When David Becomes Goliath: Jon Stewart and Peter Beinart on Gaza

 

Jewish voices are not united on Gaza. Some defend Israel’s campaign as a matter of survival. Others, equally rooted in Jewish faith and memory, say the opposite: that the occupation and siege are tearing away at Judaism’s moral foundation.

On The Daily Show (source, full episode here), Jon Stewart sat down with writer and scholar Peter Beinart to wrestle with a question that refuses to go away: when does defending a people’s security become the very thing that endangers it?

A Personal Cost

Beinart admitted that speaking against Israel’s war in Gaza has cost him friendships. Judaism, he said, is at the centre of his life. Losing the approval of fellow Jews hurts, but silence would cost more. He stressed that he lives freely and safely, unlike Palestinians in Gaza. That contrast fuels his decision to speak.

Good Jew, Bad Jew

Stewart raised the old accusation. Critics call him a “bad Jew” for challenging Israel. But what, he asked, makes a Jew “good”? Stewart argued that Judaism itself gave him moral clarity: if history teaches Jews to side with the underdog, how can they ignore Palestinians? “What happens when David becomes Goliath?” he asked.

Beinart answered that Jewish texts show both sides of human nature. Jews have been victims, but they have also become rulers and oppressors. To him, honesty means acknowledging both roles.

The Word Nobody Wants to Say

The conversation turned to the harshest accusation: genocide. Beinart cited B’Tselem, Israel’s most prominent human rights group, which has declared that the policy in Gaza meets that definition. Stewart noted a New York Times column that claimed Israel could not be guilty of genocide because it was too strong to kill slowly. Beinart dismissed the logic as “cynical,” pointing instead to deliberate starvation and siege tactics.

Safety Bound Together

Beinart’s central claim was blunt. Israeli Jews will never be safe unless Palestinians are safe. Security cannot be built on inequality. He recalled Martin Luther King’s phrase that Americans were “bound in a single garment of destiny.” The same, he said, applies to Jews and Palestinians.

The Failure of Nonviolence

What, Stewart asked, about those who insist Palestinians should resist peacefully? Beinart pointed to 2018, when thousands in Gaza marched non-violently. Israeli soldiers shot into the crowds, maiming so many that an amputee soccer team was later formed. Boycotts are criminalized. Appeals to the International Criminal Court are punished with sanctions. “The message to Palestinians,” Beinart said, “is that non-violence doesn’t work.” That leaves room for groups like Hamas to thrive.

A Fortress or a Home?

Stewart recalled being taught that Israel was necessary to guarantee Jewish survival. But if Jews require an armed fortress to exist, he asked, has humanity already failed? Sharon’s withdrawal from Gaza in 2005 might have been an opening. Instead, settlements in the West Bank expanded and settler violence rose. Hope dimmed.

Beinart reminded him of Salam Fayyad, the most moderate Palestinian leader in recent decades. In 2013, Fayyad admitted defeat: despite rejecting violence, he could not stop settlements “for a single day.” His failure, he warned, would only empower Hamas.

Listening to Palestinians

Why do many American Jews defend equality under law in the United States but not in Israel? Beinart answered simply: because they rarely hear Palestinians. Palestinian voices are excluded from synagogues, schools, and mainstream media. When people go and see life under occupation, when they listen, he said, their views often change.

A Painful Book

Stewart ended by describing Beinart’s new work, Being Jewish After the Destruction of Gaza, as painful but necessary. The book, he said, forces readers to decide for themselves.

Credit: Conversation from The Daily Show (YouTube link). Full video: Jon Stewart with Peter Beinart.

US Ends Dropbox Visa Waiver for Indians: Delays Expected

 

The United States will end the Dropbox interview waiver program for most Indian visa applicants on 2 September 2025. The decision will affect workers, students, and families renewing a wide range of non-immigrant visas.

A Shortcut That Saved Time

For years, Dropbox allowed certain applicants with a clean visa history to avoid an in-person interview. They could submit documents at a designated centre and wait for a decision. The system was popular in India, which has some of the highest visa demand in the world.

That convenience will soon disappear. President Donald Trump signed the One Big Beautiful Bill Act on 4 July, closing the option for almost all categories. Officials say the move will improve security by ensuring every applicant is screened face to face. Immigration advocates warn of longer queues and cancelled travel plans.

Categories Affected

The change will end interview waivers for renewals of H1B, H4, L1, F, M, O1, and J visas. Children under 14 and adults over 79 will also lose automatic exemptions. Every applicant must now meet a consular officer in person.

Some exemptions remain. Holders of diplomatic or official visas such as A/G, NATO, and TECRO will still qualify for waivers. A small number of B1/B2 tourist and business visa renewals may skip interviews under strict rules, although officers can still request one.

Impact on India’s Travellers

India already has some of the longest wait times for U.S. visas. Ending Dropbox is expected to increase demand for appointments and push delays into months.

• Technology firms that depend on H1B staff could see projects slowed.

• Students admitted to U.S. universities may face postponed start dates.

Some applicants with August and September Dropbox appointments have already been moved to in-person interviews.

A Broader Policy Direction

Critics say the change is part of a larger shift toward deterrence rather than facilitation in U.S. immigration policy. Supporters see it as necessary to maintain national security and uphold thorough screening procedures.

With the change taking effect soon, Indian travellers are being advised to apply early, prepare for interviews, and expect longer processing times. For many, the period of quick and easy visa renewals is ending.

Americans Find a New Life in Malta’s Island Sun

 

Source: Adapted from the CBS News segment “Some American retirees are finding the good life by going global,” available at CBS News YouTube.

Some American retirees are trading their old routines for a slower, sunnier life overseas. On the small island of Gozo, part of Malta’s Mediterranean archipelago, two Californians have done just that.

A Decision Made with Time in Mind

Mary Charlebois and Kevin Scanlon did not arrive here by accident. “Hit 70 and it’s, you know, hey, I only have so much time left. It’s time to enjoy it,” Kevin says. They came for the view, the music, and the dancing — and they found all three.

They also found something that had felt impossible back home: the ability to stop working without giving up comfort. In the United States, their Social Security payments alone would not have been enough. In Gozo, it is more than enough.

Their rent is $750 a month. Groceries cost about half of what they paid in California. They no longer need a car, and rental income from their U.S. home helps them meet visa requirements.

The Healthcare Question

For many, the issue of medical care is a deciding factor. Mary spent two days in a Maltese hospital and came away impressed. Part of their residency requires private health insurance, which is cheaper than Medicare and covers everything. “The quality of care was great,” she says.

Choosing English Over Guesswork

For Lisa Kleintjes Kamemoto, another American retiree, Malta offered something Italy could not: language familiarity. “Retiring in a country where English is widely spoken drew me here,” she explains. She navigated the visa process with the help of PricewaterhouseCoopers and now lives under Malta’s retirement program for third-country nationals.

Lisa’s Social Security payments qualify her for residency, just as they do for around 800,000 Americans living abroad. She has recreated much of her old life from Seattle: volunteering at an animal shelter, joining a Bollywood class, going to the gym, and walking everywhere. Friends and family visit regularly. “I’ve had a visitor every month since I moved here,” she says.

A Wider Trend

Jennifer Stevens, executive editor of International Living, says more Americans are looking overseas than ever before. Her publication’s seminars help them explore options for living or retiring abroad.

A recent conference in Portugal gave attendees a three-day look at life in Europe — from budgeting to house hunting. Ron Devlin, 52, from Los Angeles, attended to compare Portugal and Greece. “This was a fast-track opportunity to hear about all those countries at once,” he says.

Stevens points out that budget remains the leading motivator. “You really can live well on a Social Security check in a lot of these places — and at a level of comfort hard to match in the U.S.”

For Lisa, the choice was about more than numbers. “I knew I needed another adventure in my life,” she says. Her motto is simple: “Nothing happens unless first a dream.”

United States Tightens Visa Rules, Raising Costs for Millions

 

The United States has announced sweeping changes to its visa system. The rules, linked to President Donald Trump’s renewed push for tougher immigration enforcement, will affect tourists, students, workers, and green card applicants across the world — with a sharp impact in India.

Tourist and Business Visa Bonds

From 20 August, applicants from countries with high overstay rates may have to pay a refundable bond of between $5,000 and $15,000. The aim is to reduce visa violations in countries with weak documentation systems. Zambia and Malawi are the first to be named under the program, with more countries expected to follow. Officials can waive the bond in some cases.

$250 Integrity Fee

Beginning in 2026, most non-immigrant visa categories — including tourist, student, work, and exchange programs — will include a $250 integrity fee. This fee acts like a deposit and is returned if the traveller leaves the United States on time or changes status legally. Diplomats, Canadians, and citizens from visa waiver countries will be exempt.

Tougher Marriage-Based Green Card Checks

From 1 August, couples applying for marriage-based green cards must present stronger evidence of a genuine relationship. This includes joint financial records, photographs, travel documents, and personal correspondence. In-person interviews will be required more often. Officials will examine past immigration history more closely, and even approved petitions will not block removal if other grounds for deportation exist. These measures apply to both new and pending applications.

Extra Fees on Top of the Integrity Fee

A bill signed on 4 July adds more non-refundable charges:

• $24 I-94 fee for all immigrant visa holders

• $13 ESTA fee for visa waiver travellers

• $30 EVUS fee for Chinese nationals with 10-year tourist or business visas

These will add significantly to the cost of travel, especially for applicants from developing countries.

Mandatory In-Person Interviews Return

From 2 September, nearly all non-immigrant visa applicants, including children under 14 and seniors over 79, must attend in-person interviews. This ends the pandemic-era waiver policy. The rule covers the B1/B2 tourist and business visas, student visas in the F and M categories, work visas such as the H1B, and exchange visitor visas in the J category. Limited exemptions remain, but consular officers can require interviews at their discretion.

Impact on Indian Travellers

Indian tourists and business visitors will be among the most affected. The cost of a U.S. visa could rise from $185 to about $472 when adding the integrity fee, the I-94 fee, and the standard application charge. Indian students, workers, and families may face longer wait times and heavier documentation demands.

The U.S. government says these changes will stop visa abuse and improve border security. Critics say they will discourage genuine travellers, raise costs unfairly, and increase pressure on legal immigrants. Some experts warn of a drop in international student numbers, reduced tourism, and more complex family reunification cases.

The direction is clear: entering the United States will now be more costly, more complicated, and for many, more uncertain.

Turkish Airlines COMPLETE Business Class Experience in 2024

Trump’s Tariff War Is Backfiring and America Is Paying the Price

 

Donald Trump’s second term was meant to be a return to economic nationalism. He promised to revive his America First agenda and put U.S. manufacturing back at the centre of the economy. Central to this plan was a sweeping tariff regime. The goal was to punish trade partners, bring production home, and shift the global balance of power in America’s favour.

What has unfolded is very different. The tariff war is harming the U.S. economy, straining its alliances, and failing to achieve the promised gains. The country is now facing higher inflation and slower growth.

Trump often claims that foreign countries are paying for the tariffs. In reality, most of the cost is falling on Americans themselves. Goldman Sachs estimates that the United States will bear about 75 per cent of the tariff burden. This means it is U.S. consumers and businesses that are absorbing the impact.

---

Who Is Paying the Bill?

American manufacturers are already under pressure from high borrowing costs. The new tariffs have added billions to their expenses for imported components. These extra costs are reaching the consumer. Goldman Sachs projects that households will pay an extra 5,200 dollars each year because of price increases. Inflation, which had eased for a time, is climbing again as the Consumer Price Index responds to the tariff shock.

At the moment, U.S. businesses are covering much of the tariff cost. They have warned, however, that they cannot continue this for long without risking closure. By autumn, as the latest round of tariffs takes effect, Goldman Sachs expects that 67 per cent of the cost will fall on consumers, 8 per cent on businesses, and 25 per cent on foreign exporters.

The average U.S. tariff rate now stands at 17 per cent, a level last seen in the Great Depression. For an economy that depends on global supply chains, this is a serious warning sign. From automobiles to pharmaceuticals, many industries need foreign-made inputs. Tariffs on these goods do not create new jobs in the United States. They raise costs, reduce profits, and sometimes push production overseas.

---

The Reality of Manufacturing

The evidence shows that manufacturing is not returning to states like Ohio or Michigan. Labour costs there remain too high. Instead, production is moving to countries such as Vietnam, Thailand, and India. These shifts create new manufacturing hubs abroad, far from the reshoring that Trump had promised.

Trump believes tariffs will fill the U.S. Treasury and allow him to offer tax cuts. Yet as the cost to consumers grows, his political standing is falling. A YouGov poll now places his approval rating at 41 per cent, with disapproval at 55 per cent.

---

Tariffs as a Tool for Foreign Policy

Trump has used tariffs to apply pressure on foreign governments in ways that go beyond trade. The reaction has been strong. Spain cancelled its order for F-35 fighter jets after a dispute over defence talks. Switzerland froze deliveries of aircraft and business jets to the United States after facing a 39 per cent tariff. Brazil is preparing countermeasures in response to steep duties on steel and agricultural exports.

The European Union and Japan have resisted Washington’s pressure. Meanwhile, the U.S. still imports heavily from China. Many goods from Vietnam and Thailand also contain Chinese-made parts. Rather than reducing America’s dependence on Beijing, the policy is encouraging Asian economies to diversify their trade relationships in other directions.

---

India’s Refusal to Bend

India offers a clear example of how this strategy can fail. Trump targeted New Delhi with 50 per cent tariffs because it continued to buy discounted Russian oil. The move was meant to coerce India into changing its policy. It did not work.

Instead, India has strengthened ties with Russia, opened new channels with China, deepened trade talks with Europe, and made it clear that tariff threats will not dictate its foreign policy. Indian exporters in textiles, jewellery, pharmaceuticals, and electronics are now turning to other markets. Experts in the United States warn that Trump’s approach could push India closer to the BRICS group and weaken the 190 billion dollars in annual trade between the two countries.

---

Political and Economic Consequences

Trump once promoted tariffs as a political victory and a sign of economic independence. That image is fading. Inflation is eroding household budgets. Manufacturers warn of layoffs. Public frustration is growing.

In April, Amazon planned to display a “tariff cost” indicator on product pages. This would have made it clear to shoppers that they were paying a hidden tax. Reports suggest the White House stepped in to block the move, and Trump himself called Jeff Bezos. The feature was abandoned, but the story made headlines.

---

The Final Outcome

The tariff war was meant to show strength. Instead, it is seen by many as a sign of poor economic management. Allies such as Canada, Spain, and Switzerland are distancing themselves. Emerging economies like India are more assertive in defending their policies. China, far from being weakened, has been able to adapt and in some areas benefit.

For Washington, this policy is proving costly not only in terms of money but also in terms of credibility.

The RSS–Nazi Ideological Connection: Forgotten Passages from History

 

In the late 1930s, the world was drifting towards catastrophe. Adolf Hitler had tightened his grip on Germany, turning its politics into a brutal campaign for racial purity. Far from Europe, in colonial India, a Hindu nationalist leader was watching closely. His name was M.S. Golwalkar, the chief ideologue of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS).

Golwalkar’s 1939 work, We, Or Our Nationhood Defined, is not a dusty relic of nationalist thought. It is a document that openly admires certain aspects of Nazi Germany’s policies towards minorities. In one passage, he points to Germany’s “purging the country of the Semitic races” as an example of national pride and cultural preservation. The language is chilling. It carries the certainty of a man who saw no contradiction in praising the most notorious ethnic cleansing of the 20th century while imagining a future for India built on similar exclusions.

The RSS was founded in 1925, at a time when nationalist movements across the world were experimenting with paramilitary discipline, ideological training, and the politics of identity. Its members wore uniforms, marched in drills, and cultivated a collective sense of purpose. These outward similarities to fascist movements were not accidental. Golwalkar’s vision rested on a core belief: India was, and must remain, a Hindu nation.

In his book, he offered minorities only two options. They could completely assimilate into Hindu culture, abandoning their own religious and cultural identities, or they could remain in the country “wholly subordinated” to the Hindu majority, without political rights or privileges. This was not a passing remark. It was the foundation of a political worldview that saw pluralism as weakness.

The parallels to Nazi ideology are difficult to ignore. In 1930s Germany, the Jewish community was one of the most assimilated minorities in Europe. Within a decade, relentless propaganda turned them into a political underclass. The lesson for majoritarians everywhere was simple: demonising a minority can transform a numerical advantage into a weaponised majority, bound together by fear and resentment.

The RSS absorbed that lesson. Over decades, it built an organisational culture that normalised suspicion towards Muslims and other minorities. Historical disputes over temples and mosques became political flashpoints. Economic restrictions, such as bans on cattle trading, targeted livelihoods. Laws and campaigns, from the Citizenship Amendment Act to the rhetoric around “love jihad,” deepened the sense that some citizens would never be equal.

This ideological inheritance is not unique to India. Across the world, nationalist movements have borrowed and adapted elements of fascist thought. In Myanmar, Buddhist nationalism used similar arguments to justify the expulsion of the Rohingya. In Sri Lanka, Sinhala Buddhist leaders framed Tamil identity as an existential threat. The pattern is familiar: define the nation in ethnic or religious terms, paint a minority as incompatible, and then use state power to enforce the hierarchy.

Golwalkar’s book is rarely quoted in full today. Its most dangerous lines are often downplayed or dismissed as products of a different era. But the continuity of thought is visible. The language may have softened in some quarters, yet the underlying principle — that belonging is conditional on cultural submission — remains alive in parts of India’s political discourse.

History offers no comfort here. The architects of exclusionary nationalism rarely declare their final intentions at the outset. They proceed step by step, normalising discrimination until it no longer shocks. By the time society recognises the danger, the machinery is already in place.

The RSS–Nazi connection is not about claiming India is Germany in 1939. It is about recognising that ideas travel, adapt, and survive. When those ideas are rooted in the belief that diversity is a threat, the outcome is rarely peaceful. Remembering Golwalkar’s words is not a matter of academic interest. It is a warning.