Netanyahu and Trump are claiming ironclad unity on Gaza, but the world isn’t buying it—and for good reason, as the “full coordination” narrative is looking thinner than ever with the fate of hostages, Gaza’s future, and American interests all dangling in the balance. Netanyahu and Trump: Projecting Unity While Disagreements Simmer Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and President Donald Trump have been on a Washington charm offensive, trumpeting “full coordination” on the Gaza ceasefire and hostage deal. Their synchronized statements at the White House and Capitol Hill reek of the kind of political theater that’s supposed to reassure allies and silence critics. Yet, behind this display of unity, the real story is anything but harmonious. Reports continue to circulate of sharp disagreements over the pace and terms of a ceasefire, the depth of Israeli troop withdrawals, and—most explosively—who will govern Gaza when the bombs stop falling. The facts are hard to ignore: while both leaders insist they won’t accept a deal “at any price,” the truth is that domestic and international pressures are forcing their hands in ways neither wants to admit. Public statements have become exercises in carefully worded ambiguity. Netanyahu insists Israel’s “goal is to end Hamas rule in Gaza” and that any deal must not compromise Israeli security. Trump, on the other hand, is eager for a diplomatic win to bolster his election-year narrative and expand the Abraham Accords. He has said, “We want to have a ceasefire, we want to have peace, we want to get the hostages back, and I think we are close to doing it.” The reality? Negotiations in Qatar are stuck on the extent of Israeli troop withdrawals, with the U.S. and Arab states pushing for a bigger Palestinian Authority role while Israel digs in its heels. As usual, what’s being said for the cameras is a far cry from what’s happening behind closed doors. Hostage Deal and Ceasefire Talks: The Sticking Points Negotiators have reportedly settled three of four core issues surrounding the latest ceasefire and hostage release proposal, but the last hurdle is a doozy: how far will Israeli troops pull back during a proposed 60-day truce? The deal on the table would see the staged release of 18 Israeli hostages and the remains of 10 others. In exchange, Israel would enact a phased withdrawal from parts of Gaza and pause its military campaign for two months. This is supposed to be the breakthrough that brings relief to hostage families and signals progress on the humanitarian front, but the devil—as always—is in the details. Israel is resisting demands for a total withdrawal, citing security risks, while Washington and its Arab partners insist that only a substantial pullback will make a real difference for civilians and pave the way for a new governing authority. In #Gaza, Trump calls for a ceasefire, but Netanyahu insists on completely destroying #Hamas. Netanyahu views this moment as crucial to striking a final blow to Iran. The region faces a fragile and uncertain future. #MiddleEastPolitics #Diplomacy pic.twitter.com/wbkhWH1CYf — خبرنگار آزاد (@Af_Journalist) July 9, 2025 This standoff is about more than military tactics. It’s a test of whether Netanyahu can hold his fractious coalition together while fending off international criticism, and whether Trump can parlay a “peace deal” into another legacy-defining photo op. Meanwhile, the Palestinian Authority is being propped up as the ideal caretaker for post-war Gaza, even though Israel has spent years undermining its credibility and capacity. The notion that any of these players are actually on the same page is, frankly, laughable. The only thing they all agree on is that none of them wants to be blamed for failure. Regional Fallout and the American Political Calculus The drama isn’t confined to the negotiating table. Regional players like Saudi Arabia and Qatar are piling on the pressure, demanding a role for the Palestinian Authority and threatening to withhold normalization with Israel if their conditions aren’t met. Meanwhile, the Biden administration—which took a beating for its previous border and foreign policy disasters—is desperate to look tough on security and international leadership. Trump, no stranger to leveraging foreign crises for domestic gain, is walking a fine line between supporting Israel and keeping Arab states on board for his Abraham Accords expansion. The endgame here is far from clear, and every day of delay means more instability and suffering on the ground in Gaza. Tensions rise in the #MiddleEast as #DonaldTrump and #BenjaminNetanyahu differ on Iran. Trump seeks limited diplomacy to block nuclear weapons, while Netanyahu demands regime change and ending Iran’s enrichment program. #USIsrael #IranCrisis pic.twitter.com/xBPeVOFq4H — خبرنگار آزاد (@Af_Journalist) July 9, 2025 All this maneuvering leaves American voters—especially those who’ve had it up to here with government overreach, endless foreign entanglements, and bills for wars we never voted for—watching a high-stakes poker game where the house always wins and taxpayers always foot the bill. The only certainty is that the political class, in its quest to “manage” these crises, is once again showing how little regard it has for transparency, accountability, or, heaven forbid, the will of the people. The so-called unity between Netanyahu and Trump may play well on camera, but the facts—and the consequences—speak for themselves. Sources: ABC News Times of Israel CBS News

Washington elites are pushing for America to “maximize” its obligations to Ukraine—never mind that the so-called obligations were never more than squishy diplomatic promises, not a blank check for endless U.S. involvement in a foreign war. Washington’s Ukraine “Obligation” Myth: More Spin Than Substance Americans have been told for years that we owe Ukraine nearly limitless support, thanks to some “obligation” cooked up in the Budapest Memorandum of 1994. Here’s the reality: the U.S. promised to respect Ukraine’s sovereignty and to wag a finger at anyone who threatened it with nukes, but that’s where it stopped. There’s zero legal requirement for U.S. troops, weapons, or billions in aid. In fact, the agreement carefully avoided any NATO-style mutual defense language. The average American, already overtaxed and struggling with inflation, should ask: who benefits from pretending we’re on the hook for Ukraine’s never-ending war tab? It’s not the American people. It’s the same old D.C. crowd, their defense contractor pals, and foreign policy hawks who never met a foreign entanglement they didn’t love—so long as someone else’s son or daughter is sent to fight it. The “maximizing obligations” crowd is banking on the public not reading the fine print. But experts and legal scholars agree: the Budapest Memorandum was never a war guarantee, and anyone claiming otherwise is selling snake oil. Even the architects of America’s foreign policy admit, when pressed, that Ukraine is not covered by any treaty requiring U.S. intervention or unlimited aid. Policy Whiplash: The U.S. Can’t Decide What It Wants Recent months have been a masterclass in government confusion. The Trump administration suspended military aid and intelligence sharing to Ukraine in March—only to restore it days later after internal squabbling and arm-twisting from allies. Then, in July, the Pentagon abruptly halted shipments of crucial weapons, including Patriots and artillery shells, leaving Ukraine exposed just as Russia unleashed its heaviest aerial attack yet. By the following week, there were signals of restarting “some” aid, but nobody in Kyiv—or Congress—actually knew what would happen next. It’s a mess. And yet the same people who demand “maximized” obligations can’t define what that means or how much more they want from U.S. taxpayers. On July 31, Europe could hand over €210 billion to Vladimir Putin. Yes, you read that right. Frozen Russian assets, meant to hold the Kremlin accountable for invading Ukraine, could go back in Moscow — and the clock is ticking. @Jziskina explains what needs to be done. pic.twitter.com/Xpwk5IwIQi — Razom for Ukraine (@razomforukraine) June 18, 2025 This flip-flopping has European leaders in a panic. They’re suddenly realizing that maybe, just maybe, they’ll have to step up and spend their own euros instead of relying on Uncle Sam’s endless credit card. America’s credibility, they say, is at stake. But maybe what’s really at stake is the D.C. gravy train, which now finds itself on a bumpy track as voters demand accountability—and a return to constitutional principles, not foreign quagmires. Realists vs. The Intervention-Industrial Complex On one side, the so-called “interventionists” insist that propping up Ukraine is essential to defending the “international order.” On the other, the realists—and anyone with a shred of common sense—point out that the U.S. Constitution gives Congress, not the president or unelected bureaucrats, the power to declare war and appropriate funds. The Budapest Memorandum is not a treaty, and it sure doesn’t override American law or the will of the people. As the debate rages, the Biden-era fantasy of blank checks is colliding with economic reality and the hard limits of U.S. interests. We need more than long-range missiles, sophisticated weapons and air defense. Justice means money – €300bn in frozen russian assets must go to Ukraine. pic.twitter.com/Z6SKzicLDK — Kira Rudik (@kiraincongress) June 16, 2025 Meanwhile, the real-world consequences of this elite confusion are dire. Ukraine’s battlefield position is weakening without steady aid, European allies are eyeing new defense taxes, and Russia is emboldened by the spectacle of Western disunity. But here’s the kicker: none of this was inevitable. The U.S. could have stuck to its founding principles—avoid foreign entanglements, defend our own borders, and put America first. Instead, we’re treated to lectures about “maximizing” obligations that never legally existed, all while American families pay the price at the pump, the grocery store, and on tax day. Sources: Can Ukraine Fight Without U.S. Aid? Seven Questions to Ask Trump, Ukraine Support, and Europe’s Allies In Hindsight: The U.S. Pivot on Ukraine and Shifting Security Council Dynamics Trump, Ukraine, Russia, and the Aid War

'She wasn't telling the truth'

'our fates are interlinked'

FACT: While Florida's Randy Fine Is a Boorish Cretin, Democrats Screaming 'Foul' Can Suck a Stone

The left-wing media’s hysteria revolving around the Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s arrests and deportations nationwide had cranked up to the next level. On Thursday's edition of MSNBC’s Morning Joe, co-host of MSNBC’s The Weekend Symone Sanders-Townsend claimed people will see “racial profiling” as ICE continued to uphold the law. Meanwhile, another claimed ICE was “kidnapping” people.  Co-anchor Jonathan Lemire framed the segment around fear of “high profile clashes” in “Democratic controlled cities” in the country, where ICE was focusing their efforts.  It’s worth noting that cities like Los Angeles, with Democrat leadership, were places that supported illegal immigration via their so-called sanctuary city polices. It’s no wonder why ICE was in those places.      As the former Senior Advisor and Chief Spokesperson for Vice President Kamala Harris, Sander-Townsend made statements regarding ICE’s motivation for the arrests that boiled down them just being racist:   Yeah, this is about to be very clear. It's about race. It's not necessarily about risk because we have seen ICE go into disproportionately communities of color, disproportionately Latino and Hispanic. And I would also argue I would also note black and brown, black communities and go to courthouses... This is about, at this point, meeting a particular arbitrary quota, frankly, that the White House care of Stephen Miller has set forward. And we are going to continue as we get closer and deeper and deeper into the summer, as we go into the fall to see racial profiling.   The facts were that it’s easier for people who lived in Latin America and South America to travel north, which was why Latinos and Hispanics contribute to a major population of illegal immigrants. That fact was completely taken out of context for the purpose of what ICE was for. ICE was not arresting people based on their race, but rather if they were in the country illegally.    The liberal media have shown support and sympathy towards illegal immigrants receiving the same privileges as American citizens, and they have forgotten that ICE was established to uphold the law and protect the country.  Former White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki contributed to the conversation by suggesting that ICE was “kidnapping” people. She also whined about them arresting people who lost the cases in immigration court:  They are going into communities where people don't have criminal records or people are law-abiding, even people who are going to their court hearings and they're targeting people...So when they say they're going after the worst of the worst and the hardest of the hardest, what they're actually doing to meet that, try to meet that 3000 number that Stephen Miller and others have set is they're going after what they consider low hanging fruit. People who are law-abiding, some who pay taxes, who are going to courtrooms to meet that number, and they're going into cities like L.A. to create a vision of chaos as if they are there to calm things, when really they are the ones who are creating the chaos. So this is quite performative.   Jen, they broke the law if they were here illegally. Defending illegal immigrants as “law-abiding” is hypocritical.    Between “racial profiling,” “kidnapping,” and not getting the concept of the word illegal, the liberal media pushed the agenda that ICE was the villain for keeping America safe and upholding the law. Meanwhile, they promoted those who were here illegally.   Click here for the transcript. MSNBC’s Morning Joe 7/10/25 9:24 a.m. Eastern JONATHAN LEMIRE: And Jen Psaki, a Trump official yesterday telling me that because the border is basically been closed, you know, that the heat, this this official suggests they're victim of their own success. Therefore it's not easy to find these deportations. You know, that's because they have to therefore go into the cities to make their numbers. And that's what I think is being telegraphed here is those, as Julia mentioned, those high profile clashes in Los Angeles, those ICE agents there leading to protests. President Trump has all but telegraphed that this summer we should expect a lot more of that in cities, particularly Democratic controlled cities across the country. JEN PSAKI: Well, I also think it's quite performative, Jonathan. I mean, they are – they have National Guard troops they shouldn't be using in this way. They are going into communities where people don't have criminal records or people are law abiding, even people who are going to their court hearings and they're targeting people. A lot of the reporting I've seen lately has been about 50 percent. I don't know what the exact latest numbers, but about 50 percent of the people who they are arresting, some of them kidnaping, some of them deporting are not, don't have any record at all. So when they say they're going after the worst of the worst and the hardest of the hardest, what they're actually doing to meet that – try to meet that 3,000 number that Stephen Miller and others have set, is they're going after what they consider low hanging fruit. People who are law abiding, some who pay taxes, who are going to courtrooms to meet that number. And they're going into cities like L.A. to create a vision of chaos as if they are there to calm things, when really they are the ones who are creating the chaos. So this is quite performative. It's also about trying to hit these numbers and not going after people who are doing anything in society aside from being law abiding. SYMONE SANDERS-TOWNSEND: Yeah, this is about – to be very clear. It's about race. It's not necessarily about risk because we have seen ICE go into disproportionately communities of color, disproportionately Latino and Hispanic. And I would also argue – I would also note black and brown –black communities and go to courthouses. We've seen them target traffic stops. We have seen viral videos of ICE approaching people in their yards. This is about, at this point, meeting a particular arbitrary quota, frankly, that the White House care of Stephen Miller has set forward. And we are going to continue as we get closer and deeper and deeper into the summer, as we go into the fall to see racial profiling. And we're going to see these stories come out more and more. And I have to wonder what local municipalities, but also Congress and just law abiding citizens think about this? Are we a country where we are comfortable, where we are going to racially profile people who are here based on the color of their skin, because Stephen Miller and the President wanted me to quota? That's the question we have to ask ourselves. MIKA BRZEZINSKI: Symone Sanders-Townsend, thank you. We'll be watching The Weeknight at 7 P.M. Eastern right here on MSNBC. And Jen Psaki, thank you as well. We’ll, of course, be watching The Briefing Tuesdays through Fridays at 9 P.M. Eastern. 

If owning a farm was a dream of yours, there’s finally some good news. A new action plan announced by Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins will prevent foreign countries from buying up U.S. farmland, as well as protect U.S. land from being used in ways that could harm America.“With this announcement today, we are taking this purpose and our American farmland back. American agriculture is not just about feeding our families but about protecting our nation and standing up to foreign adversaries who are buying our farmland, stealing our research, and creating dangerous vulnerabilities in the very systems that sustain us,” Rollins said.“Today we announced the USDA’s national farm security action plan. This plan includes seven key action items. The most important, the first of the seven, is securing and protecting American farmland ownership, actively engaging at every level of government to take swift legislative and executive action to ban the purchase of American farmland by Chinese nationals and other foreign adversaries,” she continued.BlazeTV host Sara Gonzales thinks it's crazy that foreign adversaries were ever allowed to buy any American land in the first place.“Farmland, houses, developments. I don’t care what it is. I think it’s kind of crazy that we allow that to begin with, but particularly with farmland,” Gonzales says, noting that in the state of Texas, the farmland Chinese nationals were buying were “peculiarly near military bases.”“And looking at this, the geography of it was very, very scary. Apparently, that’s not just in Texas, that is across the country,” she continues, adding, “Over 227,000 acres of farmland are owned by Chinese investors.”After several Chinese nationals were caught attempting to smuggle dangerous pathogens that could poison Americans via crops, Gonzales finds it all a little disturbing. "This is a no-brainer to me. Like, they are owning 227,000 acres of farmland, and they have every intention of bringing in pathogens and bacteria," she says, adding, "They are always 10 steps ahead of us, and we're asleep at the wheel. And thankfully, it looks like in this instance, that won't be happening anymore under the Trump administration."Want more from Sara Gonzales?To enjoy more of Sara's no-holds-barred take to news and culture, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

Weighing more than 54 pounds, this bit of space debris is one of just 400 known Martian meteorites — and it's expected to fetch up to $4 million at auction. The post The Biggest Martian Meteorite Ever Found On Earth Is Set To Go On Auction appeared first on All That's Interesting.

From career-defining performances by Queen and U2 to the public awareness raised for Ethiopian famine relief, take a look back at the historic 1985 Live Aid benefit concert. The post ‘You Just Knew That It Was Super Special’: 33 Thrilling Photos From The Live Aid Concert appeared first on All That's Interesting.

Economic Illiterate Elizabeth Warren Thinks Trump's Big Beautiful Bill Is the Reason College Is Expensive