Mamdani releases plan to combat antisemitism and hate crimes in New York City





“We are living in a pivotal moment in labor history,” Cole Rockarts writes in their new book Fired Up About Unions. “At a time when corporations have more power, profit, and political influence than ever before, workers are leading inspiring union organizing campaigns and taking on bosses to win big… Their struggles reveal that everyday people can unite, change their conditions, and build better workplaces and a better world.” In this episode of Working People, we speak with a panel of labor organizers across the USA and Canada about why labor unions are more important now than ever, and how workers organizing collectively can change their workplaces, their lives, and the world.
Panelists include: Hassan Husseini of the Public Service Alliance of Canada and Labor for Palestine – Canada; Tina Oh of SEIU Local 2 in Hallifax, Canada; Alex Raymond of Teamsters 322 in Virginia, USA, and Cole Rockarts, veteran labor educator and organizer and author of the new book Fired Up About Unions.
Additional links/info:
Featured Music:
Credits:
The following is a rushed transcript and may contain errors. It will be updated.
Maximillian Alvarez:
All right. Welcome everyone to Working People, a podcast about the lives, jobs, dreams, and struggles of the working class today. My name is Maximillian Alvarez, and today we are talking about labor unions, why they are important, why they have always been important for working people, and why they are more important now than ever, and why you should be part of one. In their new book, Fired Up About Unions, veteran labor educator, organizer, and writer Cole Rockharts writes, “We are living in a pivotal moment in labor history. At a time when corporations have more power, profit, and political influence than ever before, workers are leading inspiring union organizing campaigns and taking on bosses to win big. These workers are fighting not just for themselves, but for their communities too. Their struggles reveal that everyday people can unite, change their conditions, and build better workplaces and a better world.” So this is what we’re going to be talking about today, and we’re really basing this conversation on Cole Rockhart’s great new book, which everyone should go read.
You can find it using the links in the show notes for this episode. And I’m really grateful to have Cole Rockarts themselves joining us on the show today. So Cole, welcome. Congratulations on this important book. Could you tell our listeners a little bit about the book and where it came from?
Cole Rockarts:
Absolutely. Thanks, Maximillian. It’s really exciting also to hear someone else read it because it’s just been in the ether for such a long time, so thanks for that. It’s very cool. So Fired Up About Unions, which again, you can get at BTL between the lines in Canada or AK Press in the US or your local library, give it an order there, really examines what unions are, demystifies the myths around unions, that we don’t need them, that they’re outdated, that young workers can’t be organized or different types of workers can’t be organized, and really lays the groundwork of why unions have become so weak in our respective countries in Canada and the US, and talks about why young people can be the antidote to all of the problems facing work and really unions themselves. Unions aren’t perfect, but if we take the view that unions are made up of people and we recognize that our coworkers are just regular people and we all ultimately want the same things, and that’s higher wages, protections at work, health and safety on the job, and better, that’s the great place where we can start to come together and change not only our individual situations, but as I say in the book, our communities and even beyond.
Maximillian Alvarez:
Hell yeah. And we’re going to be talking about how to do that, how to do better, get better, and fight better from the shop floor and beyond. And I’m so grateful with Cole’s help that we’ve pulled together an incredible panel of folks here, union organizers and members from across Canada and the US. And we’re going to dig into all this now, but first I wanted to ask if y’all could introduce yourselves to our listeners.
Hassan Husseini:
My name is Hassan Husseini. My day job is a national negotiator with the Public Service Alliance of Canada, which is the largest federal public sector union in Canada. As such, I’m also unionized member of Unifor Local 2025. Unifor is a merger of a couple of private sector unions in Canada, one of them being the Canadian Auto Workers that split from the American Auto Workers Union back in the 80s. And I am also a member of the National Steering Committee of Labor for Palestine Canada. I’ve been active in social justice and labor movement for 30 plus, maybe more years. Happy to be here. Thank you.
Tina Oh:
Hi folks. My name is Tina Oh. My pronouns are she/her. I’m joining in from Halifax, Nova Scotia here in Eastern Canada. My role is organizing coordinator with Service Employees International Union Local two. We’re the only national SEIU division in Canada, but I also have a role as vice president for Eastern Canada. So the region is all of Atlanta, Canada, Newfoundland, PI, New Brunswick, and Nova Scotia. Really happy to be here.
Alex Raymond:
Hey y’all, I’m Alex Raymond. I am a mental health worker out of Richmond, Virginia, United States, and I am just a regular worker organizer, very new to the labor space, but very fired up to be here.
Cole Rockarts:
My name is Cole Rocker. My pronouns are they/them, and I am a longtime union staffer, although the veteran brand doesn’t sit well when Hassan’s in the room. I’ve been working for labor unions for the past 10 years, and that’s been in Canada and the US. And I’m now a labor educator at a healthcare union in Los Angeles. And I am the author of the forthcoming book, Fired Up About Unions, which is about why young people can change the working world and the labor movement.
Maximillian Alvarez:
Oh yeah. So maybe we need an updated taxonomy. We got veterans here and then we got legends with Hassan. So we got the full spectrum here, baby. And I’m so grateful to have all of you on and to hear all of your perspectives on this important subject. So I want to dive right in and ask y’all, what have unions meant to you over your lifetime? What did you know or not know about unions before being part of one? And I’m asking that as someone who does a labor show now, but knew jack shit about unions for most of my life.
Alex Raymond:
I kind of want to just directly responding to that, that was sort of my experience, that labor organizing in mental health, that’s really not a thing. But over the years that I’ve been in this industry, almost 15 years coming up this November, we just see wages decrease the amount of patients or clients that we are responsible for increase expectations going up while benefits go down. And a lot of us just silently accept that. We get into this line of work because we care and it almost feels like a betrayal to the work that we’re so committed to, to even think that better is possible. But it had always been a discussion. And growing up, my dad, he was an organizer with SEIU in Boston during his residency, and he would always tell me this story when he was laid off for labor organizing, that it was just the proudest moment of his professional life when all of his coworkers came to his shitty Boston apartment and they essentially shut the hospital down.
There was a lot of anxiety about what that would do to patients, but there was a lot of camaraderie and that’s something that’s missing nowadays. We’re struggling to get by and we deserve better. And I think that sort of bubbled up over the last couple of years. And a group of us got together a couple years back and we started organizing from the ground up, literally Googling how to make union. And we came into contact with a lot of people that have a lot of expertise and thank God because we needed all the help we can get. And we went from zero union density to more than zero and growing each and every month. And we formed a union here in Richmond, Virginia with Teamsters Local 322. And now there are unions with United Automotive Workers within our industry as well as National Union of Healthcare Workers and United Food and Commercial Workers.
And we’ve had to learn what all those acronyms mean and what they can mean for people in our field. And it’s been a huge thing. But from my perspective growing up, I’d always thought that was such an important thing to do, but just never really knew how to go about doing it.
Hassan Husseini:
From my experience way back when I first became unionized, and I think it’s still with us today, the thinking about unions is that it’s only about money. It’s only going to put more money in your pocket by increasing your wages from what you had before you were unionized. And to me, the thing that struck me, and I think it’s still with me today and in the organizing campaigns that I was involved in, it is really important for us to recognize and talk to workers about the fact that it’s about increasing your power in the workplace. It is about working class empowerment, and it is about some of the things that Cole just rhymed off with respect to health and safety, with respect to being valued in the workplace, giving your voice on so many different committees, and taking away the power, the exclusive power that bosses have without a union.
So I didn’t know that at the beginning. I came in, I though, okay, my wage will go up a little bit, not knowing that it’s going to give me so much more empowerment both individually and as a collective within the workplace. And that is something that opened my eyes to huge possibilities for that particular workplace I was in, but for the working class generally. And that lesson is still with me up to this point. I think things are getting even worse in terms of capitalist bosses propaganda that we can give you a little bit of a bump in your wages. You don’t have to go to unions because they know that when you unionize, you have more power in the workplace and that’s what scares the shit out of them.
Tina Oh:
Hasan, I’m just going to piggyback off that because I think that last point you just mentioned about how non-union workers are still gaining and benefiting off the winds of union workers is so relevant and I think that’s how I want to answer this question. It’s going to take me a second to get there, but I’ll get there. So my family moved to Edmonton, Alberta when I was two years old. My sister was five and it was just my mom and my dad. There was no other kind of family support systems that my parents had in Canada nor in Edmonton. So that like many non-economic migrants, that meant working traditionally low wage service jobs.
My parents have never worked a union job in their working careers in this country. And one of my dad’s longest held jobs was as a housekeeper and a janitor at the Western Hotel, and that was a non-union job. But the reason why that’s relevant is that that job, even though it was non-union, it was the first job that my dad had that gave us health benefits. It was the job that ended up getting us permanent residency so that we could stay in the country. And the reason why, of course, that connects to unions is because the work of the private sector hotel unions that have raised the industry standards to the point that these non-union hotels cannot recruit workers without offering health benefits, without offering them a pathway to permanent residency. And so I think about that job, especially now that I work for a janitor’s union, SEIU Local two, half of our membership is janitors, private sector contracted out janitors.
And now that I’m in this role and I think back to my childhood and the horrors really that my parents had to face in their working careers, I know absolutely without a doubt in my mind that our lives would’ve been better had my dad had a union at that hotel or any union really. And at the same time, I also can see how our lives still greatly benefited from the wins of the working class that have progressed the labor movement to the point where non-union jobs are still offering health benefits and whatnot. So I just wanted to leave that there.
Cole Rockarts:
I think for me, it’s a bit of a combination of all these things. As my co-podcasters have just said, a union can be the difference between having healthcare or not, having benefits or not. When I was younger, I didn’t realize that my mom was unionized. She was a teacher for many years before she retired, and it wasn’t until I started getting involved in my student movement. And in Canada, the student union system is quite different than in the US, and I think the US should absolutely steal this idea from Canada. But many of our student organizations that fight for lower tuition fees or free tuition or more rights for international students or different campaigns of equity on campuses are unionized. So my first foray into having a union was starting to work at the student union and run all these campaigns as a student organizer.
And so it wasn’t until I started getting involved that I had this conversation with my mom about, “Oh, there’s this union.” And I was told to go to a meeting because there’s free pizza and I wanted free pizza. And she said, “Oh yeah, I’ve been involved in my union. I was a shop steward.” I was like, “What the hell is a shop steward? What does that even mean? And it’s essentially the person that represents the workplace while they’re actually working in there, and you can go to them with questions about your contract or different issues you’re having.” And I said, “What? You were a shop steward?” She was like, “Yeah, I used to carry the book and the book is the contract.” And I said, “I didn’t know that.” She said, “Yeah, I’ve been out on strike. I’ve been on the picket line.” And so it was years later that I realized like, “Oh my God, my parent has been a union member, has fought for these things, and it’s because of her that I have the life that I have.”
Maximillian Alvarez:
It’s always so fascinating to me to hear stories like yours and the stories that folks have shared with me on this show for the past nine seasons. I always tell folks that I am endlessly fascinated in the stories of our fellow workers who take that step to do something, to change their conditions, because I lived most of my life not knowing that that was an option. Like most people in this country, I’m talking about the US here, when I had crappy jobs, whether they were in service or factories, warehouses, retail, I thought I only had two options. If the job sucked, I could either just stay, grin and bear it, or leave and try to find something better. I didn’t know there was a secret third thing you could do and band together with your coworkers and fight back and stay and fight to improve things.
And so to me, anyone who takes that step, especially in a country where working people are so routinely reminded and conditioned to believe that we are powerless, anyone who says otherwise and does otherwise to me is a hero. And not just that, but the way it changes your perspective on things to take that step, to organize, to bring your boss to the bargaining table, that really changes a lot of the ways that you look at the world and yourself and the work that you do. And I wanted to turn that into a question for y’all. You talked about this a bit in the first round, but I wanted to ask if you could go a little deeper and say how it changes your life at work and beyond when you become part of a union or join a union drive. Did it change the way that you guys all look at your own work in life when you did that?
Tina Oh:
For me as a young person that started labor work, I think I was 21 at the time when I first got my union job. And of course, previous to that, I was part of the student union like Cole was. And we’re living in a time where obviously we can talk about all these crises that are happening, global crises to mention that, and union work really helped make the world make more sense, if that makes sense. And I think a lot of young people, and when I reflect back to what I was thinking through when I was 21, and I’m not saying obviously I’ve got it all figured out now, certainly don’t, but I think a lot of young people are probably really confused and puzzled by all these kind of disparate crises when obviously they’re all interconnected. And maybe we could even say that they are interconnected, but it wasn’t really until I really immersed myself and understood how power works and the history of the gains that workers have made to really push the needle to where we are today.
Things really just started to click. And now when a new crisis happens in the world, it’s just less confusing for me. And I think that’s relevant because that feeling of hopelessness I think really gets reined in when you are in a fighting union because that fighting union is then about solutions and it’s about optimism and it’s about hope. And it’s also about, yeah, we might lose, but we’re just going to get back up the next day and fight again. And so that clarity really became clear when I was part of a union drive and helping workers form unions at their workplace. And seeing the transformation happen to them was so transformative for me because I’m seeing it in real time, ordinary people coming together to do extraordinary things.
Alex Raymond:
Yeah. Tina, hearing you say that, especially that piece about hopelessness was something that was deeply more so than I think I’ve even been aware of in my personal experience of work and working up until the idea that there could be something better came up in my working with this organizing that we’ve done recently. Meeting people across the country that are fighting for change and are in the exact same position. We are inexperienced, we are outnumbered, we are dealing with a very effectively organized managerial group that wants nothing more than to see us lose. And then seeing people like Sean and Noah out in Massachusetts, workers out in California coming together, Jane and Colin out in Marilyn, all these different people that I would not have met had not been for this organizing work changed a lot of that hopelessness into a deep sense of optimism that’s going to be really, really hard to lose.
And that I think is the most important way my life has changed since participating in organizing. And I see it at home, at work. We have this current style of people coming in and out of care work and healthcare, and it’s hard on us. We’re job hopping a lot, but it’s really, really hard on the clients that we serve. We work predominantly for little kids and somebody comes in, they build a relationship with you, and then you can’t afford to work the job anymore, you get burned out. And that’s devastating for those young people, and we want to change that. And since we’ve started organizing, we’re seeing turnover rates decrease. These people believe that better is possible and that possibility is brought into existence through our collective action. We alone can’t formulate what a solution might look like, but collectively we’ve found answers and we’ve put them into practice, not just in one location, but in lots of other locations.
And we’re seeing people pick up the banner with us, and it’s just been one of the most inspiring, if not the most profound experiences of my life. And hearing you speak on that just reminds me why I’m part of this fight.
Hassan Husseini:
This is a really good segue because most of you have done the organizing part, which is the hard part to organize workers into unions. My role as a national negotiator is that I come in to work with these newly organized group of workers to get in place a first collective agreement, which is challenging in and of its own, but it’s during the negotiations for a collective agreement. Well, actually it is during the organizing drive that you see their power and a recognition of the power that they have really come into fruition. But it is also a different kind of a very, very rewarding process when you’re working collectively with workers, trying to get a new collective agreement and seeing the bosses push back to put language in collective agreements that gives them more rights, more powers, more protections, more provisions. This is where you see that they are solidifying their power in the workplace and there’s nothing like it because at times when we’re negotiating new terms, and I’ve negotiated terms in the new collective agreement in the university sector, in the gaming industry, right now I have a group of firefighters in an indigenous community in Southwestern Ontario that I just came back from starting negotiations with them.
And you’ll see that their questions is that, “What do you mean we can put language in the collective agreement that is better than the minimum standards?” It’s like, yes, you are organized in order to do that. Minimum standards, you’re protected by it anyway, but your collective agreement, it relies on your power in the workplace, your power in the community, and you’ll see the relationship with their coworkers, their relationship with the boss, their relationship within the community completely changes. It gives them the confidence, it gives them the power, it gives them the power that comes with the fact that when they’re sitting at the bargaining table, no matter what, they’re equals to that boss. And of course, when the boss goes back to the workplace, they try to play games, but you cannot put back, what is that expression, the genie in a bottle or something?
They’ve recognized their power and they’re willing to take that extra steps in order to keep building on it and to demonstrate it in the workplace and outside the workplace. And there’s nothing, nothing, absolutely nothing like it when work is recognized, I want to go Tina’s original point, recognize the power that they have in the workplace and in the community. And I’m privileged, I feel, that I get to work with workers to try to put together collective agreements that give them that extra power.
Cole Rockarts:
Yeah, I’ll just pick up on something Hassan said in his current negotiations about raising the minimum standards. And as organizers and workers, we talk about expectations a lot and great folks have written about raising expectations, so I won’t go into too much of that. But when people realize that not only can they raise the floor at their job, like Alex said, that he could change the mental healthcare industry and the ability for him to have consistency with his clients, with the kids that he’s trying to serve, that’s very mission-driven work. And we see all the time workers in organizing drives, particularly in healthcare, but lots of places, education where they say, “Well, I don’t know if I could do this because I would put the kids or the patients or whoever it is at risk.” But a lot of these campaigns are about connecting, “Well, this would actually make things way more sustainable for the work that I’m trying to do.
This would make me stay. This would help raise my wage so I can provide for my family.” All of these things go back to that question of power. And so when I think about how it changed the way I look at work and life, particularly now coming from Canada and the US, there is an entire industry that is dedicated to crushing workers’ ability to do this. And it has a lot of money behind it. It has a lot of politicians behind it. I mean, the US, we look at right to work states. We look at what is going on in Alberta, Canada right now and the attacks on trying to privatize our healthcare, which is a big no-no in Canada.
We workers, workers historically fought for all these things to get a public healthcare system to get funding. And so I think this’ll go to a little bit about the power that we’re up against, but we also talk about how we don’t have, and it’s because of people crushing unions, we don’t have a lot of money. We don’t have the ability to match dollar for dollar what our bosses are doing, but what we do have is people power. And so I think I was lucky enough to get into it at 20, but since moving here, even in the past few years, I’ve completely changed the way that I see power and what workers are up against as well.
Maximillian Alvarez:
Yeah, man. I mean, in the good old US of A, I mean, we have many rights on paper, but not in reality. And I’m constantly telling folks that you have a right to be a part of and form a union and collectively bargain in your workplace in this country. But in this country, that’s basically saying that Frodo Baggins has a right to go into Mordor, right? I mean, the opposition that you’re going to face, the pain that you’re going to be put through, the system that’s going to chew you up and spit you out just for exercising that right is going to take a lot from you and your coworkers, and you need to be prepared for that. And that’s what I wanted to talk about here in this round. Let’s talk about the hard stuff because we’ve seen over the past few years, over the course of me doing this show, I’ve heard it in the stories we’ve reported, this boom in energy around new labor organizing from the Starbucks workers to the Amazon workers, to the independent union movements, to the revivals within the established unions like the UAW, the Teamsters, some of the historic strikes that have happened in Canada in the past five years.
A lot is clearly happening, but at the same time, I think a lot of folks who got swept up in that energy over the past five years have also come to the hard kind of realities of unions aren’t perfect. Labor law is stacked against you. There’s going to be a whole lot of crap that you’re going to have to go through, but it is worth it. And so I want to talk about that with you guys and sort of address head on these real issues that folks have had or will face when trying to organize. So let’s talk about what people are really going to be up against when they try to unionize today in the US or Canada. And if someone’s listening to this, what do they do when their union sucks or union officials break their heart and screw them over?
Hassan Husseini:
You’re right. There are a lot of unions that, to put it in your words, can break your heart. But I always say having a union, even a shitty union is better than not having a union at all. Because even with a shitty union, there are mechanisms that you can do internally within your union in order to challenge those leaderships that are not willing to fight a good fight on your behalf, but collectively on behalf of all the workers and the community. So definitely I think we’re all on the same page or should be on the same page that unions are better than no unions whatsoever. But we also need to recognize that there are a lot of sellout unions or leaderships within unions that are no longer willing to fight a good fight. They’ve become part of the institutionalized capitalist system. They’ve lost the vision and they don’t advance anything more than protecting their careers.
And they have forgotten that unions are, after all, also political organizations of the working class. And they’ve lost that. And that’s where you see some unions or some leadership within unions making decisions that end up harming workers that they’re supposed to represent. But it’s not the end of the world because I always say that what you need to do as workers, the union is yourself. So you organize internally, you organize in order to bring democracy back into your union and your workplace. And you organize to take over, to take back those unions from those careerist elements within the union movement. Those who are willing to and understand and have class consciousness and they are fighting a class war to go back to the classics. This is the reality of it. And they’re not going to advance a lot of workers if they compromise with the employer on some fundamental issues.
And so our work is premised on the fact that we believe in the power of workers, but we also need to be very realistic about what kind of unions we’re dealing with. And also in my work in organizing in solidarity with the Palestinian liberation struggle and Palestinian workers, I’ve realized that the connection between those unions who are taking better positions in solidarity with international workers around the world is very much connected to how much they’re willing to fight for their own members and for the working class in Canada or the US. And those who have sold out when it comes to the class struggle in their own workplaces and communities and in Canada and the US, you find them that they’re not willing to actually be in solidarity internationally. They may pay lip service, but they don’t do anything concretely to honor that global picket line of the Palestinian people.
And as it was before, the people of South Africa that fought against apartheid. So they’re connected. Good fighting working class unions that have clarity of purpose are also clear on the local, on the national and on the international issues. And we have no choice but to continue to fight a good fight internally to make sure that they stay on the straight path or the left path rather.
Tina Oh:
I want to hear from you, Alex.
Alex Raymond:
Yeah, I’m itching to jump in on this one. So what you’re up against, you hear, especially when you’re new to this, “Hey, there’s the NLRB, you have these rights and the NLRB will adjudicate if there’s any unfair action taken against you by your employer.” But my boss, Lindsay Thompson straight up fired me in writing for labor organizing and that’s still in NLRB hell. And we’re expecting a ruling any decade now, probably 2035, 2045, my grandkids will get a decision passed down. So I mean that’s the reality of it. And I’ve got some comrades that have similarly experienced pretty nefarious dealings from their employer because who’s going to stop them? They fire you, you’re kind of done for. And then on the heels of that, my union internally was going through a little bit of drama precisely when I got fired. And that happened to create a really perfect storm that weakened our bargaining unit and set us up for a lot of trouble going into 2026.
But what is the solution? To quote the adage, don’t mourn, organize. And I remind myself that these things, these institutions that exist today were built by the literal blood of people that were massacred and organizing in significantly more difficult conditions today. I lost a job, I got a new job. I wasn’t brutalized in the ways that you encounter in the history book. So not discounting the struggles that people are facing today, it’s just that the solution remains the same, which is you organize. And my union, we organize internally, brought it up to the local president. They got it fixed. He’s out there on the line with us, every opportunity he’s got. And they’ve done an incredible amount to organize with us. And not just Brian Payton with Teamsters Local 322 and a huge chunk of amazing UPS workers, Jennifer Hancock, those folks coming out, making sure that we’re all right and that this group of workers gets represented fairly.
But the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, especially their caucus of rank and file electrical workers, it’s an internal caucus that has come together and shown up for workers in Richmond and across the country in really profound ways. If there’s a worker struggle in town, there’s going to be hard hats there. And I think it’s that kind of ethos that we need to really embrace. One worker’s struggle is my struggle and it’s been really hard. There was an understandable amount of almost desperation when we did everything right and the employer is just able to break every rule and get away with it. But I think it taught us a very valuable lesson, which is that you don’t just win a vote and then you’re all done. You organize not just to win a contract, but then to enforce it and then to be able to have the capacity to show up for other workers because there’s not just one fight and then you’re done.
This is a global fight. The cause of every member of the working class is our cause. So this is the fight of a lifetime, not just for a contract or a vote or some particular grievance. So I think it’s been hard, but we’ve learned a lot of lessons and we’re continuing to learn. And a lot of that is because of the very cool people that are on this panel today. So shout out to y’all.
Maximillian Alvarez:
Well, and obviously the fact that we have such an incredible panel of folks from Canada and the US, and Cole, you came from Canada to the US. I was wondering if you could also wrap into this question the differences of the situations and the things that folks are going to face in the US versus Canada while we’re answering this question.
Cole Rockarts:
Absolutely. I think I have two different parts to this answer. The first is that I think in Canada we have a different history when it comes to not only our labor movement, but our political parties. I think in the US, you folks are locked into the two party hell, that is the Democrats and the Republicans. Our system in Canada is multi-party and we had a labor movement that formed a political party that became the new Democratic Party, the NDP. And those were the folks I mentioned earlier that led to Medicare, healthcare being public in this country. And I say that not to give a knighthood to politicians because we know that everything that we’ve won in any country has come from workers pushing for that and pressuring that and always will be, always has been. And so I think that’s one of the big differences.
And obviously in the negotiation realm, when you don’t have to think about Medicare or healthcare being part of the contract and you can instead think about the things in Canada that haven’t gotten into that system like drug care, prescriptions, it changes the negotiation landscape for sure. I think the other big difference is the matter of density. And I mentioned the word density earlier, but that is how many workers percentage-wise are unionized within a given population. So in Canada, that is much, much higher. In the US, it’s brutal and it shows all of the things that have –
Maximillian Alvarez:
We’re below 10% now, I believe. That’s
Cole Rockarts:
Correct. And I’ll just say to your listeners, the Economic Policy Institute put out this amazing report about what would change if union density in the US was higher. And the reality is we would have healthcare. We would have about, give or take, 7,000 extra dollars a year in your pocket. And I don’t know about anyone else on this call, but I think people could use 7,000 plus dollars a year.
Maximillian Alvarez:
And that’s $7,000 a year that you would get in your contract versus the kind of fantastical fake $5,000 that President Trump is promising you if you just believe him and vote the way he wants in the midterms.
Cole Rockarts:
Exactly. And I’ll just say quickly on that, studies have shown that in countries where there are strong labor movements, there are more democracies. Even if we look at the US, we see that in right-to-work states, there are more attacks right now on the voting system than there are in states with higher union density. And so that’s kind of the first part of the answer to my question. But the second part is how is Canada and the US different? They’re not. Workers in Canada and workers in the US coming from both places, they’re not that different. They want the same things. They want higher wages, they want benefits, they want good jobs, and they want clean air and for the AI overlords to not ruin the planet and put a data center in their backyard. And so same as it ever was, workers, no matter the country, if they can get enough power, they can change things and make things better.
Tina Oh:
Everything yes, that Cole just said, a thousand percent. I just want to say genuinely, SEIU, it’s a giant of a union, one of the biggest in the US. And so when I look at my comrades in the US, not just in SEIU, but US unions in general, I really don’t have a problem in saying, I genuinely think it is harder to organize in the US than it is in Canada. And I don’t mean to say that as good or bad, as simple as that. But I think where in Canada workers have made gains like card check, which is a one-step unionization system. All you have to do is sign a union card. There’s no vote. Where there’s successor rights in the three biggest provinces of our country. So Quebec, Ontario, BC, the most populated provinces have successor rates. That means contracted workers when there’s contract flip that the new employer has to hire them on and keep their contract.
Those are two really sizable, genuinely… Those are huge wins, legislative wins that workers have made in this country. And it has, for maybe a less sophisticated word, I think it does actually produce some lazy organizing when I compare it to my comrades in the US who have to strike for recognition or right to work states where the dues aren’t guaranteed. And part of that lazy organizing is it can get dangerous, of course, because we know, just as Cole said, the bosses are the same. The power that they have will absolutely crush us. Our dollars can’t compete. Our legal can’t compete. And so when organizers on the ground, whether it’s a member organizer, worker organizer, staff organizer, is taking these shortcuts, we know we’re going to get hit by those shortcuts down the road because a fight is coming guys. A fight is always coming. And so I think it’s a really important, I think, moment for Canada-based organizers where even though we’ve made those gains like card check-in successor, that we do the right thing, which is to develop and recruit the best leaders we can in our organizations and keep it a fighting organization.
And that means yes, there might be shortcuts, but we’re actually going to do the really rigorous spade work that is required to build a fighting union.
Maximillian Alvarez:
Hell yeah. I thought that was all beautifully and powerfully put, y’all. And it bears mentioning that you could say the same thing about unions here just a little farther back in our history. I mean, the union density in this country at its height was around 30% or a little over. I mean, unions built the middle class, they gave us the weekends. We know all the talking points, but then that middle class gave up on the struggle. They cared more about their middle class existence, their specific contracts. They lost that sense of working class solidarity. And here we are 40, 30 years later with the results. Union density below 10%, wages have been stagnant or declining, cost of living has been going up, power has been shifting to the top away from the bottom. So I think the real takeaway message from Canada to the US to everywhere is don’t get complacent.
The struggle has to continue, and I could genuinely talk to you guys for hours about how to continue that struggle. And I’m so grateful for the conversation that we’ve had, but I know we have to wrap up here. And so I wanted to finish with a big picture question that y’all have touched on in this conversation, but for folks who are listening to this right now and saying, “Yeah, that all sounds great, but why should I care about unions now in the year of our Lord 2026 when the world is on fire and everything sucks and these oligarch nut jobs are taking over everything and destroying the planet?” So what would you say to folks in closing who are still in that head space?
Alex Raymond:
Yeah, what I would say is why you should care about a union now is because things have already gotten to a point where we’re feeling the everyday economic ramifications of those decisions. And whatever inertia is kind of keeping us moving in this direction, if we can overcome that, if we can come together, we can identify any solutions that need to be found and start putting them into practice so that we can build a future that we want to be part of. And I know that sounds like fanciful language, but every small step in the right direction is also a step we’re not taking in the wrong direction. And it feels difficult. It feels impossible. It feels exhausting when you think about it individual terms, but you’re not alone. People like me don’t know a ton. I’m sitting on a panel today with Hassan, Cole, Tina, and you, Max, and there’s a lot of expertise out there and you’re not alone.
So nothing weaker than the feeble strength of one. We got this together.
Hassan Husseini:
Very briefly, I think that for all the reasons that you spoke about Maximilian, it’s for all these reasons, because the world is run by not oligarchs, it’s for the reason that they’re destroying the planet, the reason that we have Trump in the White House and Mark Carney in Ottawa that are governing on behalf of banks and corporations and the super rich. It’s for all these reasons that we need unions if for nothing else to equalize things, to make sure that they fight for working people on the shop floor, but also they continue to fight for better society, for all the working class. And also they continue to make sure that international solidarity is not just a performative thing, but a real element of the work of unions. And without unions and without organizing and without that kind of mass democratic organizations that we value so much, that we will fall back even more.
And so from that perspective and because of that, unions are a lot more critical today than in my opinion, they were 50 years ago or 60 or 70 years ago. And we finish on the adage again that an injury to one is an injury to all. So this is not about individual protection, it’s about a collective work, a collective organizing and collective protection and collective empowerment.
Tina Oh:
I think a good union organizer knows how to answer any question with the answer being union. And so to me, it’s why should people care about unions? Well, it’s less about why people should care about unions, more about do you want a better life for you and your family and your loved ones? If so, the only answer is union. And I believe that. We just talked about the trickle down effects of increasing union density is that we live in a better society. There’s healthcare improvements, education improvements, life expectancy, I’m sure. And so I think that question that Cole talked about, workers in US, Canada, across any border, they want a better life for themselves and their families. I don’t know a single ordinary working person that doesn’t. And the answer to that question is going to be union.
Cole Rockarts:
Couldn’t agree more. I think the answer is unions. If we look at the world being on fire, what’s going to protect workers that are going out in increasingly record-breaking heat working outside if they’re postal worker, construction laborer, what is going to do that? Is the boss going to say, “Oh, I’m recognizing it’s a bit hot and unsafe out there. This doesn’t need to get built today. This work doesn’t need to get done.” No, bosses are going to continue to try and extract as much as they can. So that’s one example. If we look at this mass global movement in many countries, unionized dock workers have stopped the ports and refused to unload Israeli cargo.
The struggle of the anti-war movement, the struggle for basic protections of not dying on the job, and yes, the individual and materialistic thing of wanting more money in your bank account so you can pay your rent, so you can buy food, so you can get the basic necessities, all comes from having a strong resourced infrastructure. And the only thing that working people have in this country right now is a union. And so that would be my answer. Why should you care about unions now? It is literally the only thing that working people have on our side. And that’s not big you union, that’s you and your coworkers coming together to push for more and to fight the boss and to hopefully win.
Maximillian Alvarez:
All right, gang, that’s going to wrap things up for us today. I want to thank our guests, Hassan Husseini of the Public Service Alliance of Canada and Labor for Palestine Canada, Tina Oh of SEIU Local two in Halifax, Canada, Alex Raymond of Teamsters Local 322 in Virginia, and Cole Rockhart’s veteran labor educator and organizer and author of the excellent new book, Fired Up About Unions, which everyone should go read. And you can learn more about the book using the links that we provided in the show notes for this episode. And of course, I want to thank you all for listening, and I want to thank you for caring about this. We do this work for you, but we cannot do it without you. Working People is brought to you in partnership with In These Times Magazine and the Real News Network. This show is produced by the great Jules Taylor and is a proud member of the Labor Radio Podcast Network.
We’ll see y’all back here next time for another episode of Working People. And in the meantime, go explore all the great work that we’re doing weekly at the Real News Network, where we do grassroots reporting that lifts up the voices and stories of people on the front lines of struggle around the US and across the world. Subscribe to our YouTube channel. Check out our great podcasts like Under the Shadow and The Marc Steiner Show, and connect with us on social media and get updates on our reporting there and help us do more work like this by going to therealnews.com/donate and becoming a supporter today. It really, really makes a difference. I’m Maximillian Alvarez. Take care of yourselves. Take care of each other. Solidarity forever.




Scrapping the triple lock might not raise any money at all, the Institute for Fiscal Studies has warned, threatening Andy Burnham’s plan for a 'National Care Service' and raising the prospect of huge tax hikes.
The post Scrapping Triple Lock Could Save Nothing, Warns IFS appeared first on The Daily Sceptic.


This story originally appeared in Panamerican Dispatch on Sep. 29, 2026, and is shared here with permission.
The close relationship between the Bolsonaro family and key figures in the international far right like Steve Bannon and U.S. President Donald Trump has been public knowledge for over eight years. In this article, tech specialist Miguel Manso looks at the state of that relationship, right now, just days before Brazil’s first-round presidential elections. – ed.
Just days before the first round of Brazil’s presidential election, a confidential report from the Brazilian Intelligence Agency (Abin) warns that the United States is influencing the country’s electoral process. Titled “Threats to the 2026 Electoral Process,” the report was sent in late August to the presidency, the Superior Electoral Court and the Justice Ministry, warning that U.S. interference has reached a “critical” level.
Sen. Flávio Bolsonaro’s campaign has become the target of legal action over claims that it benefited from paid ads and mass messaging originating in the United States.
The coalitions backing Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva of the Workers’ Party and Renan Santos of the Missão party asked the Superior Electoral Court and the Supreme Federal Court to investigate the senator for economic and political abuse of power and foreign interference.
The court filings allege the following:
Foreign amplification: U.S.-based right-wing profiles and influencers, including American political figures, allegedly ran paid campaign content on X in support of Flávio Bolsonaro.
Paid partnerships: The posts, labeled “paid partnership,” cited figures from the foreign betting platform Polymarket to claim that Bolsonaro was the favorite, distorting the actual state of Brazilian polling.
Prohibited financing: The parties allege that this amounts to the use of funds from outside the official campaign structure and financed from a foreign source, both of which are strictly prohibited under Brazilian electoral law.
The lawsuits ask for the immediate removal of the posts, a Federal Police investigation, and, if the irregularities are confirmed, the loss of candidacy and ineligibility for those involved.
The attempted murder of Nadia Beller has drawn investigators toward Fernando Cerimedo and a web of other connections, including drug-trafficking flights and Bolivia’s top anti-narcotics police official, who allegedly identified the hitmen. Cerimodo is known for his work with far-right political leaders in Latin America.
On August 17, 2026, two gunmen on a motorcycle shot Nadia Beller, a Bolivian lawyer and Cerimedo’s girlfriend, outside a hotel in Santa Cruz de la Sierra, Bolivia. She survived but was wounded in the neck, chest and arm.
Bolivian police have identified Colombian national Aldúbar Henry Silva Peña as the lead shooter. He fled immediately after the attack, then released a video in September 2026 admitting his role in planning the crime, though he claimed the original plan was only to “scare” Beller. He led a group of five, including four other operatives — two Colombians and two Brazilians — whose identities have not been released by investigators. All four remain at large.
Police detained Víctor Hugo C.Z. and formally charged him as an accomplice who worked directly with the gunmen. They arrested Róger Aguilera on charges of supplying the .32 caliber weapon used in the attack, and arrested Paola Andrea Vargas on charges of hiding and storing it.
Bolivian authorities arrested Argentine political consultant Fernando Cerimedo, known for his work with Trump’s MAGA movement and Beller’s former partner, at Viru Viru International Airport. Bolivia’s public prosecutor’s office accuses him of masterminding the attempted femicide.
A forensic review of Cerimedo’s phone revealed real-time messages with Erik Correa González, the Bolivian government’s head of intelligence, confirming that the shooting took place at the exact moment the two were exchanging messages. Beller has said publicly that the attack was ordered to silence her before she could expose corruption, money laundering and illicit dealings involving Cerimedo and local government officials.
Investigators found two key pieces of evidence: a text note written six days before the attack that used the phrase “La Nadia” alongside an intent to “eliminate” the victim, and a message sent at 8:54 p.m. on August 17 to a contact identified as “E.C.G.,” reading, “Brother, they just shot her.”
The investigation also dug into Cerimedo’s finances. On his phone, police found a note referring to a “virtual wallet” that had moved about $66,000 over the previous 11 months across more than 320 transfers, and a larger “pass-through wallet” that had moved $1,386,997. In searches, police seized about $400,000 in cash, along with 500,000 Bolivian bolivianos, weapons, vehicles and equipment for a “bot farm” — automated accounts used to manipulate social media and elections.
Beller’s allegations against her former partner are shaking the governments of Rodrigo Paz in Bolivia, Javier Milei in Argentina, José Antonio Kast in Chile, Nasry Asfura in Honduras and Colombia’s Abelardo De La Espriella, along with their ties to the Bolsonaro family. Her account has helped expose a techno-fascist network aimed at manipulating and interfering in elections in Argentina, Bolivia, Chile and Colombia — and even in Mexico’s upcoming election — through bot and troll farms that Cerimedo’s team ran from Argentina and Santa Cruz de la Sierra in Bolivia.
The goal, investigators say, was to install leaders who would serve U.S. and Israeli interests, backed by the Shield of the Americas alliance, promotion from the outlet La Derecha Diario, and financing from Trump and his allies channeled through Milei. Cerimedo has been described as a CIA and Mossad asset.
Fernando Cerimedo, known as the “king of bots” for the Latin American far right, is also under investigation for money laundering and alleged ties to drug trafficking. Prosecutors are trying to determine whether he was part of a network that facilitated irregular flights carrying up to 500 kilograms of cocaine per trip and returning with large amounts of cash.
Searching properties tied to Cerimedo in Bolivia, authorities seized large sums of cash and found evidence of a technical setup built to automatically create fake online accounts — commonly known as a “bot farm.”
It was already known that a global network links Donald Trump’s MAGA movement with right-wing leaders across Latin America, funded through an international web of businesspeople and drug traffickers and operating through artificial intelligence manipulation and integrated data networks used for cyberattacks.
These groups organize at high-profile political events and forums, such as Mar-a-Lago and the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), where strategists and data operatives share methods for digital engagement and fundraising.
Cerimedo has said in interviews that no one formally introduced him to Eduardo Bolsonaro. The two say they met by chance at Harvard University in 2010. But when news outlets asked Harvard directly, the university said it had no record that either Eduardo Bolsonaro or Fernando Gabriel Cerimedo had ever been enrolled there. Confronted with this, Cerimedo later claimed he had only taken open, non-degree classes.
As part of the Federal Police investigation into the attempted coup in Brazil, investigators found that in 2022, military officers and aides brokered Cerimedo’s ties to the hardline core of the Bolsonaro movement, producing false reports attacking the integrity of Brazil’s voting machines.
Reports based on the plea-deal testimony of Mauro Cid identify Army Col. Ângelo Denicoli as the officer who contacted Cerimedo and coordinated the technical details needed to carry out broadcasts and attacks on Brazil’s electoral system.
The Federal Police obtained electronic records showing that Cerimedo’s phone number and contact information were passed directly to Denicoli. Forensic analysis of seized phones showed that Denicoli became the main point of contact with the Argentine consultant, coordinating the materials sent to him.
Cid formally confirmed in testimony that Denicoli was the direct link between the criminal organization and Cerimedo, saying Denicoli was part of the group tasked with gathering data to support claims that the electronic voting machines had failed.
Technical evidence linked Denicoli, Cerimedo and technology entrepreneur Eder Balbino. Balbino and Denicoli compiled reports containing false arguments and data based on outdated voting-machine models, then passed the files to Cerimedo, who used them as visual material for his broadcasts.
Digital cross-referencing by the Federal Police showed that the data Cerimedo presented in his broadcasts from Argentina contained the same mathematical inconsistencies and formatting as the documents manipulated by the Liberal Party’s technical committee in Brazil. Investigators concluded that Cerimedo had not discovered the material independently, but received it from the structure Denicoli managed.
Investigators also found that Denicoli was part of what they called the Disinformation and Electoral System Attack Unit. The Federal Police traced digital records linking Denicoli directly to fake ballot-audit files stored in a public Google Drive folder belonging to Cerimedo, with Denicoli listed as the folder’s original owner and editor.
Denicoli coordinated the technical compilation of false reports with Balbino. The material was passed to Cerimedo, who used it in the “fraud livestream” broadcast from Argentina in November 2022 and amplified in Brazil by Eduardo Bolsonaro.
In a trial concluded by the Supreme Court, Denicoli received the harshest sentence among the defendants in his group: 17 years in a closed prison regime, on charges of attempting a coup, seeking the violent overthrow of Brazil’s democratic order, and participating in an armed criminal organization.
The connection between U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rúbio and Argentine digital strategist Fernando Cerimedo took shape starting in 2023, with lobbyist and political consultant Damián Merlo acting as the intermediary.
Merlo, who owns the Miami-based Latin America Advisory Group, serves as a link between conservative Latin American politicians and power centers within the U.S. MAGA movement. According to filings under the U.S. Foreign Agents Registration Act, Merlo used his relationship with Viviana Bovo, a senior adviser to Rúbio, to introduce Cerimedo and his data tools directly to the office of the then senator, who is now secretary of state.
Cerimedo founded the agency Numen and the outlet La Derecha Diario, specializing in “bot farms” and algorithm manipulation to shape social media trends. In Chile, he worked on the campaign that defeated the 2022 constitutional referendum. In Brazil, he helped the Bolsonaro family spread disinformation about voting machines after the 2022 election. And in Argentina, he led the digital strategy behind Javier Milei’s election in 2023.
Brad Parscale, the top digital strategist for Donald Trump’s U.S. presidential campaigns, became Cerimedo’s business partner at the political consulting firm Numen, based in Buenos Aires.
Through that partnership, Cerimedo took over managing the Latin American operations of tools such as Campaign Nucleus and Eyes Over — data-mining and artificial intelligence platforms created or linked to Parscale. The partnership combined Parscale’s expertise in U.S. data operations with the infrastructure Cerimedo had built across Argentina, Brazil, Chile and Bolivia.
Brad Parscale earned the trust of the Trump family and went on to design websites for their businesses, before being chosen to lead the digital strategy for Donald Trump’s 2015 presidential campaign.
In 2016, as the campaign’s digital media director, he led a data operation called Project Alamo, directing much of the budget toward highly targeted social media ads and producing as many as 60,000 different Facebook ad variations a day.
In February 2018, Trump named Parscale campaign manager for his 2020 reelection bid.
Parscale’s ties to Big Tech and to Peter Thiel’s Palantir Technologies span strategic data cooperation, political alignment and technology supply.
Thiel, a Palantir cofounder, was one of the major Silicon Valley billionaires who directly backed and funded Trump’s 2016 campaign. Palantir builds surveillance and analytical intelligence software for governments and defense agencies.
Parscale created Campaign Nucleus, a platform meant to build a communications structure and data ecosystem. The data-mining and AI model it uses mirrors the mass-processing and information-control concepts associated with Palantir.
The ecosystem functions as an integrated chain: Thiel’s Palantir develops surveillance and data-intelligence technology, which feeds into political software such as Parscale’s Campaign Nucleus, and Parscale in turn distributes that technology across Latin America through Cerimedo’s Numen.
These companies’ ties to Israel and its government center on two main areas: artificial intelligence for military targeting, and cyberwarfare and digital influence operations.
In January 2024, Palantir signed a direct strategic agreement with Israel’s Defense Ministry to supply advanced AI technology supporting “war-related missions.”
In July 2026, international journalistic investigations revealed that Parscale was registered as a foreign agent of Israel in the United States. The Israeli government hired Parscale’s main firm, Clock Tower X, through a $46.5 million contract to carry out a digital influence operation.
According to the reporting, the company built a network of pro-Israel propaganda websites and blogs while also producing search-optimized content designed to shape the databases artificial intelligence systems draw on.
Cerimedo’s Numen is described as the Latin American link in that network, applying Campaign Nucleus data concepts and bot infrastructure through La Derecha Diario.
The relationship is described as symbiotic: Israel provides public contracts, Palantir supplies data technology, Clock Tower X uses that funding for digital influence operations, and Numen carries out the messaging and bot infrastructure in Latin America.
The tactics have evolved from spreading disinformation on social media to manipulating institutional digital ecosystems.
Generative Engine Optimization, or GEO, is described as a technique meant to flood the internet with doctrinal texts and fake academic research centers, so that the crawlers used by systems such as ChatGPT, Gemini and Claude absorb that propaganda as factual information. As a result, when people ask artificial intelligence systems about geopolitical topics or elections, those systems can end up repeating narratives that this network planted beforehand.
The dismantling of Cerimedo’s structures in Bolivia also revealed the use of tens of thousands of automated phones running AI software designed to simulate human behavior, making it harder for social media platforms to detect and block them.
Trump’s MAGA strategists, working with Eduardo and Flávio Bolsonaro, continue trying to interfere in Brazil’s election despite Cerimedo’s arrest — evidence of a powerful alliance working jointly to manipulate and defraud the political landscape and bring Latin America under U.S. control. The question is: for how long?
This article was originally published in Brasil 247. It has been translated to English by Panamerican Dispatch and can be read in its original Portuguese, here.
The United States is deporting parents without their children, creating a whole new family-separation crisis. Caitlin Dickerson, whose coverage of family separation during the first Trump administration won her a Pulitzer Prize, spends time with parents desperate to be reunited with their kids, ad hoc caretakers stretched to the breaking point, and lawyers working non-stop to mitigate the trauma Trump 2.0 is inflicting on families. And then there are the children themselves:
A father named Edwin said that after three years of meticulously following the government’s requests to further his family’s asylum case, his wife, Sarah, was thinking about going into hiding; she didn’t want to be picked up by ICE and have to leave her children alone.
When I went to visit Sarah in May, in a Dallas suburb, her 4-year-old son, Johnny, answered the door and asked me: “Do you know when my dad is coming home?”
Before I could answer, Johnny continued: “Do you know what happened to him?” He repeated versions of these questions over the two days of my visit. “Do you know where my dad is? Do you know if he’s okay?”
When the questions would start, Johnny’s 12-year-old sister, Katie, tried to distract him with coloring books and screens. Recently, he’d had an hours-long meltdown when Sarah tried to donate some of Edwin’s work clothes that were crowding the closet. Every afternoon he sits at the front window waiting for his dad’s truck to pull up outside.
Entre 2015 et 2023, le passage du Darién séparant la Colombie et le Panamá s'est converti en principale route migratoire de la région vers les États-Unis ; comment les deux États ont-ils affronté cette situation ? (Vol. 1, n° 1, juin, semestriel, gratuit en ligne. — Lima, Pérou.)
Drame humain, crise de l'accueil et tensions diplomatiques avec Bruxelles et Rabat : l'afflux migratoire exceptionnel dans l'exclave espagnole en Afrique du Nord et ses suites ont semblé affaiblir le président du gouvernement. Critiqué par ses alliés, il aborde la fin de son mandat sous la pression de la droite, et de l'extrême droite qui poursuit son ascension.
Seul M. Felipe González (1982-1996) a fait mieux. Aucun autre président du gouvernement de l'Espagne démocratique n'a exercé le pouvoir aussi longtemps que le socialiste Pedro Sánchez. Les recompositions de la scène partisane entraînées par la fragmentation du champ électoral, l'émergence et la consolidation du parti d'extrême droite Vox, ainsi que par le rôle charnière joué dans la vie politique nationale par les partis nationalistes basques et catalans contrarient la reconquête du pouvoir par les conservateurs espagnols. Le dirigeant du Parti populaire (PP, droite) Alberto Feijóo, premier opposant, n'a d'autre ressource qu'un sempiternel appel à la démission de M. Sánchez ou de claironner qu'il va bientôt tomber dans les filets de la justice. En vain jusqu'à présent (1).
M. Sánchez a maintes fois démontré son aptitude à prendre des risques calculés pour se dépêtrer de situations critiques. Mais, cette fois, l'afflux de candidats à l'émigration sur les plages de Ceuta semble l'avoir piégé. Le 31 juillet, en visite dans la minuscule enclave espagnole en territoire marocain, M. Sánchez définit la situation comme « une violation de l'intégrité territoriale de l'Espagne », tout en se félicitant paradoxalement de la collaboration avec les autorités du pays frontalier. Ce n'est qu'à la fin de son discours qu'il évoque brièvement le contexte migratoire et ses effets sur la vie des habitants de la cité autonome.
Le lendemain, il minimise l'impact de cette crise dans une lettre adressée à la présidente de la Commission européenne Ursula von der Leyen. Si « autour de 50 000 migrants sont entrés de manière irrégulière et inattendue » à Ceuta, affirme M. Sánchez, « en moins de quarante-huit heures [son] gouvernement a réussi à rétablir complètement le contrôle de la frontière, fournir une importante assistance humanitaire et renvoyer pratiquement tous les migrants entrés irrégulièrement ».
Or ce ne sont pas 50 000, mais plus de 70 000 migrants qui sont entrés par la mer. Plus de 140 s'y sont noyés selon El País (4 septembre 2026). On estimait, à la mi-septembre, qu'environ 10 000 d'entre eux demeuraient toujours dans la cité, survivant dans des conditions très précaires (2). Tandis que les images de plages surpeuplées et la colère de nombreux Ceutiens saturaient l'espace médiatique, l'opinion publique espagnole est restée sourde au discours de M. Sánchez et, au contraire, s'est montrée très réceptive à ceux de la droite et de l'extrême droite mobilisées contre le gouvernement. Dans un sondage publié le 7 septembre par le quotidien El País, les deux tiers des personnes interrogées considéraient que le président avait mal ou très mal géré la crise, et près de 90 % attribuaient la responsabilité de son déclenchement au Maroc.
La gauche de la coalition gouvernementale a déploré qu'il n'accorde pas assez d'attention à la dimension humanitaire des événements. Par ailleurs soutien de la cause sahraouie, Sumar a reproché à M. Sánchez de ne pas mettre en cause le Maroc, tandis que Podemos exigeait une rupture des relations diplomatiques avec le voisin maghrébin. Mme Ione Belarra, secrétaire générale du parti, a sommé le chef de l'exécutif d'expliquer pourquoi, selon elle, il « protégeait » le royaume chérifien. De manière implicite, elle n'a pas hésité à faire écho à l'hypothèse, lancée par des responsables du PP et de Vox, d'un chantage que Rabat exercerait sur lui à l'aide d'informations compromettantes obtenues par ses services secrets.
Deux ministres socialistes, celle de la défense, Mme Margarita Robles, et celui de l'intérieur, M. Fernando Grande-Marlaska, ont fait étalage de leurs divergences au sujet des informations communiquées ou non par leurs administrations sur l'imminence et la portée d'une crise migratoire à Ceuta. Pour mettre fin à cette cacophonie ainsi qu'aux accusations de dirigeants du PP selon lesquelles M. Sánchez savait et n'aurait rien fait, voire aurait encouragé l'arrivée des migrants, le gouvernement a déclassifié et publié le 9 septembre dernier une quarantaine de documents échangés entre les organes de sécurité de l'État. Mais cette publication a redoublé la polémique en permettant à l'opposition de soutenir que les autorités n'avaient pas correctement pris en compte des avertissements, notamment ceux du Centre national du renseignement (CNI).
Présidant treize des dix-sept communautés autonomes du pays, ainsi que les villes de Melilla et, précisément, de Ceuta, le PP a déjà annoncé qu'il s'opposerait au transfert de migrants, y compris les mineurs, vers la péninsule. La crise pourrait affaiblir durablement un président cerné par les affaires de corruption impliquant des proches et critiqué à l'intérieur même de son parti. Mais sans lui coûter son poste : le mécanisme constitutionnel de la « défiance constructive » qui oblige les oppositions à s'accorder sur le nom d'un futur président de gouvernement avant de voter la censure protège M. Sánchez.
Ensemble pour la Catalogne (Junts, le parti catalan de M. Carles Puigdemont) et le Parti basque (PNV) ont beau suggérer l'organisation d'élections anticipées, il paraît exclu que les deux formations s'allient avec le PP pour renverser le gouvernement. Logiquement, la législature devrait, comme le chef des socialistes l'a dit et répété, aller à son terme, et les prochaines élections se dérouler au plus tard fin août 2027. D'ici là, la gauche dans son ensemble aura beaucoup de mal à éviter que la hantise de l'invasion migratoire, montée en épingle avec la crise de Ceuta, ne domine le débat politique, au profit du PP et de son associé-rival d'extrême droite Vox.
(1) Lire « L'inamovible M. Sánchez », dans « Les paradoxes de l'Espagne », Manière de voir, n° 204, décembre 2025 - janvier 2026.
(2) Selon l'agence EFE, 18 septembre 2026.
Le 27 octobre, les électeurs israéliens se déplaceront aux urnes pour renouveler leur Parlement. Au-delà de la question de l'avenir politique du premier ministre sortant Benyamin Netanyahou, l'enjeu du scrutin réside dans la confirmation, ou non, de l'essor du sionisme religieux. Partisan d'une annexion des territoires palestiniens, ce courant contribue à une polarisation extrême de la société.
La mise en œuvre du projet sioniste a pris des décennies avant la naissance d'Israël. La situation actuelle doit interroger sur l'avenir de cet État, du moins dans sa forme actuelle. Sans chercher à susciter la crainte ni à faire de prophéties. Un éventuel effondrement ne se ferait pas en un jour. Mais une fissure majeure ronge les fondations : la montée en puissance de ce qu'il convient d'appeler l'État de Judée, par opposition à l'État d'Israël. Autrement dit, l'irrésistible émergence d'un mouvement fusionnant sionisme religieux et judaïsme orthodoxe, et dont les partisans veulent un État théocratique. Une forme de sionisme raciste et suprémaciste façonne leur projet radical de création d'un « Grand Israël » étendu à toute la Palestine historique. La situation des Palestiniens se dégraderait plus encore si cette force politique devenait hégémonique. Mais les citoyens juifs qui veulent vivre dans un État libéral, démocratique et pluraliste en pâtiraient également.
Au cœur idéologique de l'État de Judée, on trouve les colons religieux de Cisjordanie, pour beaucoup des disciples des rabbins Kook, père et fils. Le père, Abraham Isaac Kook (1865-1935), né en Lettonie, dans l'Empire russe, a fondé le sionisme religieux. À son arrivée en Palestine, en 1904, il devient la figure rabbinique de la remise en cause du point de vue juif orthodoxe selon lequel le sionisme est une tentative laïque d'interférer avec la volonté de Dieu qui ne saurait être soutenue par des Juifs pratiquants (1). Kook rallie à lui une partie de la communauté orthodoxe. Son legs principal à la cause ? Le centre d'études Merkaz HaRav (le « centre du rabbin »), soit le foyer de la forme la plus extrême du sionisme, un mélange d'idées messianiques, de racisme éhonté à l'égard des Palestiniens et de mépris pour le judaïsme réformé et laïque.
Le fils, Zvi Yehouda Kook (1891-1982), est, lui, le père spirituel du mouvement messianique Goush Emounim. Après la victoire de 1967 contre les armées arabes, ce « Bloc des fidèles », fondé en 1974, a judaïsé la Cisjordanie occupée et la bande de Gaza. Année après année, il a quitté les marges du système politique israélien jusqu'à en occuper le centre. Toute sa vie, le fils Kook a défendu la colonisation comme un impératif religieux, pour hâter la rédemption du peuple juif. Sa voix a pu se retrouver quelque peu étouffée dès lors que le Parti travailliste au pouvoir de 1967 à 1977 se montrait lui-même enclin à la judaïsation, en particulier dans les régions palestiniennes rurales qui sont aussi les moins densément peuplées. Et les disciples de Kook ne s'en satisfaisaient pas ; ils voulaient s'implanter dans les villes bibliques de Cisjordanie, où les Palestiniens vivaient alors très nombreux.
Mais une politique d'État finit par associer ces deux branches du projet d'accaparement de la Cisjordanie — la première fondée sur des considérations sécuritaires, la seconde portée par les aspirations religieuses de Goush Emounim — lorsque le Likoud arrive au pouvoir en 1977, avec comme premier ministre Menahem Begin. Sous ce premier gouvernement de droite de l'histoire d'Israël, le fils Kook s'impose comme le maître à penser des Juifs qui colonisent de grandes parties de la Cisjordanie, bâtissant leurs avant-postes au cœur de régions densément peuplées de Palestiniens. Cette colonisation agressive devait à leurs yeux accélérer la « désarabisation » de la Cisjordanie en rendant plus difficile l'accès des habitants palestiniens aux ressources essentielles comme la terre, l'eau et même l'emploi.
Sous l'œil attentif de l'armée israélienne, sinon avec son aide, cette stratégie impitoyable est mise en œuvre quotidiennement. Les Palestiniens subissent un harcèlement continu. Des colons les blessent parfois, ou les tuent. Si les gouvernements israéliens successifs condamnent formellement les violences et prétendent ne pas avoir connaissance de ce qui se passe sur le terrain, les forces armées stationnées en Cisjordanie appuient les colons religieux qui créent une nouvelle réalité, à la place de leurs dirigeants : celle d'un Israël étendu.
De leur point de vue, leurs agressions relèvent d'une forme de représailles, le « prix à payer » (tag meir) par ceux qui s'opposent à l'entreprise de colonisation. Quand bien même il s'agit le plus souvent d'attaques non provoquées et d'une grande violence contre des villages, des fermes, des véhicules, des commerces ou des champs appartenant à des Palestiniens (lire « Terreur coloniale en Cisjordanie ».) La participation au gouvernement actuel de deux partis pro-colons — Otzma Yehudit (Force juive) et HaTzionout HaDatit (Parti sioniste religieux) — conforte cette politique. Leurs représentants respectifs, MM. Itamar Ben-Gvir et Bezalel Smotrich, chargés de la sécurité nationale et des finances, ont joué un rôle déterminant dans la phase en cours d'attaques terrifiantes contre les Palestiniens en Cisjordanie, qui a fait plus de mille morts depuis octobre 2023.
Pour les partisans de l'État de Judée, une théocratie doit terminer le travail que le sionisme laïque n'a pas su mener à bien : la destruction du peuple palestinien et la formation d'un « Grand Israël » conforme à celui que décriraient les Écritures — ce qui, en clair, signifie l'annexion de territoires voisins. Les sionistes laïques ont certes accompli la basse besogne consistant à créer l'État d'Israël — un travail de plusieurs décennies, commencé en 1892 lorsque les premiers colons sionistes sont arrivés à Jaffa —, mais là s'arrête leur mission historique. Les Juifs religieux estiment qu'il leur revient, à présent, de transformer leur ancienne terre en un véritable État juif.
Mais là n'est pas ce qui fissure les fondations d'Israël ; la plupart des Juifs laïques s'accommodent de cette transformation aux dépens des Palestiniens et, sur le plan territorial, des voisins arabes, notamment libanais et syriens. Le vrai problème tient à l'hostilité des forces qui portent l'État de Judée à l'égard des Juifs laïques. Tôt ou tard, elle finira par saper ce qui unifie et rassemble la société israélienne. Et la confrontation est déjà là.
L'État de Judée a remporté les élections législatives de novembre 2022 et formé un gouvernement de coalition fondé sur une étroite majorité à la Knesset de soixante-quatre députés sur cent vingt. Sa première décision, en janvier 2023, a consisté à modifier le système judiciaire du pays pour le conformer à son idéologie et à sa vision, en permettant au gouvernement de nommer les juges et en restreignant les capacités de la Cour suprême à juger de la constitutionnalité des lois votées au Parlement. Cette décision a fait monter les tensions entre les deux camps et provoqué des manifestations de laïques d'une ampleur sans précédent et toujours plus massives, jusqu'aux attaques du 7 octobre 2023 (2). Le bras de fer a révélé l'ampleur de la division entre les deux camps. Il s'agit en effet d'un combat existentiel entre des projets antagonistes, d'une lutte à mort autour de la vocation même de cet État fondé en 1948.
Pour l'heure, seule la crainte d'une disparition d'Israël oblige les deux parties à ne pas se désolidariser de manière définitive. Leur dénominateur commun demeure la perpétuation d'un système qui déshumanise les Palestiniens et nie leurs droits civiques et humains fondamentaux. On sait comment l'État de Judée considère les Palestiniens. Mais l'État d'Israël ne fait guère mieux. Certes, il est laïque, puisque surtout composé de descendants de Juifs européens qui souhaitent profiter d'une démocratie libérale. Mais ceux-ci n'ont
eux-mêmes cessé d'asseoir leur pouvoir sur la subordination des Palestiniens. Ils ne peuvent rien leur proposer de plus que le retrait des colonies de quelques parties de la Cisjordanie occupée et la levée de certaines des restrictions imposées aux habitants de la bande de Gaza. Leur vision actuelle de l'État juif ne remet pas fondamentalement en cause le régime d'apartheid qu'Israël est devenu.
L'État de Judée, quant à lui, se satisfait pour l'heure de sa situation favorable sur l'échiquier politique. Mais plus il gagne du terrain sur le plan électoral, plus Israël est menacé. Car l'élite technologique et financière, sur laquelle repose la prospérité de cet État, appartient majoritairement au camp laïque. Qu'elle vienne à quitter le pays, et c'est l'économie et la cohésion sociale qui en pâtiront. Or, depuis le 7 octobre 2023, on estime que plus d'un demi-million de membres du camp laïque-libéral auraient émigré. Cela ouvre la voie à de nouveaux triomphes électoraux d'un État de Judée qui ne dispose pas des capacités économiques et militaires ni même du sens stratégique nécessaires à la survie d'Israël.
Et cette perspective est d'autant plus inquiétante que les institutions du pays sont déjà très fragilisées. Plus d'une décennie avant les attaques du 7 octobre 2023, Israël était déjà en crise. En décembre 2010, un feu de forêt a fait rage pendant plus de trois jours sur le mont Carmel, tuant quarante-quatre personnes. La gravité de la situation était telle que le gouvernement de M. Benyamin Netanyahou a fait appel à l'aide étrangère, notamment celle de la Grèce, de l'Italie, de la Russie et de la Turquie (3), pour venir à bout de l'incendie. Cet appel au secours a provoqué la stupéfaction des observateurs internationaux, qui s'attendaient à ce qu'un pays qui a connu plusieurs guerres dans son histoire récente soit doté d'un matériel de lutte contre le feu adéquat. Plus récemment, en avril 2021, la bousculade lors du pèlerinage du mont Méron, dans le nord du pays, qui a fait quarante-cinq morts et près de cent cinquante blessés, est un autre exemple de l'impéritie des autorités. De nombreuses mises en garde avaient pourtant été lancées contre le danger que pouvaient constituer d'importants mouvements de foule dans un lieu aussi étroit. En mars 2024, qualifiant le drame de « désastre qui aurait pu être évité », une commission d'enquête a directement mis en cause le premier ministre (4).
« Où est l'État ? » Voilà la question que de nombreuses personnes se posent en Israël, y compris les citoyens arabes confrontés, depuis plusieurs années, à une flambée de meurtres liés au crime organisé (5). Au lendemain des attaques du 7 octobre 2023, cette interrogation a pris une importance nouvelle en raison des pertes humaines jusqu'alors inimaginables subies par le pays. Ni le gouvernement ni les services publics dans leur ensemble n'ont semblé en mesure de répondre aux milliers de personnes qui avaient besoin d'aide pendant et après les affrontements. Des dizaines de milliers d'habitants des zones frontalières avec le Liban et Gaza ont dû être évacués, et le gouvernement n'avait pas de plan concret pour leur hébergement, leur scolarisation ou leur emploi à long terme. Les autorités ont d'ailleurs tout fait pour que ces déplacés retournent chez eux aussi vite que possible. Si ce fut le cas pour 90 % d'entre eux, l'avenir demeure incertain pour les 10 % restants — pour la plupart des survivants des kibboutz presque entièrement détruits au cours des affrontements. Les autorités demeurent réticentes à continuer de financer leur relogement dans d'autres régions. Certaines des personnes évacuées de la région frontalière avec le Liban ont découvert avec stupéfaction combien Israël avait négligé leurs communautés depuis des décennies. L'une d'elles témoignait ainsi dans le quotidien Haaretz : « Nous avons été abandonnés, délaissés, oubliés. (…) Pendant des années, nous étions invisibles, on se débrouillait avec presque rien, et tout d'un coup nous avons découvert un autre Israël — un Israël où les services de santé sont accessibles, où il y a de la culture, des transports publics (6). »
Pourquoi Israël, qui ne cesse de rappeler à qui veut l'entendre les dangers que représentent ses voisins et qui sollicite régulièrement une assistance militaire généreuse, était-il si peu préparé aux défis logistiques que les guerres entraînent dans leur sillage ? Pourquoi n'existait-il pas de plan d'évacuation des zones frontalières ? Cela s'explique par une fonction publique à la botte du système politique, où les nominations viennent récompenser des positions d'allégeance, sous la supervision de ministres pour qui la rhétorique prime sur tout le reste, notamment sur la mise en œuvre concrète des politiques. Bien sûr, les défaillances de la fonction publique ne constituent pas nécessairement une fissure dans les fondations du pays — des réformes et des changements dans l'administration pourraient améliorer la situation. Cependant, tant que l'État de Judée sera au pouvoir, il est très improbable qu'il mette l'infrastructure publique parmi ses priorités, ce qui ne peut qu'exacerber la désagrégation sociale.
(1) Lire Anne Waeles, « “Dieu n'existe pas, mais il nous a donné cette terre” », Le Monde diplomatique, avril 2024.
(2) Lire Charles Enderlin, « Israël, le coup d'État identitaire », Le Monde diplomatique, février 2023.
(3) « Israel accepts foreign aid in tackling deadly forest fire », France 24, 4 décembre 2010.
(4) « Israël : une enquête pointe la “responsabilité” de Netanyahou dans une bousculade mortelle en 2021 », Radio France Internationale (RFI), 6 mars 2024.
(5) Majd Kayyal, « Israël. Le crime organisé gangrène la société palestinienne de l'intérieur », Orient XXI, 19 mai 2026.
(6) Shlomit Tsur, « “We suddenly discovered another Israel” : Why these war evacuees chose not to return home », Haaretz, Tel-Aviv, 22 octobre 2024.

The prevailing criticism of the US-China summit in Washington is that it amounted to little more than diplomatic pageantry. But one outcome deserves recognition: it may have helped keep alive the prospect of renewed US-North Korea dialogue. North Korea, after all, was among the global security issues discussed by the two leaders. Details of those […]
The post A spark for dialogue toward halting North Korea’s nuclear buildup appeared first on Asia Times.