, August 13, 2025   No comments

 

1. Netanyahu’s Overt Call: “Iran for Iranians”

On August 12, 2025, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu released a striking video address aimed directly at the Iranian people. He urged them to “take to the streets”, “demand justice”, and resist “ruling fanatics” in Tehran. Leveraging Iran’s current water crisis—one described as the worst drought in a century—he promised that “Israel’s top water experts will flood into every Iranian city,” offering cutting-edge recycling and desalination technologies once “your country is free.” Netanyahu framed this not merely as political pressure but as a humanitarian overture, rhetorically intertwining water scarcity with political liberation.
His language tugged at historical symbols—the “descendants of Cyrus the Great”—and invoked Zionist forebears: “as our founding father, Theodor Herzl, said... ‘if you will it, a free Iran is not a dream.’” Critics across the region condemned the message as a blatant interference in Iran’s sovereignty and a call for regime change.

2. Expansionist Imagery and the “Greater Israel” Vision

Simultaneously, in an i24 News interview, Netanyahu responded affirmatively when asked if he felt a connection to the concept of “Greater Israel”—a historical extremist vision stretching from the Nile to the Euphrates, enveloping Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia. He stated flatly: "Very much." (Note: the Arabic-language Al Jazeera coverage confirmed condemnation by Jordan’s foreign ministry of these remarks, calling them “dangerous provocative escalation” and a violation of sovereignty and international law).  Jordan officially denounced these statements as “absurd illusions” that undermine Arab states and Palestinian rights, and called for international accountability.

3. Mutually Reinforcing Nationalist Narratives

These developments crystallize a deeper pattern of mutual antagonism: just as many in the Arab and Muslim worlds chant “Death to Israel” (often interpreted as opposition to the Zionist regime, not genocide), Israeli leaders—including Netanyahu—express parallel desires for overthrowing nationalist or Islamist regimes, from Iraq and Syria to Iran and potentially Turkey. Israel’s historical role in the fall of Arab nationalist regimes—the Ba’athists in Iraq and Syria, Nasserism in Egypt, Gaddafi in Libya—sets precedent for its current posture toward Iran, adding layers of distrust and ideological competition.

4. Media Narratives vs. Unspoken Realities

Mainstream coverage often frames Israel’s messaging as defensive—justified by existential threats or humanitarian concern. Yet the explicit linkage between Israel’s offer of technology and regime change reveals a more assertive posture: Israel positioning itself not only as a regional power but as a potential kingmaker.

This dynamic echoes past episodes: British and U.S. support for regime change in Iraq, Libya, and Afghanistan, often under the banner of liberation, but frequently yielding destabilization. Indeed, analysts warn that regime elimination without a constructive transition plan can exacerbate chaos and strengthen hardliners—concerns now surging around Iran.

5. Broader Implications: Ethno-Religious Nationalism and Regional Instability

The mutual calls for regime change are not isolated acts of political posturing — they are rooted in competing nationalist visions that draw their legitimacy from deeply embedded historical, ethnic, and religious narratives. This clash produces a dangerous self-reinforcing cycle that shapes nearly every major crisis in the Middle East.

Israel’s vision:

Israeli statecraft, particularly under Netanyahu, increasingly draws on biblical and historicist narratives to justify a posture of permanent expansion and dominance. This is not merely about securing existing borders; it’s about positioning Israel as the central civilizational power in the region. The appeal to “Greater Israel” ties modern foreign policy directly to ancient territorial claims, allowing nationalist leaders to frame strategic moves as fulfilling a sacred mission rather than a negotiable political agenda. In this worldview, offering water technology to Iranians is not only a humanitarian gesture but also a demonstration of how Israel imagines itself — as a benevolent hegemon to “liberated” peoples, once they accept the dismantling of regimes seen as hostile.

Resistance’s response:

Arab nationalist and Islamist movements see this Israeli narrative as an existential threat — not only to Palestinian sovereignty but to the very idea of Arab or Islamic self-determination. From their perspective, the vision of “Greater Israel” confirms suspicions that Israel’s security discourse masks territorial ambitions stretching across multiple states. This perception reinforces a siege mentality, where even minor concessions to Israel are framed as steps toward regional capitulation. Consequently, slogans like “Death to Israel” — while often clarified by their authors as a rejection of the Zionist regime rather than the Jewish people — are received by Israelis as genocidal, deepening the emotional and political chasm.

Mutual demonization:

Each side interprets the other’s rhetoric in its most maximalist and threatening form. Israeli leaders often portray their regional adversaries as irredeemable aggressors whose regimes must be toppled for peace to be possible. Conversely, Arab and Islamist nationalists cast Israeli policy as inherently expansionist, immune to compromise, and bent on cultural erasure. This mutual framing leaves no space for recognizing reformist or moderate currents on either side. Internal dissent within Iran, for example, is subsumed under the binary of “pro-regime” or “agent of foreign powers,” while dissent within Israel against expansionism is marginalized as naïve or disloyal.

Media as a force multiplier:

Regional and global media ecosystems amplify these narratives by privileging official statements and the most provocative soundbites. Nuanced or dissenting voices rarely receive the same coverage. This selective amplification means that both publics primarily hear confirmation of their worst fears. Israeli audiences see chants and missile parades without context; Arab audiences see maps of an expanded Israel without the debates inside Israel over their feasibility or morality. In effect, media serves as a mirror that reflects back the most polarizing version of reality, hardening nationalist sentiment and making diplomatic de-escalation politically costly for any leader.

The result is a feedback loop: nationalist rhetoric begets reciprocal hostility, which then justifies the next round of escalation. Over time, this pattern entrenches zero-sum thinking, where any gain for one side is assumed to be an irreversible loss for the other.

6. What Comes Next?

With Israel openly signaling support for regime change, and invoking ideological justifications, the region edges closer to escalatory brinkmanship. If Iran responds—either through intensified repression or reprisals—the potential for conflict could spiral. Global actors—especially the U.S., Europe, Russia, and regional powers—must urgently clarify whether they support such overt regime-change diplomacy or seek de-escalation through dialogue and multilateral engagement.

The events of August 12, 2025—Netanyahu’s video appeal and the embrace of “Greater Israel”—are not isolated flashes of rhetoric but crystallize long-standing ideological and geopolitical fault lines. The language of liberation and water aid interwoven with conquest and regime overthrow exemplifies the complex, dangerous entanglement of ethno-religious nationalism, realpolitik, and regional power plays. As each side frames itself as the rightful architect of the region’s future, the real victims may be stability, human rights, and any hope for equitable governance.

Israel’s prime minister’s call for Iranians to overthrow their government mirrors Iran’s rejection of the “Zionist regime,” underscoring two points: first, the deep incompatibility between race-based or religion-based nationalism and genuinely pluralistic societies; second, the role of supremacist ideologies as a driving force behind such nationalist regimes. Zionism—with both its religious dimension (membership in the Jewish faith) and its ethnic dimension (Jewish identity as race or ethnicity)—and Arab or Persian ethnic nationalism, alongside Islamism as a religious form, are locked in a clash that cannot be resolved by one prevailing over the others, but perhaps only by the eventual failure of them all.

  

Media Review: "As Israel Starves and Kills Thousands in Gaza, It Destroys Itself", Haaretz

Media Review: "As Israel Starves and Kills Thousands in Gaza, It Destroys Itself", Haaretz

    Monday, August 04, 2025   No comments

In a powerful and scathing op-ed published by Haaretz, Israeli writer Iris Leal delivers a searing critique of her country’s actions in the Gaza Strip, warning that the atrocities being committed there are not only devastating to Palestinians but are also dragging Israel into a profound moral, political, and diplomatic abyss. Leal’s article, titled "As Israel Kills and Starves Thousands in Gaza, It Destroys Itself in the Process", lays bare the human cost of the war and the devastating implications for Israel’s future.

A Nation’s Self-Destruction

Leal argues that Israel is systematically isolating itself from the global community. The bridges that once connected it to the democratic world are being “torn down one by one.” She emphasizes that anyone associated with the decision-making apparatus of the war—be it political leaders, military commanders, or intelligence heads—is now becoming increasingly aware that international travel may pose legal and personal risks due to accusations of war crimes and crimes against humanity.

At the center of her warning is the staggering humanitarian catastrophe unfolding in Gaza. According to credible international reports cited by Leal, including data from UNICEF and The Washington Post, over 60,000 Palestinians have been killed, among them at least 18,500 children. Many of these children were killed in their sleep, while playing, or even before they learned to walk. The death toll reflects not incidental wartime casualties but a consistent pattern of destruction that Leal unequivocally describes as a "war of extermination."

Starvation as a Weapon

One of the most damning parts of Leal’s argument is Israel’s alleged use of starvation as a weapon of war. She writes that the Netanyahu government knowingly allowed infants to face starvation by failing to ensure the delivery of infant formula and basic humanitarian aid. Hospitals—already bombed or rendered dysfunctional—are unable to operate, and medical personnel themselves are suffering from hunger and exhaustion.

Even worse, Leal suggests that these outcomes were not unintended side effects, but foreseen and tolerated, under the assumption that the international community would remain silent or impotent in the face of such horrors. The Israeli leadership, in her view, has wagered that the deliberate starvation and killing of children would not result in meaningful diplomatic consequences—a gamble that, she implies, is both immoral and catastrophically shortsighted.

A Crisis of Legitimacy

Leal’s article ends by posing a deeply uncomfortable question to the Israeli public and the global community: Are the people leading Israel today—its ministers, generals, intelligence chiefs—morally and legally fit to make decisions on behalf of the nation? Given the scale of the violence and its apparent intentionality, she contends that these individuals are likely complicit in war crimes, ethnic cleansing, and potentially genocide.

The underlying message is clear: Israel is not just committing atrocities—it is losing its moral compass and destroying the very foundations of its legitimacy in the eyes of the world and its own citizens.

A Global Atrocity in Real Time

Leal’s voice is a rare and courageous one within a landscape that often suppresses internal dissent. Her article should serve as a wake-up call, not only to Israelis but to anyone who believes in the principles of human rights and international law. The reality in Gaza today—of mass death, child starvation, and humanitarian collapse—is not abstract. It is a documented and unfolding catastrophe that demands accountability.

What makes this atrocity even more chilling is the premeditation behind it. When a state with one of the most advanced militaries in the world deliberately withholds aid, targets civilian infrastructure, and tolerates the mass death of children, it cannot be brushed off as a tragic byproduct of war. This is systematic, intentional policy—and it represents the moral failure of a nation’s leadership. 

Meanwhile, the international community’s response remains fragmented, weak, and in some cases complicit. Leal rightly questions whether Israel’s leaders will face consequences, but the more urgent question is: Will the world act before even more lives are lost?

Silence, in this context, is not neutrality—it is complicity. As Leal poignantly concludes, Israel may believe it is winning a war, but in reality, it is tearing itself apart, sacrificing not just the lives of its enemies, but its own soul and standing in the world.

---

Sources: Haaretz, UNICEF, The Washington Post.
Link to original article: Haaretz Opinion - Aug 4, 2025

Media Review: Shifting Public Opinion and Israel’s Media Suppression Amid Gaza’s Devastation

Media Review: Shifting Public Opinion and Israel’s Media Suppression Amid Gaza’s Devastation

    Wednesday, July 30, 2025   No comments

Media review: How Democracies Fail to Confront Corruption

Media review: How Democracies Fail to Confront Corruption

    Tuesday, July 01, 2025   No comments

 At the Edge of Accountability 

Recently, U.S. President Donald Trump, who himself has faced 88 criminal and civil indictments and was nonetheless elected to a second term, issued a public demand that Israel’s judicial system drop all charges against Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Trump called the trial a “travesty of justice,” labeling the Israeli legal proceedings a “witch hunt,” and implied that U.S. aid to Israel might be contingent on ending Netanyahu’s prosecution. This unprecedented intervention—an indicted American leader defending an indicted Israeli leader, who is also facing war crimes charges at the International Criminal Court—raises a profound question: How does democracy, if it is to be taken seriously as a system of values and not merely of process, guard against corruption and the rise of authoritarian figures cloaked in democratic legitimacy? This moment is not just politically volatile; it exposes uncomfortable contradictions within how democracies perceive themselves and others.

The indictment of elected leaders in democracies such as Israel and the United States raises difficult and urgent questions about the integrity of democratic systems. When prime ministers or presidents face criminal charges—whether for corruption, abuse of power, or other serious offenses—it is natural to wonder whether democracy has failed to produce ethical and responsible leadership. But while such developments highlight vulnerabilities in democratic practice, they also reveal certain institutional strengths. Democracy does not guarantee virtuous leadership; it guarantees the opportunity for accountability. Whether that opportunity is seized—or manipulated—depends on the strength of institutions and the moral commitment of both leaders and citizens.

One of the core principles of a functioning democracy is that no one, however powerful, is above the law. The fact that legal institutions in places like the United States or Israel can bring charges against sitting or former leaders speaks to the resilience of the rule of law. In authoritarian systems, leaders often operate with impunity; in democracies, they may still face scrutiny and legal consequences. In this respect, the indictment of a head of state can be viewed not as a failure of democracy, but as evidence that democratic institutions are, at least in part, doing their job.

However, this view becomes more complicated when we consider how democracies respond to similar situations in different parts of the world. When elections in the Global South produce leaders with questionable records or populist agendas, Western democracies are quick to dismiss those outcomes as the result of “sham elections” or “corrupt processes.” Yet when similarly compromised figures rise to power within the West—figures under indictment, or credibly accused of serious misconduct—those same governments often insist that the outcome must be respected as the will of the people. They demand deference to the democratic process at home, while undermining or delegitimizing it abroad. This double standard reveals a deeper truth: in many cases, democracy is treated less as a value system than as a political instrument—embraced when convenient, disregarded when not.

Such inconsistencies are damaging not only to international credibility, but to democracy itself. If democratic legitimacy is defined not by values—such as accountability, justice, and equal representation—but by outcomes that serve particular interests, then democracy becomes hollow. The insistence that democracy must be respected when it produces indicted or corrupt leaders in Western nations, while being denied that legitimacy elsewhere, exposes the erosion of democratic ethics. It becomes clear that the principle of democracy is sometimes wielded more as a shield for power than as a reflection of shared values.

Moreover, in deeply polarized societies, even the mechanisms of accountability begin to fracture. Voters may see legal indictments not as a signal of wrongdoing, but as a partisan attack. In such an environment, democratic institutions remain formally intact, but their moral authority is weakened. Leaders who are under investigation—or even convicted—may be rewarded with public support rather than rejection. Far from being disqualified, their defiance becomes a badge of honor. This speaks not only to the failings of political elites, but to a broader cultural crisis in democratic societies: the erosion of civic norms, the rise of partisan loyalty over public ethics, and the loss of a shared commitment to the common good.

While the indictment of elected leaders does not necessarily prove that democracy is broken, it does serve as a warning. It reveals the tension between democratic form and democratic substance—between holding elections and cultivating a culture of accountability and ethical governance. The fact that such tensions are more readily condemned in the Global South than confronted at home suggests that democracy, in the hands of powerful nations, is often invoked more as a geopolitical tool than as a universal standard.

Ultimately, the health of democracy cannot be judged solely by whether elections occur, or whether leaders are indicted. It must be measured by the integrity of institutions, the honesty of public discourse, and the degree to which citizens demand responsibility and justice from those who govern them. Democracy may still provide the tools to hold leaders accountable, but those tools are only effective if people are willing to use them—not selectively, not cynically, but consistently, and in defense of the values democracy is supposed to serve.