博客

New York City’s outgoing mayor, Eric Adams, has ignited a firestorm of criticism following his taxpayer-funded trip to Israel, where he declared that he ‘served’ Israeli Jews during his tenure. The remarks, made during a stop in occupied East Jerusalem, have drawn sharp backlash online, with many questioning the implications of foreign influence on U.S. politics. Adams’ statement, ‘I wanted to come back here to Israel and let you know that I served you as the mayor,’ has been widely condemned as inappropriate and divisive. His office defended the trip as a multi-day visit to meet Israeli officials and explore religious sites, but the timing and tone of his comments have fueled accusations of prioritizing foreign interests over local concerns. The controversy is further amplified by the contrasting stance of mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani, who pledged to remain in New York City to address pressing domestic issues rather than embark on symbolic international visits. Adams’ tenure has been marked by aggressive handling of pro-Palestinian protests, including NYPD crackdowns on demonstrations and student encampments. Critics argue that his actions reflect a broader effort to criminalize pro-Palestinian organizing, while supporters of Israel have reportedly urged him to take decisive measures against campus protests. The scandal surrounding Adams’ alleged acceptance of luxury travel and perks from Turkish businesspeople and government officials has further eroded his credibility, raising questions about whose interests he truly serves. As New York City grapples with record homelessness, a housing crisis, and rising costs, Adams’ decision to travel abroad in his final weeks in office has been met with widespread disapproval. His ‘I served you’ remarks, delivered not to New Yorkers but to Israeli Jews, have deepened frustrations among constituents, particularly Palestinian, Arab, and Muslim communities. The incident underscores a broader pattern of Adams aligning closely with Israel while treating pro-Palestinian voices at home with suspicion. Mamdani’s contrasting approach has highlighted the divide between leadership rooted in local accountability and one seeking symbolic alignment abroad. The federal indictment against Adams adds another layer of scrutiny, accusing him of exploiting New York City’s public matching funds program and accepting illicit benefits in exchange for political favors. As the controversy unfolds, many are left questioning the integrity and priorities of their outgoing mayor.

In India, the distribution of freebies has become a cornerstone of electoral strategy, particularly in the lead-up to elections. From televisions and bicycles to gold ornaments, political parties have employed a variety of handouts to sway voters, blurring the lines between welfare economics and populism. Recently, cash transfers targeting women have emerged as a particularly effective tactic. For instance, a ₹10,000 ($112) cash handout to women in Bihar, India’s poorest state, is credited with contributing to a sweeping victory for Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s alliance in the state’s recent election. This strategy has also been replicated in other states, such as Maharashtra, where Modi’s party launched similar women-oriented financial schemes. Opposition parties have followed suit, promising comparable initiatives in their election campaigns. Economists like Jean Drèze argue that such giveaways, while sometimes wasteful, are often the only means by which India’s poor can extract promises from their political representatives. However, Modi himself has warned against the dangers of what he terms ‘revdi culture,’ likening election freebies to the frivolous distribution of sweets. The Indian Supreme Court has also sought to curb the distribution of ‘irrational freebies’ during elections. Despite these warnings, the practice of offering unaffordable handouts as electoral bait continues to dominate Indian politics. Research from brokerage Emkay Global highlights the fiscal pressures this creates. Bihar, for example, announced pre-election schemes amounting to 4% of its GDP, exceeding its capital outlay and diverting funds from long-term, job-creating investments. This trend is not isolated; 21 of India’s 29 states have exceeded the mandated 3% fiscal deficit ceiling, largely due to election-driven spending. The unsustainable nature of such populism is evident in Maharashtra, where the Ladki Bahin financial assistance scheme led to a 0.4% increase in the state’s deficit, forcing the government to roll back some promises post-election. The Reserve Bank of India (RBI) has flagged the rising burden of subsidies on state-level debt as a key concern. While overall state debt has declined to 28.5% of GDP, it remains well above the recommended 20% threshold, with subsidies for farm loan waivers, free electricity, and cash transfers exacerbating the issue. The RBI has urged states to rationalize their subsidy outgoes to avoid crowding out productive expenditure. Despite these warnings, the success of freebies in Bihar and the upcoming state elections in Tamil Nadu, Kerala, and West Bengal suggest that this trend is unlikely to abate. As Emkay Global economists Medhavi Arora and Harshal Patel noted, ‘This election outcome reinforces the freebie wave that has swept states in the last two years, and with more elections on the horizon, one can expect this race to the bottom to continue.’

Israel’s National Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir has sparked controversy by demanding the arrest of Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas should the United Nations recognize Palestinian statehood. In a provocative statement on X (formerly Twitter), Ben Gvir also urged targeted assassinations of senior Palestinian Authority (PA) officials, whom he branded as “terrorists.” He revealed that a solitary confinement cell at Ketziot Prison has already been prepared for Abbas, referred to by his honorific name, Abu Mazen. These remarks come ahead of a critical UN Security Council vote on a US-backed resolution endorsing a Gaza peace plan, which includes a “credible pathway” to Palestinian statehood. On Sunday, Kan News reported that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government is making last-minute diplomatic efforts to remove references to statehood from the draft resolution. The current draft suggests that conditions for Palestinian self-determination and statehood could be met following PA reforms and Gaza’s redevelopment. Meanwhile, the National Commission for Palestinian Popular Action (NCPPA) issued a strong statement rejecting US proposals for an externally imposed transitional administration in Gaza, labeling it as “a new colonialism.” The NCPPA, comprising various Palestinian groups and figures, emphasized that any governing body must reflect the will of the Palestinian people and uphold their right to self-determination, resistance, and freedom under international law.