More LaLiga clubs join pact to cap ticket prices for away fans




Washington, DC - The midterm elections in the United States are in full swing, with early voting starting in most states.
The results will set the tone of US foreign and domestic policy for the rest of President Donald Trump's term. Control of both chambers of Congress - the Senate and the House of Representatives - is at stake.
If the Democrats flip one of the two chambers, which are currently under the control of Trump's Republican Party, they can thwart Trump's legislative agenda.
And if they can gain control of the Senate, they can block his judicial nominees. The upper chamber is also responsible for confirming cabinet appointees, ratifying treaties and holding impeachment trials.
There are 35 seats in the 100-member chamber up for grabs in this year's election, which will conclude on 3 November.
The current makeup of the Senate is now 53-47, so the Democrats need to flip four seats without losing any to reclaim the majority in the legislative body.
In most Senate races, the results are all but known before the votes are cast due to the political makeup of the states where the contests are playing out.
Barring a miracle, Republicans will win in Alabama, and Democrats will win in Massachusetts. That leaves a handful of competitive states that will determine the fate of the Senate.
The New Arab looks at the candidates in five key close races and where they stand on the issues.
The Senate contest in Michigan is one of the most closely watched races in the election. Abdul El-Sayed, a progressive public health advocate, is taking on Mike Rogers, a Trump-backed former Congress member.
In recent weeks, Rogers and his allies have tried to focus the race on El-Sayed's Muslim identity, smearing him with baseless accusations of ties to the Muslim Brotherhood, Hezbollah, Hamas, and Iran.
Trump has repeatedly mocked El-Sayed's name. "His name is actually Abduladadalalala. It's Adulbabababababa Mohammed Al-Sayed," the US president said at a rally last week.
El-Sayed has pushed to refocus the race on the issues - particularly the affordability crisis, tariffs and the rise in the price of gasoline linked to the Iran war and his support for universal healthcare.
The progressive Democrat opposes US aid to Israel and argues that Washington should focus on investing in communities at home.
He has accused Israel of carrying out a genocide in Gaza - an allegation backed by leading human rights groups and United Nations investigators.
"I oppose the illegal and unjustifiable war in Iran and demand an immediate end to the hostilities," El-Sayed says on his platform.
Rogers initially supported the war with Iran, calling the decision to launch the conflict the "right thing to do".
But the former Republican legislator curbed his enthusiasm for the conflict as it dragged on and proved unpopular with voters. "The war with Iran needs to end, and end quickly," he said in a campaign ad in September.
Rogers is a staunch supporter of Israel. "When I get to the United States Senate, I will continue to unconditionally support Israel's right to defend itself," he said earlier this year.
In a sign that highlights the declining popularity of Republicans, Democrats are mounting a competitive Senate challenge in deep-red Texas, which has been a Republican stronghold for decades.
Public opinion polls have shown Democratic State Representative James Talarico neck-and-neck with Republican Attorney General Ken Paxton.
Talarico has focused his campaign on fighting corruption, closing tax loopholes and lowering the cost of living. Paxton has presented himself as a defender of Trump's agenda, emphasising securing the southern border against irregular migration.
On foreign policy, Talarico calls for conditioning US aid to Israel. He broadly backs Israel's right to "defend itself", while focusing his criticism of Israeli atrocities in Gaza and the West Bank on Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
"As a former teacher, seeing the death and the destruction in Gaza, seeing what’s happening to children in particular, makes me sick to my stomach," he said at a CNN townhall last week.
Talarico has stopped short of calling the atrocities a genocide, saying that the issue is a legal determination that should be made by international courts.
He has pledged to work to "end the forever war in Iran that’s driving up the cost of gas and groceries".
In contrast, Paxton has backed Trump's military action in Iran, but in a recently leaked audio recording he bemoaned the war's impact on gasoline and diesel prices.
"It's the war, it's gas prices, it's diesel," he said when asked about the issues dragging his campaign, according to Axios, which first reported on the leaked remarks.
Paxton is a strong supporter of Israel. As attorney general, he has defended and enforced laws to penalise companies and individuals that boycott Israel.
Maine generally leans Democratic in presidential elections, but Republican Susan Collins has won five consecutive elections in the northeastern state, earning her a reputation as one of the most tenacious politicians in the country.
This time, Democrats are hoping to use the mounting anger against Trump to finally topple the 73-year-old senator.
But the Democratic push was off to a terrible start after the party's nominee, Graham Platner, stepped down due to allegations of sexual misconduct.
Platner was replaced by former state Senate President Troy Jackson.
Collins, who has shown willingness to break with Trump, has promoted herself as an experienced and hardworking "common sense" leader.
Jackson has focused on his deep roots in the state as a former logger and supporter of workers' rights.
The Democrat agrees that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza. "When I'm in the US Senate, I’ll never vote in favour of US taxpayer-funded military aid to Israel," he wrote in a social media post in July.
Collins is an unflinching advocate for Israel and has backed continuing military aid to the US ally, calling herself a "strong supporter" of the assistance, which totals at least $3.8 billion annually.
On Iran, the Maine senator has been a rare Republican dissenter against the conflict, voting repeatedly with Democrats to curb Trump's war powers.
Jackson, however, has argued that Collins' presence in the Senate tilts the balance in favour of Republicans and enables Trump's agenda, including the Iran war.
"Senator Susan Collins says that she voted against [the war] nine times, but she didn’t have the votes," Jackson said during a debate earlier this month.
"Well that sounds like then we probably ought to have Democrats in charge of the US Senate so that we have the votes."
Alaska is another traditional Republican stronghold where Democrats are making gains and hoping to stage a big surprise.
The race pits Trump-backed two-term senator Dan Sullivan against former Democratic Congresswoman Mary Peltola. The Democratic candidate's campaign slogan is "fish, family, freedom", focusing on lowering costs in Alaska.
Sullivan is running on his record of helping push large tax cuts and "historic investments" in the US military. The senator has voted consistently against Democratic efforts to restrict Trump's ability to continue the war with Iran.
Last week, he appeared to blame the Democrats' energy regulations for the rising fuel prices in an effort to defend the war with Iran.
"Ladies and gentlemen, the conflict in the Middle East is temporary. The true forever war is the national Democrats’ war against Alaska oil and gas and our jobs. That’s the forever war," he said, according to Alaska Public Media.
Peltola has been overtly critical of the war and Sullivan's votes in support of Trump's military campaign in Iran.
"This war is driving up our energy bills and hurting Alaskans with no end in sight," she said earlier this month.
Both Peltola and Sullivan are staunch Israel supporters. Sullivan has voted repeatedly on pro-Israel measures in Congress, including sponsoring a measure to deepen military cooperation with the US ally.
When she served in the House of Representatives between 2023 and 2025, Peltola was one of the most uncompromising pro-Israel Democrats.
In 2024, she joined Republicans in voting to ban then-President Joe Biden from withholding weapons from Israel. She backed a bill to impose sanctions on the International Criminal Court in response to the arrest warrant against Netanyahu.
Former Democratic Senator Sherrod Brown is attempting to make a comeback in the Midwestern state that has been trending in Republicans' favour over the past decade.
He is taking on Jon Husted, who replaced Vice President JD Vance in the Senate after the Trump administration took office last year.
Beyond the single seat, the contest is of symbolic importance. It would restore the Democrats' competitive edge in the Midwestern state and serve as an early dig at Vance, who is expected to run for president in 2028.
Brown has made his opposition to the Iran war a key theme in his campaign.
"Jon Husted has voted 14 times to continue the reckless Iran war as gas and grocery prices continue to rise," he recently wrote in a social media post. "I’ll vote to end the war the first chance I get."
In March, Husted proclaimed that the war was going "much better than anyone thought it would".
But like other Republicans in competitive races, he has tempered his support for the conflict.
"The war needs to come to an end as quickly as possible so that we can lower gas prices," he told Politico earlier this month.
Husted and Brown are more closely aligned when it comes to Israel. Both are strong supporters of the US ally.
Ali Harb is a journalist based in Washington, DC. His work focuses on US foreign policy, elections, and Arab American communities
Follow him on X: @Harbpeace
Edited by Charlie Hoyle




Two days of military talks between Lebanon and Israel at the headquarters of US Central Command (CENTCOM) in Tampa, Florida, appear to have ended without a breakthrough, as Israel continues its attacks on southern Lebanon and rejects Lebanese demands for a third-party mechanism to verify the Lebanese army's operations.
Lebanese military sources told The New Arab on Thursday that no further negotiating session had been scheduled, although concluding bilateral discussions with CENTCOM could still take place.
The sources said the United States was expected to issue a statement on the talks, which have been dominated by disagreements over monitoring the Lebanese army's activities in designated pilot areas of southern Lebanon and Israel's refusal to halt its military operations.
"No breakthrough has been recorded so far. There is intransigence in Israeli positions, while the Lebanese side is holding firm to its demands that steps must be reciprocal," the sources said.
They stressed that Lebanon could not be expected to fulfil its commitments unilaterally while Israel continued its attacks, bulldozing operations, demolitions, explosions and ground incursions.
The Lebanese army has also rejected Israeli demands for direct coordination between the two militaries on the ground.
Instead, Beirut is insisting on an independent verification mechanism involving third parties, potentially including France, the United States and the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL), similar to the committee established to monitor the November 2024 ceasefire agreement.
"The Lebanese army is fully carrying out its duties, and all Israeli allegations against it are false," the military sources said.
They argued that Israel's continuing attacks and violations were the main obstacles to the army's deployment and the implementation of agreements, as had been the case following the ceasefire on 27 November 2024.
Lebanon is demanding that Israel halt its military attacks and operations across the south, which continue to endanger the lives of the area's residents.
Beirut is also pressing for farmers to be allowed access to their land to harvest crops, alongside broader demands for Israel's withdrawal from Lebanese territory, the release of prisoners, the return of displaced residents and reconstruction.
Lebanese authorities are calling for a clear timetable to implement the commitments outlined in a framework agreement signed with Israel in Washington on 26 June.
The agreement is intended to advance Israel's withdrawal from Lebanese territory while the Lebanese state extends its authority across the country through its own security forces and establishes a monopoly over weapons.
However, major disagreements remain over how these commitments should be implemented.
Israel has refused to expand the pilot areas designated for Lebanese army operations beyond a single zone announced in July, which includes the towns of Srifa, Froun and western Zawtar.
Israeli authorities claim the Lebanese army has failed to disarm Hezbollah in these areas and are pushing for direct military coordination through joint operations rooms.
Lebanon has rejected this demand, insisting that any verification must be carried out through an independent mechanism rather than direct cooperation with the Israeli military.
Israel has also refused to suspend its attacks or abandon the security zone it has established in southern Lebanon.
Washington, meanwhile, is attempting to narrow the differences between the two sides and maintain the negotiations, viewing the June framework agreement as the principal route towards stability and security.
The diplomatic deadlock coincided with another day of Israeli military escalation in southern Lebanon.
On Thursday, Israeli forces carried out two explosions in the towns of Tallouseh and Bani Hayyan in the Marjayoun district, according to reports from southern Lebanon.
Israeli aircraft also struck the outskirts of Qantara in Marjayoun and Kfar Tebnit in the Nabatieh district.
Israeli tanks were seen advancing towards the Nabaa al-Khoukh area on the outskirts of Hebbariyeh in the Hasbaya district and artillery shelling tageted several towns in south Lebanon.
The attacks have continued despite diplomatic efforts to secure an Israeli withdrawal and advance arrangements for the Lebanese army's deployment in the south.
Lebanese officials have repeatedly said that the ongoing Israeli military operations are obstructing reconstruction, preventing displaced residents from returning home and exposing civilians to further danger.
Separately, Lebanon's cabinet was due to meet at Baabda Palace on Thursday afternoon under the chairmanship of President Joseph Aoun, with a politically sensitive explosives case expected to feature on the agenda.
The Justice Ministry has requested that the case involving explosives seized in Dahr al-Baydar on 5 October and in al-Qasr, in Baalbek-Hermel governorate, on 9 October be referred to the Judicial Council, Lebanon's highest court for cases involving state security.
The request also covers any other matters found by investigators to be directly or indirectly connected to the seized explosives.
According to information obtained by The New Arab, extensive political and judicial consultations have taken place, including discussions involving Lebanon's president, prime minister, and Speaker of Parliment, who represent the country's three largest religious sects, over the potential consequences of referring the case to the Judicial Council.
Approval of the request could trigger a confrontation with Hezbollah.
Some political figures have favoured delaying a decision until security and judicial investigations, which remain at an early stage, have progressed further.
However, several ministers, particularly those opposed to Hezbollah, are insisting that the case should be referred to the Judicial Council.
Sources close to Justice Minister Adel Nassar told The New Arab that the seriousness of the case required such a referral.
"The gravity of the case requires its referral to the Judicial Council. This concerns the country's national security, and there can be no leniency or complacency," the sources said.
They stressed that investigations were continuing and that the ministry was determined to pursue the case without granting special treatment to anyone.
"We are determined to move forward with the investigations, without leniency towards anyone. That era is over," they added.








The leader of the UK's largest education union has strongly criticised a recommendation for schools across England to adopt the controversial International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism, warning that it risks silencing legitimate criticism of Israel and stifling classroom discussions about the Gaza genocide.
Daniel Kebede, general secretary of the National Education Union (NEU), condemned the proposal as the "wrong approach", arguing that the contested definition could further restrict freedom of expression on Palestine by blurring the distinction between antisemitism and criticism of Israeli government policies.
His criticism followed the publication of Sir David Bell's independent review into antisemitism in schools, which recommended that educational institutions adopt the IHRA definition, despite longstanding concerns from civil liberties groups and academics about its implications for political speech.
The government has accepted all 27 recommendations in the review, with Education Secretary Lucy Powell announcing plans to write to educational institutions urging them to adopt the definition.
In a statement on Wednesday, Kebede warned that the recommendation could exacerbate the very problems it was intended to address, leaving teachers uncertain about how to discuss Israel's actions in Gaza without facing accusations of antisemitism.
"The IHRA’s contested framing risks blurring the line between antisemitism and legitimate criticism of the Israeli government and the genocide in Gaza, leaving teachers with uncertainty when they need clarity," Kebede wrote.
"A young person’s opposition to the Gaza genocide and scrutiny of the Israeli government are not, in themselves, antisemitic."
The IHRA definition has faced sustained criticism over its accompanying examples relating to Israel, which opponents argue risk conflating anti-Zionism and legitimate criticism of Israeli state policies with antisemitism.
Many have warned that its adoption by public institutions can create a chilling effect on freedom of expression, particularly when discussions concern Israel's occupation of Palestinian territories, its treatment of Palestinians and its military campaign in Gaza.
Kebede warned that promoting the definition in schools could deepen this chilling effect, discouraging teachers from addressing the Gaza genocide and preventing pupils from engaging openly with one of the most contentious political issues of recent years.
He also raised concerns that restricting classroom discussions could push young people towards unsafe online spaces to explore issues they feel unable to raise at school.
"Recommending the IHRA definition risks tightening the chilling grip already stifling classroom discussion of the Gaza genocide. Schools need practical support to confront antisemitism, not a contested framework that risks shutting down legitimate discussion," Kebede said.
He also rejected suggestions that teachers were failing to uphold their responsibilities when addressing politically sensitive issues.
"This report will not tackle antisemitism. It wrongly calls into question the professionalism of teachers. The existing rules on impartiality in the classroom are very clear and teachers take that responsibility very seriously."
While welcoming "a strengthened focus on antisemitism" and acknowledging an increase in antisemitic incidents following the outbreak of the Gaza war in 2023, Kebede urged the Department for Education to "go a step further" by strengthening efforts to tackle all forms of racism.
His intervention highlighted concerns that adopting a disputed definition could undermine efforts to combat antisemitism by creating confusion over the boundaries between racial or religious hatred and legitimate political expression.
The Bell review sets out 27 recommendations aimed at tackling antisemitism in schools, including calls for education unions to establish robust policies and procedures and ensure their members receive adequate training to recognise and respond to antisemitic incidents.
It also recommends that allegations of antisemitism involving trade union officials, representatives or members be addressed consistently under existing union policies on racism and prejudice.
Bell said reports from Jewish organisations and teachers highlighted concerns that some activities within education unions had become increasingly "politicised" on issues including the Israel-Palestine conflict.
However, the recommendation to promote the IHRA definition has brought renewed attention to longstanding objections that its examples concerning Israel could be used to police political speech rather than simply identify antisemitic prejudice.
The controversy centres on the risk that teachers and pupils could feel pressured to avoid legitimate discussions of Israeli government policies for fear that their comments might be interpreted as antisemitic.
Addressing the House of Commons, Powell defended the government's response to the review.
"All children and teachers should be able to go to school or college free from fear," she said.
She added that schools and colleges would receive further support on discussing "controversial and sensitive" issues and geopolitical events in an informed and impartial manner.
Bell, who led the independent review, also acknowledged the importance of allowing pupils to discuss Israel's military campaign in Gaza without experiencing "prejudice or hatred".
In an interview with the Press Association, he said it was "not good enough" that some teachers and pupils felt conversations about the conflict were "too difficult to touch" when the subject arose in classrooms.
He decided against recommending an outright ban on teachers and pupils wearing political symbols or flags, describing such a measure as "unworkable" and "untested legally".
However, he suggested that individual schools and colleges could use existing staff and pupil codes of conduct to establish rules governing what could be worn.
Pepe Di’Iasio, general secretary of the Association of School and College Leaders (ASCL), told The New Arab that the review had offered "clearer guidance and practical support for schools and colleges".
He said it could help teachers navigate discussions about complex and divisive political issues.
"Antisemitism, like all forms of discrimination, is utterly unacceptable and abhorrent," he told The New Arab.
"Unfortunately, there are differing views on what may or may not constitute antisemitism and what is a legitimate expression of views over the conflict between Israel and Palestine."
He added: "Schools and colleges are often caught in the middle of divisive issues and find themselves having to navigate between strongly held opinions on either side of an argument."
Di’Iasio stressed that "schools and colleges already robustly protect children and young people from all forms of racism, bullying, and harassment".
He said they complied with strict legal obligations prohibiting the promotion of partisan political views and added that "they take this responsibility extremely seriously".

