Five months ago, four excited girls walked into a maximum-security area with their mother wearing the same black T-shirt printed with a photo of their father. Minutes later, he emerged from a building guarded by the military, amid camera flashes and television cameras, and looked at them with moist eyes from the other side of the fence. He could not approach or touch them. He had to respect quarantine, because in a few hours he would board the most powerful crewed rocket in history and head to the Moon. Without speaking, they said everything to each other, and the rest of the world understood them.
© Ashley Landis (AP Photo/Ashley Landis)
In late September, Israeli media reported that Netanyahu’s government intends to adjust access to key routes in the central West Bank. It plans to reopen Route 463 to settler-only traffic in the governorate of Ramallah and Al-Bireh.
Yisrael Gantz, the leader of the Yesha Council (an umbrella organization representing Israeli municipal councils across Israeli settlements in the West Bank and the Jordan Valley) confirmed that plans to reopen the road received preliminary approval and funding.
Preparations are also underway by the Israeli military to complete “the security, legal, and logistical” steps required to reopen the route (also known as Wallerstein Road).
The road was paved in 1994 under the directions of Pinchas Wallerstein, a founder of the settlement movement, to connect the illegal settlements of Beit El (north-east of Ramallah and Al-Bireh) and Dolev (north-west of Jerusalem).
However, following the outbreak of the Second Intifada in 2000, the Israeli army barred Israeli people from using the road for security reasons. They also placed a locked iron gate on its end near Ein Qiniya village, northwest of Ramallah.
Experts argue that Israel’s move will impact not only the governorate itself, but the entire occupied West Bank because of its central location, major metropolitan status, and role as a commercial hub.
To understand the repercussions of the route reopening, BreakThrough News spoke with Jamal Jumaa, a Palestinian activist, expert on Israeli settlement and apartheid-related issues, and coordinator of the Palestinian Grassroots Anti-Apartheid Wall Campaign (Stop the Wall).
Aside from dividing the governorate’s northern and southern halves, Jumaa noted that reopening the road is dangerous because it will block the center of Ramallah and Al-Bireh from two-thirds of its villages, which are situated to the west.
The prominent Palestinian activist added that when Israel builds such roads for settler traffic, it fences them off on both sides and prohibits the use of adjacent lands. The Israeli authorities consider those lands a buffer zone, citing the security of the settlers as their reason.
“This entails setting up military towers and checkpoints. The road will cut off continuously inhabited Palestinian villages north-west and south-west of Ramallah. Therefore, we are talking about the establishment of roughly four military checkpoints along the road,” he continued.
Jumaa pointed out that the road will complicate the life of Palestinians by restricting their access to vital healthcare and education facilities, including the Istishari Arab Hospital, Birzeit University, and the Arab American University.
He also noted that the intended reopening of the road “is part of dividing and dividing more Palestinians from each other.”
On the political level, Jumaa suggested that the road “hits the heart of the West Bank, which gives a clear signal to the Palestinian Authority that it has no sovereignty over anything.”
It is worth noting that since its establishment, the Palestinian Authority has designated Ramallah and Al-Bireh as a de facto administrative capital. Yet, this has not prevented the Israeli authorities from fragmenting and isolating the governorate by establishing illegal settlements, military outposts, checkpoints, and gates.
Brazil’s presidential elections are sparking reactions across the region. The economic (and, by extension, geopolitical) importance of this South American giant leaves no regional politician or social organization indifferent, as they know that much of the continent’s future is at stake at the Brazilian polls.
Flávio Bolsonaro, son of the far-right former president Jair Bolsonaro (who is in prison for conspiring to carry out a coup d’état against Lula da Silva), has received explicit support from Argentine President Javier Milei – a move that cost Buenos Aires a diplomatic crisis with Brasília due to the Argentine leader’s anti-Lula statements made on Brazilian soil.
Likewise, Flávio Bolsonaro enjoys the direct support of President Donald Trump. The US president has maintained a recent tradition (heavily criticized by many) of publicly expressing support for this or that far-right Latin American candidate who, upon winning the election, fully aligns their country with Washington’s foreign policy and joins the US-led military alliance known as the Shield of the Americas.
Trump has also imposed direct trade sanctions on Brazil over the conviction of Jair Bolsonaro, whom Trump calls a “friend.” In addition, the United States sanctioned the judge who convicted Bolsonaro, Alexandre de Moraes, sending a clear message of condemnation against the Brazilian justice system – a move that some political analysts have called foreign “interference” in the Brazilian judicial system.
Lula has also received support from another very important female leader in the region: Claudia Sheinbaum. In recent weeks, the president of Mexico has repeatedly highlighted the positive aspects of Lula’s administration: “I believe that President Lula has been a very good president … He has done an extraordinary job leading Brazil, and the indicators show it.” The endorsement of his candidacy has clearly been indirect, but given Mexico’s geopolitical importance, many in Lula’s Workers’ Party surely appreciate it.
Lula has also received support from neighboring countries to the south. In Uruguay, the ruling coalition, the Frente Amplio (FA), has shown direct and militant support for Lula’s campaign. Fernando Pereira, president of the FA, stated that the electoral battle in Brazil “is between democracy and barbarism.” He also warned against US interference in the elections: “Brazil will not accept U.S. interference in the election.”
Former Argentine Foreign Minister Santiago Cafiero, who is currently a member of Congress, also expressed his support for Lula: “If Lula wins, he will create a countercurrent to what has been taking hold in the region and demonstrate that there is resistance to these right-wing winds.”
This content is for members only. Visit the site and log in/register to read.
The artificial intelligence (AI) race between the United States and China has accelerated in model protection, supply chains and talent controls, even as the two nations’ leaders agreed last week to open a new dialogue on AI safety. A string of moves announced or uncovered this week shows that both sides are now guarding their […]
The post US bans Chinese data center gear as Beijing grounds its AI talent appeared first on Asia Times.
Is the AI bubble about to burst?
Tech giants like Alphabet, Amazon, Meta, Microsoft, and Oracle are betting over $4 trillion on data centers, chips, and AI models – but the profits aren’t there yet, and the cash is running out. Michael Roberts, economist and author of The Next Recession blog, joins Zoe Alexandra to break down the reality behind the AI boom – what he calls the biggest economic gamble in US history – and who will pay the price when the house of cards comes down.
Roberts explains how circular financing keeps AI companies afloat, what Chinese open-source models undercutting OpenAI and Anthropic mean for US workers, and why grassroots opposition to data centers is a reasonable response to hyperscale projects that drain power and water while creating few jobs. He warns of a 2008-style recession on steroids, and explains why following the money today matters more than the “shock message” of a coming AI apocalypse.
Read Michael Roberts’ article “AI: The Biggest Bet in U.S. History”: https://thenextrecession.wordpress.com/2026/09/26/ai-the-biggest-economic-bet-in-us-history/
For more deep dives into the global economy, tech monopolies, and the real-world impact of AI – and to watch full episodes of BT Live, join breakthroughnews.org as a member today!
#breakthroughnews
******
Rough transcript follows:
[Speaker 1 (Zoe):]
Is the US economy growing incredibly fast in the last year or is it a bubble that is about to burst? Tech giants like Alphabet, Amazon, Meta, Microsoft and Oracle are expected to pour more than four trillion into data centers, chips, and AI models by 2029. Brookings estimates total data center spending could reach 10.3 trillion by 2032. And that’s more relative to the GDP than railroads, the highway system, or the internet. Up to July, 37 billion has actually been spent on private data centers with most still not operating. In contrast, US private construction spending on everything else that it does, houses, apartment buildings, shopping centers, and so on was about 46 billion dollar below the levels in the year prior in the first seven months just of this year. So that’s a marked difference and a marked contrast. All of this is part of what experts have been referring to as the AI bubble. And so to discuss this, what does it mean for everyday people in the United States and the world, we are joined by Michael Roberts, socialist economist, author of several books on the world economy, and the author of a blog called The Next Recession. Thank you so much, Michael, for joining us today here on BT Live.
[Speaker 2 (Michael Roberts):]
Pleased to be with you, Zoe. An important matter to discuss, I think.
[Speaker 1 (Zoe):]
Extremely important. And your latest article, AI, the biggest bet in US history, was very important. We’re going to link it in the show notes because I highly recommend that everyone read this article. But of course in this article, you start out by saying that AI is the biggest economic bet in US history. As you report in this article, spending is set to pass 1 trillion next year. However, the free cash flow funding is falling below 100 billion. So, explain to us what does that gap mean? How does that impact ordinary people and is this something that we should be worried about?
[Speaker 2 (Michael Roberts):]
Well, it seems that American institutions, the financial institutions, companies, government are absolutely placing a huge bet on AI delivering faster growth for the United States, better wages for everybody, higher profits for companies. In fact, a whole new wonderful world is going to come from this AI, artificial intelligence. And that in order to do that they want to spend huge amounts and are spending huge amounts of money. Both the banks are lending money, private credit institutions are putting money into AI labs and into data centers dotted across the United States and there’s still more to come. This is a massive investment. Will it come off is the question. And also before it even does come off, will the money run out? Because already most of the money that’s been provided for this investment up to now has come from the profits from the big tech media companies who were making lots of profit from previous businesses, cloud businesses, internet businesses. Now they’re running out of how much money they can put in. So they’re now borrowing money. So the debt is rising to cover these AI investments which are taking place. And now within the next month or so, one of the big AI labs called Anthropic is going to launch a share issue where it wants to raise $2 trillion, a massive amount of money which it claims if it gets it will be able to deliver fantastic AI models that companies can use in every sort of part of their business and transform the situation, probably at the expense of a lot of jobs unfortunately for people who are currently working in them.
[Speaker 1 (Zoe):]
Well, I want to touch on something that you illustrate in the article with a slightly complicated graph, but you explain it very well, which is this concept of circular financing, and you explain how AI companies are essentially staying afloat because of this issue that you illustrated of lack of free cash flow funding. And you explain how firms are lending and buying from each other, and it seems that everyone is essentially dependent on each other’s spending. So can you exactly explain how this works and why is this actually a risk instead of a normal business practice?
[Speaker 2 (Michael Roberts):]
Well, it is in a way a normal business practice to lend money to companies in the hope that they will produce sales and revenues and that then they will get their money back. But that’s not the sort of lending that’s going on now. What’s happening is that the big companies in tech are lending money to the artificial intelligence labs as they’re called. The people who are making these models and these models are then claiming they’re making huge amounts of revenue. But the only way they’re making huge amounts of revenue is they’re getting loans from the other tech companies. So for example, Nvidia which makes all the chips for all these AI companies and for these data centers basically invested in all the AI companies and are lending the money to all the companies. So the result of course is that the companies appear to have plenty of cash but they have an obligation to deliver at some point huge amounts of revenues back to Nvidia. In the meantime this money keeps circulating around and we call it circular financing in the most complex way. That graph shows how much connection there is between all these different companies at all different levels not just in the US but right across the world now. And so if one company particularly a big one starts to lose confidence in making those investments or loses revenue and can’t achieve the targets that it has to make then the whole of this web could start to crumble and cause the bubble to burst and we see a massive reduction in the value of all these companies on the stock market and that will produce losses of jobs, losses of income for large numbers of people and we could then slip into a recession in the United States. That’s the risk. It’s so we have one huge bet now on the US economy that AI is going to work. It’s going to deliver huge profits for the companies that have made these loans and it’s going to deliver greater productivity for the economy as a whole. That’s a huge risky bet.
[Speaker 1 (Zoe):]
Well, you know, it’s interesting your piece comes out and we’re discussing it right now in the midst of this whole AI news crisis where we’ve seen several whistleblowers, so to speak, come forward and say, you know, AI could kill us all. AI could end humanity. We are racing towards a point of no return, talking about the possibilities that their AI models are unleashing on the people of the world. And it’s interesting because what you’re outlining in this article is that there’s a very real risk that will come before all of that, which is the economic impact. And so what do you think could be the fallout of any of this starting to collapse, whether it’s the circular financing or some of these investments not returning?
[Speaker 2 (Michael Roberts):]
Yeah. Well, I think an estimate was made by the IMF recently and they reckon that it could reduce the stock market value by up to 25%. It could knock back our national output in the US and in other major economies by four or 5%. If you remember the great recession that some of us remember back in 2008-2009 knocked about 3 or 4% off the national output of major economies for several years. This would be just as bad if not worse if we get into that situation. That’s the risk.
Now I have to say that at the moment stock market investors, financial institutions, AI labs, the big tech companies are completely optimistic. That’s not going to happen. They say they’re going to be able to deliver much better models which companies can use right throughout their businesses, get rid of a lot of costs, and dramatically increase their productivity and therefore sell more goods and services, and it will transform the situation for the US. The chairman of the US Federal Reserve said this is the most important thing. It’s going to keep prices down. It’s going to increase productivity. It’s going to transform the economy. That’s the optimistic message that remains.
Who actually mentioned, Zoe, the pessimistic message is it’s so powerful this AI apparently, it’s going to take over human beings’ jobs, but is actually going to control human beings and even annihilate them. I think that’s a sort of shock message which I think tells you two things: one is that the AI labs want to convince you that this is absolutely powerful and will work, and secondly, if it’s dangerous they’d like to slow down the process a little bit, so they want it both ways at the moment. They don’t want to spend too much more money. On the other hand, they want you to believe that it’s going to deliver. And that’s the big question we have now.
So I could call it a $64,000 question, but what we’re talking about is a four or $5 trillion question, which is if you know that the US economy produces labor and machines produce about $30 trillion a year, you can see that if that happened the loss of $5 trillion every year for the next five years that would be a disaster for the US economy.
[Speaker 1 (Zoe):]
No, that’s duly noted. And you know, let’s talk about data centers a bit because in your piece you wrote about how $37 billion has been spent on private data centers, and notably you included a graph showing that a lot of these are not operational yet. And across the United States and in many parts of the world, the construction of data centers has been met with mass grassroots opposition. Recent polling in the United States shows that not only do progressives and Democrats oppose the construction of data centers in their neighborhoods and their areas, but it’s actually something that’s a bipartisan issue for voters. Even Republican voters have joined in this mass opposition to the construction of data centers. How does that factor play into this? Because again $37 billion, it’s not $4 trillion, but it’s still a significant amount. Will the grassroots opposition to the construction of these centers have an impact on how this is playing out in the economy? Is that—we’ve seen a lot of vilification by these tech billionaires against people who are protesting the data centers saying that they’re anti-American. Break down a bit of this for us.
[Speaker 2 (Michael Roberts):]
Well, there are genuine worries for people who have got data centers near them. Data centers consume huge amounts of water. Why is that? Because there are computers and chips buzzing away in these data centers, increasing dramatically the temperature of what’s going on inside. So, they need to be cooled all the time. So they need a large amount of water to keep cooling the center down so that nothing catches fire or breaks down. At the same time they’re using huge amounts of electricity. They’re sucking in electricity in order to keep these computers going. And this is obviously going to have an effect both on the power situation and the water situation in many parts of the country wherever these data centers have been built. And that’s a perfectly reasonable, genuine grievance that people have: do we need this massive expenditure that’s going on in these centers sucking away power and water for us? And remember, people are getting jobs by constructing them, but once they’re built they don’t really have many people working in them. So they’re not going to increase employment dramatically at all.
Worse than that, Zoe, as you saw in that graph, large numbers of data centers that have been promised to be built haven’t been built. But companies have bought huge amounts of chips from Nvidia and other companies to put in these data centers because these semiconductor chips, that’s what really is going into them. And then they can’t put them in because the centers haven’t been built. So they’re sitting in warehouses just sitting there waiting to be used over the next 5 years maybe, because it takes about 3 to 5 years to complete a data center. So in that situation this is a real risk. Large amounts of money have been spent on computers, on chips, and started to construct data centers. But will people use them? Will companies use the AI models that are being produced to run their businesses and therefore use the data centers as a result? It remains to be seen. If they don’t, then there’s going to be a huge loss not only for companies that have invested in the data centers and the people looking to sell goods to people through the data centers, but also the people living next to the data centers will find that these things have been built for no reason whatsoever because they can’t deliver.
[Speaker 1 (Zoe):]
And you know, another aspect of this whole AI economy risk is the fact that the US is not the only country that is producing AI. It’s not only these US tech giants that are producing cutting-edge AI models, and you note the rise of Chinese open-source models, which are significantly cheaper in terms of the cost invested into creating them, but also the number of data centers etc. Overall, it’s a much cheaper investment in these open-source models, and this is overall driving prices down. And you refer to this as a classic contradiction, because there may be a rise in productivity, but the profits will also be kind of destroyed to be able to pay for this. So talk a bit more about this: what role do these open-source models play in this kind of drive to invest and this AI bubble in the United States?
[Speaker 2 (Michael Roberts):]
Two things. Open source means that basically if you’re a computer expert—not like me or you—you can go into the model and you can work out how it works, and you can get all the programs and algorithms out of it, and you can build your own model or use it for free. The models that the American companies are selling like Anthropic and OpenAI are not open source; you have to pay large amounts of money if you want to get control of that model—it’s proprietary and to use it.
Also, that means that Chinese companies, but not just Chinese companies, but other open-source companies in France and in other parts of Europe can sell their time when you go and prompt an AI model. You buy a token to use something in your business or for your information, and they can sell their tokens at virtually nothing at all because they’re not really charging any money for the source models that they’ve produced. This undercuts the position of OpenAI and Anthropic dramatically. They’ve had to reduce their charges for tokens, as they’re called in this business, for information and algorithms that companies can use in their businesses.
So there are two things here. Companies can set up their own open-source models to use in their companies; they don’t have to use OpenAI or Anthropic maybe, and also they can use the Chinese models or the open-source models very cheaply. So as you correctly say, this may improve the productivity of companies that are buying these things and using them, but it means that the profitability of the existing AI companies and the people who have made all these investments and loans to them may not be delivered as a result.
[Speaker 1 (Zoe):]
And you know, just before we let you go, I wanted to ask you one last question. It feels like we’re kind of on a precipice here, as you’ve laid out in terms of this bubble. What—of course you don’t have a crystal ball, neither do I—what should we be looking for in terms of triggering events which could change the current situation? It feels quite tenuous right now. What should people be paying attention to in terms of reports or things that could change this balance that you describe?
[Speaker 2 (Michael Roberts):]
Well, this boom, this bubble, if we want to call it that, could continue for another year, maybe longer—can’t be sure. So that’s why actually we can’t be sure. But what we should be looking for, for example, is if there’s suddenly a downturn in the demand to build more data centers, or if the share issue that Anthropic is making in November turns out to be a bit of a dud—they don’t raise the money they expect to do so, or if they raise the money then the price of the shares afterwards drops sharply. That would indicate a lack of confidence in the possibility of these AI models delivering what they claim they can deliver over the next few years. And if they don’t start changing the levels of productivity—if companies don’t adopt these AI models, and sometimes that can take a long time before they get round to doing it, putting it through their own companies and using it in an effective way—if that takes a long time, in the meantime all this money is being spent and it’s not getting a return, we will begin to see a fall in the profitability prospects for those companies and a withdrawal by the investors about making more investments. We see that beginning to happen. That tells you that the turn towards a bust from a boom in the AI stock market and elsewhere is beginning to happen. So it really depends on all of us, all the workers, company owners—not us, but—to embrace this for it not to be a boom-and-bust.
So at the moment they are embracing it. Don’t worry there, if you go into the mainstream media, it’s going to be fantastic. And I hope they’re right in some ways. We don’t want massive numbers of jobs to be lost, we don’t want a huge decline in output or people’s incomes because of this bust. But as we know in the history of capitalism, in the history of stock markets, that’s what happens quite often. And the example at the very beginning of the show when you showed the railway mania that happened in the 19th century, that collapsed before we got the railways; the dotcom bubble collapsed in the early 2000s, then we got the internet. This time we could have a huge AI bubble that collapses. We may still be left with artificial intelligence machines afterwards that we can use, but it’s going to be at a cost to us all, not only in the US, but across the world.
[Speaker 1 (Zoe):]
Well, Michael Roberts, thank you so much for joining us here on BT Live. Definitely recommend to anyone who’s watching, please check out his piece, follow his blog; you will thank us later. So, Michael, thanks for being here.
[Speaker 2 (Michael Roberts):]
Thanks for having me.
US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth announced Wednesday that three men will help lead a new Pentagon project on the “future of warfare,” even as he moves to eliminate hundreds of senior armed service leadership position, including many generals and admirals. Hegseth unveiled Project Meridian during his “State of the Force” address at Marine Corps Base Quantico in Virginia. The 120-day […]
The post Hegseth taps three to lead ‘Future of Warfare’ project appeared first on Asia Times.
On the evening of Wednesday, September 30, Bolivian police arrested Attorney General Roger Mariaca and raided the Attorney General’s Office in Sucre and Santa Cruz. The police action comes just days after the US State Department sanctioned and revoked the visas of Mariaca and 21 other Bolivians.
Analysts suggest that the timing of the US sanctions, Mariaca’s arrest, and the raids, are no coincidence, calling it “political pressure” related to a high-profile case.
Mariaca is leading the investigation into Argentine political consultant Fernando Cerimedo. The influential political advisor to Latin America’s far right allegedly influenced elections through social media bot farms, may be involved in drug trafficking, and was accused of ordering an assassination attempt on his ex-partner, Nadia Beller. She was shot three times but survived after undergoing emergency surgery.
Cerimedo has been in custody in Bolivia after attempting to leave the country by plane following the attack on Beller. Messages were found on his cell phone that, according to the prosecution, directly link him to the attempt on her life. Despite the emerging evidence against him, not only in ordering the hit on Beller, but also in crimes of corruption and drug trafficking, Cerimedo seems to have friends in high places, both in the Bolivian president’s office, and in the United States, that may have set the stage for the arrest of his investigator, Attorney General Roger Mariaca.
Argentine outlet Página 12, reported that, according to Beller, the sanctions against Mariaca were “a move by Donald Trump’s team to protect Cerimedo. As the Washington Post noted this week: ‘Cerimedo is the MAGA (Make America Great Again, Trump’s slogan) man across the entire continent.’”
In the report, Beller is quoted as saying: “Is this decision by the United States part of the fight for the Shield of the Americas or is it about protecting the MAGA network?…If the reason is corruption and drug trafficking, then they need to explain why the visa is being revoked for the attorney general who is investigating a network of that nature. Are they going after the investigator, or are they protecting part of the network?”
As evidence mounts against Cerimedo, the US instead accused his investigator, Mariaca, of allegedly soliciting and accepting bribes to facilitate drug trafficking and helping people involved in violent crimes escape justice.
After news broke of the US actions against him, Roger Mariaca had said he will not back down and will continue the investigations until the end: “[I received the news] with great surprise … I will not back down even one centimeter from the investigations that fall under my jurisdiction.”
He highlighted that while it is clear that the Cerimedo case has generated international intrigue, “no political pressure, whether national or international, can become an impediment to clarifying the facts which must be investigated.”
He was arrested two days later.
In addition to Cerimedo’s well-documented ties to high profile right-wing politicians across Latin America, including in Bolivia, recent revelations from ex-partner Beller, suggest that the powerful political consultant may have also been involved in the drug trade. In a leaked audio message, Cerimedo is allegedly speaking with a woman with whom he is arranging payment so that several flights can operate without excessive pressure from the authorities. Cerimedo mentions a man named Cabrera, whom the Bolivian media suspect is Franz Cabrera, the former head of the Special Force to Fight Against Drug Trafficking (FELCN), who was recently dismissed.
According to the investigations, they allegedly “were paid” for nearly 45 flights, amounting to $700,000, raising significant suspicions about the source of the funds that the political consultant is said to have handled.
The timing of the sanctions against Mariaca and his arrest have raised questions about US interference in the Bolivian justice system. But, as pressure escalates over the investigation into Cerimedo, the case is also revealing a far deeper web of political connection and influence than was initially known, placing it under renewed scrutiny. Wether the investigation is further disrupted or allowed to proceed, what happens next could expose even more about Cerimedo and the network of the Latin American far right.
This content is for members only. Visit the site and log in/register to read.
On Sunday, September 27, the Israeli occupation authorities announced a multi-day comprehensive closure of all crossings into and out of the West Bank, coinciding with the Jewish holiday of Sukkot.
The closure will continue until at least Saturday, October 3, further exacerbating already stifling restrictions on movement across the occupied territories.
The move came days after the Israeli forces blocked the main entrances and exits to the central West Bank governorate of Ramallah and Al-Bireh, which constitutes a major commercial hub and connects the territory’s northern governorates with those to the south.
In recent days, thousands of Palestinians were stranded at Israeli military checkpoints due to these restrictions that eventually culminated with the holiday-related closure. This includes vulnerable people such as patients, elderly people, pregnant women, and even preschoolers unaccompanied by their parents.
On Friday, September 25, media outlets reported that kindergarten students waited at the Atarah military checkpoint in northern Ramallah for nine hours the previous night, with their bus finally managing to bring them home after 10:30 PM.
Meanwhile, BreakThrough News documented the delay an ambulance of the Palestine Red Crescent Society (PRCS) faced at the same checkpoint on Monday, September 28.
On Sunday, Israel announced a comprehensive closure of all crossings into and out of the West Bank for the Jewish holiday of Sukkot. This has left Palestinians – workers, students, and even ambulances transporting patients – stranded at checkpoints for hours.
— BreakThrough News (@BTnewsroom) September 29, 2026
BT's Aseel Saleh… pic.twitter.com/XbI2o928QM
BreakThrough News also spoke to some Palestinian citizens at the checkpoint, who affirmed that they had to wait for many hours at each checkpoint inside the governorate on a daily basis.
A cargo driver from the southern governorate of Hebron, who travels to Ramallah every day, said that he sometimes has no other choice but to sleep in his car when facing extended delays.
Another Palestinian, who spoke on condition of anonymity, suggested that the Israeli measures in place aim to make the Palestinian people in the West Bank feel frustrated about their daily life, pushing them to leave their homeland permanently.
The provocative acts related to the current holiday were not limited to the comprehensive closure. On Tuesday, September 29, over 100 illegal Israeli colonists stormed the town of Beitunia and the nearby Ein Jaryout area, west of Ramallah, under protection of the Israeli forces.
Palestinian movement was heavily restricted and the entrances to the targeted areas were blocked by the Israeli military to clear the way for a large convoy of settler vehicles.
Moreover, the event involved the assault and detention of Palestinian residents and damage to property, alongside a religious march and prayers by settlers.
Journalists were also reportedly prevented from covering the events, under the direct threat of firearms.
On that same day, a group of settlers entered the Al-Tireh neighborhood and the adjacent town of Surda, situated just a short distance from Beitunia. During the incident, they raised Israeli flags at Al-Awda Square, obstructed traffic intersections, and hurled stones damaging vehicles.
The incursions in Ramallah were carried out one day after Israel’s National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir led hundreds of Israelis in a raid on Al-Aqsa Mosque.
During the assault, they performed dances inside the courtyards of the Al-Aqsa Sanctuary.
Referring to the Al-Aqsa Mosque as the Temple Mount (a biblical name), Ben-Gvir declared from there:
“October 7 was massive and enormous pain, great pain. But today, three years later, on the holiday of Sukkot. We can rejoice in many things.We are the masters of the Temple Mount. We are the masters of the prisons. We turned the lives of terrorists into hell.”
The statement of Ben-Gvir is seen by analysts as nothing but a blatant affirmation that Israel is an apartheid colonial state, which systematically seeks to ethnically cleanse Palestinians.
Is Ukraine becoming an “Eastern European Israel” for the EU? Sociologist and author Volodymyr Ishchenko joins Rania Khalek and Zoe Alexandra to discuss Ukraine’s eroding sovereignty, who profits from keeping the fighting going, and whether an off-ramp still exists to a war with Russia now costing Ukraine 27,000 casualties per month, according to Poland’s prime minister.
Europe is pushing record defense budgets and warning that Russia could test NATO within months. But this month Ukraine launched its largest drone attack yet on Moscow, Washington approved a $2.68 billion air defense sale, and the EU unblocked €6.6 billion in military aid. Is Europe readying to defend itself from a Russia with imperialist ambitions? Or preparing for a forever war, where profiteers abound and working-class Ukrainians do the fighting and dying at the direction of a state they’ve come to hate?
Ishchenko describes an emerging vision for Ukraine amongst Kyiv’s power brokers: a militarized, ethnonationalist frontier state serving as outsourced security for the European Union against Russia. Sound familiar?
“Maybe NATO at this point is not an alliance for security, but actually a source of insecurity in Europe.”
Watch full episodes of BT Live, join breakthroughnews.org as a member today!
This content is for members only. Visit the site and log in/register to read.
Em menos de uma semana, o Brasil vai às urnas para o primeiro turno das eleições que decidem presidente, governadores, senadores e deputados. E, em menos de seis, serão os Estados Unidos que irão votar em nomes para o Congresso e os governos estaduais.
Isso ocorre em um período no qual a popularidade de Donald Trump continua caindo nas pesquisas – levantamento do American Research Group aponta seu índice mais baixo de todos os tempos: 29% de aprovação.
Especialistas avaliam que os republicanos podem perder o controle da Câmara dos Representantes e, possivelmente, até mesmo do Senado. Isso abriria caminho para sérias investigações do Congresso contra o presidente por sua má conduta no exercício do cargo.
Mas esse movimento gera uma dúvida: diante de um declínio político de Trump, ele pode se tornar ainda mais agressivo e descontrolado para manter seu poder?
Na semana passada, nas Nações Unidas, Trump chocou o mundo ao ameaçar aniquilar o Irã — o que, se ocorresse, seria o maior crime contra a humanidade desde a Segunda Guerra Mundial. No entanto, sua ameaça não é um sinal de força, mas sim de fraqueza. Ele embarcou em uma guerra insensata, sem uma estratégia clara para vencer ou retirar os Estados Unidos do conflito de maneira elegante.
Nate Silver, importante analista político, ao acompanhar a média das pesquisas de opinião, constatou que 59% dos americanos são contra a guerra, enquanto o apoio a ela gira em torno de 34%.
Trump agora afirma, cinicamente, que a liderança da República Islâmica do Irã só concordará em negociações sérias após as eleições de meio de mandato. Ao mesmo tempo, ele acaba de rejeitar as iniciativas iranianas de sentar-se e conversar. Ele nega que os estoques de armas do Pentágono estejam esgotados, e o “Departamento de Guerra” — nome que ele deu ao Departamento de Defesa — oculta o número de soldados americanos feridos ou mortos durante o conflito.
Ainda assim, o Estreito de Ormuz permanece funcionalmente fechado, e os Houthis — aliados do Irã — estão bloqueando a navegação no Mar Vermelho. Além disso, eles explodiram o oleoduto saudita projetado para contornar o bloqueio imposto pelo Irã. Como resultado, os preços do petróleo e do diesel continuam exorbitantes, mantendo elevados os custos de alimentos, fertilizantes e transporte nos Estados Unidos e em todo o mundo.
Nesta semana, Trump decidiu demonstrar força política ao proibir o acesso à Casa Branca de dois canais de notícias a cabo de orientação moderada a esquerdista — a CNN e a MS Now (anteriormente MSNBC) — bem como do Politico, uma organização internacional de notícias que cobre política e políticas públicas. Ao anunciar a ordem executiva, o presidente insistiu que ela puniria veículos de imprensa que promovessem “fake news” (notícias falsas), uma medida que viola claramente a Primeira Emenda da Constituição dos EUA, que garante a liberdade de imprensa.
Em uma demonstração surpreendente de solidariedade, o grupo de imprensa (press pool) da Casa Branca — um pequeno conjunto de jornalistas, fotógrafos e emissoras de televisão que, em sistema de rodízio, compartilham a cobertura de notícias com outros membros da imprensa — concordou em boicotar conjuntamente qualquer reportagem sobre o presidente até que a proibição fosse revogada. Isso incluiu a Fox News, que, historicamente, tem apoiado Trump de forma leal. Ao defender a ordem executiva no tribunal, o governo Trump mudou sua justificativa, alegando que esses veículos de imprensa violavam a “segurança nacional”. O juiz, no entanto, ordenou a revogação da proibição, embora agora Trump tenha impedido a CNN de acompanhá-lo a bordo do Air Force One, o avião presidencial.
Não está claro por quanto tempo essas agências de notícias manterão o plano de negar ao presidente a cobertura televisiva que ele tanto deseja. Ainda assim, embora a proibição possa ter reforçado o apoio entre seus seguidores mais leais, ela também revela, de forma contundente, as tendências autoritárias do presidente.
De repente, a “segurança nacional” tornou-se a justificativa para quase todas as medidas que Trump adota para ampliar seu poder presidencial. Ele usou a expressão para defender a construção de seu salão de baile dourado, argumentando que abrigos (bunkers) e sistemas de segurança seriam instalados sob o megaedifício anexo à Casa Branca. Após críticos se oporem à construção de um arco do triunfo de cerca de 76 metros de altura em Washington, ele alegou que a estrutura estava sendo projetada como um local de “segurança nacional” para atiradores de elite e para repelir ataques de drones. Qualquer pessoa que já tenha subido ao topo do Arco do Triunfo, em Paris, sabe o quão surreal é essa afirmação.
Trump também parece ter violado a legislação eleitoral federal ao produzir um anúncio pago pelo governo dos EUA para promover sua candidatura à presidência — ação que não pode ser contestada porque a Comissão Eleitoral Federal não possui quórum de comissários para adotar medidas legais, devido à recusa de Trump em nomear novos membros para o conselho. O anúncio de trinta segundos exibe uma montagem de imagens de Trump, com frases que aparecem repetidamente na tela, proclamando: “O maior corte de impostos da história dos EUA” e “A América nunca será um país comunista”. A trilha sonora traz um coro cantando “ame-me” (love me), revelando, de forma patética, uma das principais vulnerabilidades psicológicas de Trump.
Quando repórteres questionaram a adequação do anúncio, a Casa Branca alegou tratar-se de uma mensagem de utilidade pública. A senadora de New Hampshire, Maggie Hassan, argumentou que se tratava de propaganda governamental proibida por lei federal, e o deputado de Maryland, Jaime Raskin, prometeu iniciar investigações logo após a posse do novo Congresso.
O tema anticomunista, no entanto, não é novidade no repertório de Trump. Quando o socialista democrata Zohran Mamdani venceu a eleição para a prefeitura de Nova York no ano passado, isso impulsionou uma pequena onda de vitórias semelhantes de candidatos de esquerda nas primárias do Partido Democrata em todo o país. Em resposta, os republicanos lançaram anúncios alegando que todos os democratas — até mesmo os mais moderados — eram comunistas radicais. Contudo, em sua eterna busca por amor e aceitação, Trump reuniu-se com Mamdani na semana passada em Nova York, elogiou o prefeito e insistiu que ele deveria ir à Casa Branca para aprender com o presidente.
O fervor anticomunista, no entanto, não se manifestou quando ele organizou uma visita de Estado de três dias de Xi Jinping, presidente da República Popular da China, supostamente para abordar as diferenças entre os dois países. Trump recebeu o presidente chinês no aeroporto, uma honra não concedida a chefes de Estado há décadas. Ele também insistiu em um grande tour pela Casa Branca, mostrando com orgulho um heliponto recém-instalado e a enorme escavação de uma obra que, em breve, será seu precioso salão de baile.
Embora Trump tenha estendido o tapete vermelho para receber o chefe do Partido Comunista Chinês, nada parece ter saído desse encontro. Não houve declaração conjunta sobre como controlar os aspectos perigosos da inteligência artificial ou sobre como encerrar a guerra com o Irã. As divergências comerciais foram deixadas para negociações futuras. Em vez disso, a China mostrou ao mundo que agora está em pé de igualdade com os Estados Unidos.
Trump também não vê problemas em convidar Vladimir Putin para uma reunião do G20 em Miami, em dezembro de 2026, ocasião em que provavelmente mostrará ao presidente russo sua residência na Flórida. Líderes europeus que apoiam os esforços da Ucrânia para se defender da invasão russa expressaram séria preocupação com o convite. Ao mesmo tempo, observadores políticos continuam intrigados com a forte afinidade de Trump por líderes autoritários.
Como tudo ao redor de Trump parece estar dando errado, seria de esperar que ele fizesse escolhas sensatas diante da derrota eleitoral prevista para o próximo mês. Embora uma maioria favorável na Suprema Corte dos EUA tenha acabado de emitir uma decisão que beneficia a iniciativa de Trump de permitir que o governo federal utilize listas de eleitores controladas pelos estados para excluir nomes dos registros — visando verificar a cidadania de supostos eleitores inelegíveis —, a medida provavelmente será ineficaz, dado o pouco tempo restante até as eleições.
Essa medida, que ignora uma tradição jurídica de duzentos e cinquenta anos segundo a qual governos estaduais e locais administram as eleições, é consistente com outras decisões da maioria de direita da Corte. Tais decisões reverteram práticas anteriores em que o governo federal intervinha nas eleições apenas para garantir o direito de voto dos cidadãos — especialmente quando muitos estados do Sul impediam a participação de negros.
No entanto, em uma derrota para a estratégia de Trump de restringir o voto nas próximas eleições — e em mais uma decisão da Suprema Corte —, seus aliados conservadores no Judiciário barraram suas tentativas de impedir o voto por correio, baseadas em alegações infundadas de que centenas de milhares de não cidadãos teriam votado ilegalmente em eleições recentes.
Considerando que os Democratas poderiam conquistar o controle da Câmara e talvez até do Senado, seria de se esperar que Trump fizesse tudo o que pudesse para favorecer seus candidatos em disputas acirradas. Ele anunciou recentemente que faria campanha em 35 dos distritos eleitorais mais disputados do país. Em vez disso, nesta semana ele estará no Alabama — estado que venceu com uma vantagem de 35 pontos percentuais sobre Kamala Harris em 2024 — e em Oklahoma, onde obteve 34,3% de votos a mais do que seu oponente democrata. Essas decisões políticas não fazem sentido, a menos que se entenda que Trump valoriza mais um grande comício em local fechado, cercado por um público que o adora, do que comparecer a locais onde seus candidatos enfrentam forte oposição.
À medida que as taxas de juros sobem e os preços de alimentos e energia aumentam, mais disputas parlamentares — que, num passado recente, provavelmente seriam vencidas por republicanos — passam a ser ameaçadas por candidatos democratas. Nesse cenário, candidaturas para o Congresso e para os governos estaduais tornam-se mais competitivas, forçando os republicanos a gastar centenas de milhões de dólares em locais que, há seis meses, eram considerados redutos conservadores. Em estados tradicionalmente controlados pelo Partido Republicano, candidatos democratas estão ganhando terreno nas pesquisas. No Texas e na Flórida, por exemplo — onde o Partido Republicano domina a política há décadas —, candidatos democratas podem vir a derrotar seus oponentes.
De repente, candidatos republicanos em distritos onde o eleitorado está quase igualmente dividido entre os dois partidos estão se distanciando do presidente para atrair eleitores que podem ter votado em Trump há dois anos, mas que agora se arrependem. Os candidatos republicanos em situação de vulnerabilidade não querem que Trump faça campanha por eles, e alguns chegaram a remover das redes sociais fotos com o presidente ou declarações de apoio às suas políticas.
No entanto, assim como faz com a mídia que critica sua gestão, Trump também não hesita em atacar aqueles que o desafiam, especialmente dentro do Partido Republicano. Isso ficou evidente depois que a deputada conservadora de origem cubana Maria Elvira Salazar, da Flórida, gravou um anúncio em frente ao Capitólio, afirmando que as políticas de Trump na aplicação das leis de imigração haviam “ido longe demais” e destacando que 50% das pessoas detidas pelo Serviço de Imigração e Alfândega (ICE) não tinham antecedentes criminais.
Logo após a veiculação do anúncio, Salazar disse à imprensa que tivera uma “conversa muito boa” com o presidente sobre o assunto. Inicialmente, Trump afirmou discordar de Salazar, mas manteve seu apoio a ela, o que parecia indicar que os congressistas republicanos poderiam, então, criticar a Casa Branca sem medo de represálias. Contudo, poucos dias depois, Trump disparou uma série de ataques à deputada nas redes sociais, revelando que continua extremamente suscetível a críticas e pouco tolerante com membros do próprio partido que se opõem às suas políticas.
Alguns candidatos republicanos de outros distritos fortemente divididos também se distanciaram do presidente quanto ao conflito com o Irã, especialmente devido aos impactos nos preços dos alimentos e dos combustíveis. No entanto, no Congresso, eles votaram contra resoluções que pediam o fim da guerra. Ainda assim, a imagem do Partido Republicano vem perdendo força, uma vez que Trump parece incapaz de reverter a queda de sua popularidade.
Caso os republicanos percam o controle de uma das casas legislativas ou de todo o Congresso e passem a investigar a corrupção e o abuso de poder do Executivo por parte de Trump, ele inevitavelmente reagirá com uma campanha agressiva, questionando o processo eleitoral, a cobertura da mídia e os candidatos democratas vitoriosos.
Para citar o poeta galês Dylan Thomas, é pouco provável que Trump “entre docemente naquela noite serena” e aceite a derrota. Resta saber quanto dano Trump causará aos Estados Unidos e ao mundo à medida que seu poder, influência e popularidade diminuem.
In a recent phone call, Donald Trump urged Volodymyr Zelensky to stop Ukrainian attacks on Russian oil refineries. Whether a request or a demand, this appears, certainly at first glance, fundamentally different from the Biden administration’s policy of restricting the use of US long-range missiles to hit targets inside Russia. The US president has justified […]
The post Trump’s bid to stop Ukraine’s Russia strikes a strategic disconnect appeared first on Asia Times.
Login