At his final rally on Monday New York mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani vowed to resist US President Donald Trump’s threat to withhold federal funds if the 34-year-old wins, framing the vote as a stand against intimidation and political bullying.
Published On 4 Nov 20254 Nov 2025
Share
David DeansWales political reporter
Matthew Horwood/Plaid CymruFamilies who have children aged nine months to four years old will get free childcare if Plaid Cymru wins the next Welsh Parliament election, its leader has said.
Rhun ap Iorwerth made the pledge as he told conference delegates he was ready to lead the country “right now”, replacing Labour as the party of government.
Labour has led Wales since the start of devolution in 1999, and has dominated Welsh politics for a century. The next Senedd election takes place in May.
He said the “transformative” policy, offering at least 20 hours for 48 weeks a year by 2031, would be a “helping hand with the things that matter the most”.
He told the conference that “Labour’s time is up” and that Reform wanted to treat the Senedd as a “plaything” to gain an “electoral foothold”.
Ap Iorwerth called on voters who wanted to stop Reform to back his party, accusing Nigel Farage of spurring a summer of “simmering hatred”.
Currently help with childcare costs is only available to families whose parents are in work, education or training, or to very young children who live in a Flying Start area.
The party says the policy would be worth £32,500 to families for the first four years of their child’s life.
Families whose parents are in work, training or education would still get 30 hours a week for three to four-year-olds.
Plaid’s plan would allow ineligible families to claim 20 hours a week for three to four-year-olds for 48 weeks of the year, and all families 20 hours for nine-month-olds to two years.
The party say that by the end of the five-year roll out it will spend roughly an extra £500m a year on childcare – bringing the total cost to £800m.
It says it can find the cash from the Welsh government’s budget, with about £400m thought to be available in the next budget if other services increase by inflation.
Matthew Horwood/Plaid CymruThe Welsh government has been under pressure to match the provision in England, where children between nine months and two years receive free child care.
The Bevan Foundation said earlier this year that high childcare costs were pushing more families into poverty and out of work.
Currently parents in Wales can apply for up to 30 hours of combined government funded nursery education and childcare a week – parents need to be in work, on maternity, paternity or other statutory leave, or in education or training.
That is only available to three and four-year-olds, and only if parents receive less than £100,000 a year combined.
Some eligible two-year-olds qualify for 12.5 hours of care a week under Flying Start, but it is not available nationally.
Plaid’s plan would be in three stages. It is proposing to keep the existing 30 hour offer for three to four-year-olds, while extending the roll out of 12.5 hours a week for two-year-olds.
The next step would be to give 20 hours to parents who are not currently eligible – such as those not in work or training, or those earning more than £100,000 a year.
The party would then seek to increase the number of hours offered to children under the age of two year-on-year.
It would be rolled out over the life of the next Welsh Parliament, with the policy fully implemented in the 2030/31 financial year, under the plans.
Getty ImagesParty sources, asked why parents whose incomes are above £100,000 should get free childcare, said services that are delivered universally are better, and that households across demographics are struggling.
Plaid says it would be the most generous childcare care offer in the UK.
Ap Iorwerth told BBC Wales: “This can make a huge difference. It’s a very, very important step in terms of helping families with the cost of living.
“This is universal, which marks it out from the system in England.”
Ap Iorwerth said it was “money that we know we can afford”.
Plaid Cymru has played a key role during the life of devolution, being an occasional supporter of Labour governments since 1999.
It has been unable to beat Labour in an election – but recent opinion polling has suggested Plaid is vying with the party to win, as is Reform.
Ap Iorwerth is now trying to position his party as a government-in-waiting.
Even if Plaid came first it is possible they would have to work with Labour or other parties in some form, with no party having ever won a majority in the Senedd.
Ap Iorwerth said Labour had “forgot where it came from who it was there to serve”.
He called on his party to seize the “historic opportunity ahead of us” and turn it into “reality”.
He said the UK had faced a summer of “simmering hatred”, spurred on, he said, by Nigel Farage.
“Farage and his followers drive the deliberate fragmentation of society, giving life to the bogeyman without whom they are nothing.”
He said Reform UK wanted to treat the Senedd as a “plaything” to gain “an electoral foothold”.
Ap Iorwerth said Plaid was ready to govern “right now”, promising to “usher in an age of new leadership that will set Wales on a different path.”
“We are not here as Labour’s conscious, we are not here to repair Labour, we are here to replace them,” he said.
He promised an “immediate cash injection” into the NHS to prioritise the longest waits.
The party leader, a former BBC Wales journalist and the Member of the Senedd (MS) for Ynys Mon, said Reform threatened the health service with “US-style bills”, and vowed to keep the NHS free at point of need.
Taylor Swift is “shockingly” offended by the idea that “The Life of a Showgirl” could be — given her recent engagement to Travis Kelce — her final album.
“It is not the last album. That’s not why people get married,” the singer told BBC Radio 2 on Monday.
“They love to panic sometimes,” she said, talking about conspiracy theorists in the Swifty-verse, “but it’s like, I love the person I am with because he loves what I do and he loves how much I am fulfilled by making art and making music.”
Rumors started to make their rounds after the couple announced their engagement in August through a joint Instagram post. Fans speculated that after she said “I do,” she would have children and move on from music — or so BBC host Scott Mills had informed his guest.
Wait, mothers can’t have careers? Swift called that a “shockingly offensive thing to say.”
Weeks earlier, the Grammy-winning singer announced the impending arrival of her 12th album, “The Life of a Showgirl,” on her now-fiancé’s podcast hosted along with brother Jason Kelce. Since the release last week, the rumors grew louder and louder, with some fans predicting this album would be it for the pop artist.
To which Swift pushed back:
“That’s the coolest thing about Travis, he is so passionate about what he does that me being passionate about what I do, it connects us,” Swift said.
Their passions in life aren’t so different, according to the singer.
“We both, as a living, as a job, as a passion, perform for 3½ hours in NFL stadiums,” the showgirl said. “We both do 3½-hour shows to entertain people.”
When she’s touring, she gets a dressing room, Swift said, but when he’s playing in the same space, they call it a locker room.
“It’s a very similar thing and we’re both competitive in fun ways, not in ways that eat away at us,” she added.
Over the weekend, while Kelce prepared for the Kansas City Chiefs’ “Monday Night Football” game against the Jacksonville Jaguars, the future Mrs. Tight End released “Taylor Swift: The Official Release Party of a Showgirl” in theaters. The experience earned $33 million over the weekend, topping the box office, according to Box Office Mojo.
The music video for the album’s opening track, “The Fate of Ophelia,” premiered along with the release-party movie. Swift wrote and directed it.
“[The music video] is very, like, big and glitzy and it’s so fun and it’s supposed to be like the day in the life of a showgirl,” she said.
Multitasking has become a norm for the “Cruel Summer” singer, who juggled her last tour with the recording of the album.
Swift said she flew to Sweden on multiple occasions during the Eras Tour to record the album. Her loyal inner circle did not leak any information.
“My friends don’t rat, they do not rat and you can tell by the amount of stories about me that are out there that are absolutely not true,” she said.
OK, Swifties, you can breathe now. You can stop looking for clues into whether this is it for Tay-tay’s music career. Shake it off until her next release.
Abba Ali says he was there when Boko Haram leader Abubakar Shekau blew himself up to avoid capture by the Islamic State West Africa Province (ISWAP) in May 2021.
He survived, but his life changed forever. The road to that experience stretched back to 2015, when Boko Haram stormed his hometown of Bama and abducted him at the age of six.
That day, Abba and his four-year-old brother were taken to the forest by the terrorists. His younger brother succumbed to the harsh conditions in Sambisa Forest, the terror group’s enclave in Borno State, North East Nigeria, but Abba survived.
In the forest, he lived among other children in a village called Njimiya and was later taken to Shekau’s enclave by one of his two elder brothers, who had joined Boko Haram two years before Bama fell. That brother also later died, leaving Abba in the custody of Shekau’s household and his other elder brother.
By then, he had turned ten and had started combat training at Bula Sa’Inna in Sambisa Forest, where the deceased Boko Haram leader lived and conducted his operations. For two years, he was drilled until he became a sniper. When the training ended, he was assigned to guard checkpoints around Shekau’s camp.
Abba stayed at one of these posts for years, often seeing Shekau, who, though calm and playful with the boys, was ruthless when betrayed.
There, he repelled countless attacks and fought against splinter groups like ISWAP.
After Shekau’s death, ISWAP held him for two months, until his uncle, once the fourth in command under Shekau, saw a chance to escape. After three failed attempts, they succeeded. Together, they rode in the night, dodging rival factions until they reached the outskirts of Bama. Abba couldn’t recognise his hometown; his childhood memories were gone.
“I only knew it was Bama when I was told,” he said.
Now 19, Abba lives in Maiduguri with his mother and stepfamily, who continue to care for him. When he first returned, he surrendered to the authorities. He was held briefly for a day before being taken to an internally displaced persons’ camp at Government Day Senior Science Secondary School, Bama. There, he was given a food ration card and shelter until he reunited with his family.
Unlike the others who surrendered at the same time, Abba was not enrolled in Operation Safe Corridor, the federal programme launched in 2016 to provide psychosocial support, vocational training, and business starter packs for the reintegration of surrendered terrorists. He did not disclose why he was excluded.
Over 500,000 insurgents and their families have laid down their arms through the programme, while others have deliberately avoided it. Abba, however, did not evade but was excluded for reasons he did not disclose.
“We were told there would be help, but nothing came. Sometimes I feel like going back to Sambisa,” he told HumAngle. “I only feel like going back when I am hungry. I wish I had something to do.”
While Abba battles hunger and memories of Sambisa, other surrendered insurgents, such as Musa Kura, have returned to the battlefield, but on the government’s side.
He recalls how Boko Haram preached to him until their ideology seemed the only truth. At 18, in 2013, he followed willingly into the bush. But after Shekau died, Musa saw ISWAP as traitors, and the government’s amnesty offer felt like a lifeline. He fled with his wife and children and surrendered to the authorities.
Musa passed through Operation Safe Corridor, and it was there, he says, that the military recruited him. He works as a civilian security guard in Konduga, but he is struggling.
“The payment is poor. Our children are not in school, and what we are given is not enough to care for our families. The only reason we stay is because we swore not to go back to our old ways,” he told HumAngle. They are paid ₦30,000 per month.
“I don’t know anything apart from fighting, so that is what I do,” he added.
Others, however, have chosen to disappear from the battlefield entirely. Isa Gana, another former Boko Haram member, chose a different path. After surrendering, he was given ₦100,000 in “startup support”. However, people never quite trusted him in his community.
Isa left Borno for Lagos, where he now works menial jobs. For him, anonymity is better than suspicion, and poverty in a city far from the battlefield feels safer than returning to violence.
“It is better this way,” he said. “I don’t want to fight for Boko Haram, and I don’t want to fight for the government.”
Yet, for some, even leaving the battlefield behind does not bring peace. Twenty-four-year-old Bakura Abba, who also surrendered after Shekau’s death and underwent the Operation Safe Corridor programme, said: “Survival in this new life is almost impossible. We have no housing, and we are jobless.”
Bakura was 17 when he was captured while working on the farm. Faced with the threat of execution, he chose to join Boko Haram and was trained as a fighter.
The frustration voiced by all those who spoke to HumAngle highlights a larger problem in Nigeria’s reintegration programme. Ahmad Salkida, the CEO of HumAngle and a security expert who has spent decades researching and reporting on the Boko Haram insurgency, said the sustainability of the reintegration programme rests on credibility.
The managers, he stressed, must be able to keep their promises to beneficiaries while also designing a framework that ensures the safety of the communities where defectors will eventually be resettled. According to him, the only way to achieve this is through a robust deradicalisation process, something that is currently missing.
“If a person is used to violence for over a decade and he is back in society, and is not engaged in other forms of livelihood or any skills, the likelihood of them going back, or even committing crimes in the community, is very high,” Salkida warned.
He added that the government’s best chance of success is to establish trust by handing the process to an independent civil society group, interfaith organisations, and mental health professionals, with communities fully involved, rather than leaving it in the hands of the Nigerian Army.
So far, however, there has been little meaningful support for communities most devastated by the insurgency, while considerable resources have gone instead to the perpetrators. This imbalance, Salkida warns, fuels the perception that deradicalisation is a reward for violent crimes — a perception that must change if trust is to be built between defectors, communities, and the government.
Official claims of success stand in sharp contrast to the lived reality. The deradicalisation programme suffers from a shortage of specialised trainers, poor physical infrastructure, and a lack of effective systems to monitor participants after reintegration.
The credibility gap is most visible in the mismatch between promises and delivery. Earlier in 2025, Borno State alone allocated ₦7.46 billion for the reintegration of surrendered combatants, one of its largest capital projects. But, as beneficiaries reveal, this investment is only heavy on paper, not in impact.
Just when you thought prospects for the future of the Gaza Strip could not get any bleaker, United States President Donald Trump has unveiled his 20-point “peace plan” for the Palestinian territory, starring himself as the chair of a “Board of Peace” that will serve as a transitional government in the enclave. This from the man who has been actively aiding and abetting Israel’s genocide of Palestinians since January, when he took over the US presidency from former honorary genocidaire Joe Biden.
But that is not all. Also on board for the “Board of Peace” is former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, who will reportedly play a significant governing role in Gaza’s proposed makeover. To be sure, importing a Sir Tony Blair from the United Kingdom to oversee an enclave of Palestinians smacks rather hard of colonialism in a region that is already quite familiar with the phenomenon.
And yet the region is also already quite familiar with Blair himself, owing in particular to his notorious performance during the 2003 war on Iraq, led by his buddy and then-chief of the so-called war on terror, George W Bush. Swearing by the false allegations of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, Blair steered the UK into a war that ultimately killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, earning him a most deserved reputation as a war criminal.
In other words, he is not a guy who should under any circumstances turn up on a “Board of Peace”.
And while Bush would subsequently retire to a quiet life of painting dogs and portraits of Russian President Vladimir Putin, Blair continued to make a name for himself as the man the Middle East just cannot get rid of – and to make a pretty penny while at it.
After resigning as prime minister in 2007, Blair was immediately reincarnated as Middle East envoy for the “Quartet” of international powers – representing the US, the European Union, Russia, and the United Nations – that is ostensibly forever striving to resolve the Israel-Palestine issue.
But in this case, too, the appointment of an envoy with close relations to Israel – the unquestionable aggressor to the “conflict” – pretty much obviated any advancement in the direction of “peace”.
Furthermore, Blair’s diplomatic activity conveniently overlapped with an array of highly lucrative business dealings in the region, from providing paid advice to Arab governments to signing on as a part-time senior adviser in 2008 with the US investment bank JP Morgan. For the latter post, Blair was said to be compensated in excess of $1m per year.
As Francis Beckett, coauthor of Blair Inc: The Man Behind the Mask, told Al Jazeera in 2016 – the year after Blair stepped down as Quartet envoy – “the difficulty was that when he went to meetings in the Middle East, nobody knew which Tony Blair they were seeing – whether it was Tony Blair the Quartet envoy or Tony Blair the patron of the Tony Blair Faith Foundation or Tony Blair the principal of the consultancy firm Tony Blair Associates”.
But, hey, the point of conflicts of interest is that they pay off.
In a 2013 article for the Journal of Palestine Studies, award-winning journalist Jonathan Cook noted that, while Blair had little to show in terms of “achievements” as Quartet representative, he liked to “trumpet one in particular: his success in 2009 in securing radio frequencies from Israel to allow the creation of a second Palestinian cell phone operator, Wataniya Mobile, in the West Bank”.
There was a catch, however. As Cook details, Israel released the frequencies in exchange for an agreement from the Palestinian leadership to drop the issue at the UN of Israeli war crimes committed during Operation Cast Lead in Gaza, which was launched in December 2008 and killed some 1,400 Palestinians in a matter of 22 days.
And what do you know? “Blair had private business interests in negotiating the deal,” and it so happened that “not only Wataniya but also JP Morgan stood to profit massively from the opening up of the West Bank’s airwaves.”
Now, it is hardly an exaggeration to assume that Blair will seek to capitalise on his impending governorship of Gaza, as well, as there are no doubt plenty of opportunities for the Tony Blair Institute for Global Change in, you know, changing the world to definitively screw over the Palestinians.
One focus of Trump’s 20-point plan, incidentally, is the “many thoughtful investment proposals and exciting development ideas … crafted by well-meaning international groups” that will magically produce “hope for future Gaza”. After all, why should Palestinians care about having a state and not being perennially massacred by Israel when they can have capitalism and the tyranny of foreign investors instead?
And the face of that tyranny may well be Blair, whose synonymousness with the slaughter of civilians in the Middle East has not prevented him from being once again tapped as a regional peacemaker.
This is not to say that Blair has no fans aside from Trump and the Israelis. For example, New York Times foreign affairs columnist Thomas Friedman, a fellow Orientalist and Iraq war cheerleader, once praised Blair as “one of the most important British prime ministers ever” for having decided to “throw in Britain’s lot with President Bush on the Iraq war”, thereby not only defying “the overwhelming antiwar sentiment of his own party, but public opinion in Britain generally”.
There was, it seemed, no end to Friedman’s admiration for Blair’s antidemocratic stoicism: “He had no real support group to fall back on. I’m not even sure his wife supported him on the Iraq war. (I know the feeling!)”
Now, as Gaza’s fate continues to hang at the mercy of Blair and other international war criminals, perhaps his wife should suggest that he take up painting instead.
The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial stance.
The US president pledged a 100 percent tariff for films made outside the country.
Published On 29 Sep 202529 Sep 2025
Share
United States President Donald Trump has said he wants to levy a 100 percent import tax on movies made outside the country, saying the movie business “has been stolen” from Hollywood and the US.
Posting on his Truth Social platform on Monday, the US president said the tariff was intended to “solve this long time, never ending problem.”
list of 3 itemsend of list
“Our movie making business has been stolen from the United States of America, by other Countries, just like stealing ‘candy from a baby,’” he wrote.
“California, with its weak and incompetent Governor, has been particularly hard hit!”, he added, in reference to California governor Gavin Newsom, who is a common foil of Trump’s.
It was unclear how these tariffs would operate, since movies and TV shows can be transmitted digitally without going through ports.
Nor was it clear what this would mean for US films that depend on foreign locations as part of the story, such as the James Bond franchise.
Analysts note that many films are international co-productions. They are also not goods that are imported in a conventional way, meaning the government would have to determine how to value them and when they even qualify as imports.
Trump made a similar threat in May, directing the Department of Commerce to immediately begin imposing a 100 percent tariff on films “produced in Foreign Lands”.
At the time, he complained the US film industry was “DYING a very fast death” due to other countries luring filmmakers and studios away with generous incentives, describing it as a national security threat.
The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment from the Reuters news agency on how the tariffs would be implemented.
“There is too much uncertainty, and this latest move raises more questions than answers,” said PP Foresight analyst Paolo Pescatore.
“For now, as things stand, costs are likely to increase, and this will inevitably be passed on to consumers,” he said.
The president on Monday, on his same social media platform, also promised “substantial” tariffs on any country that makes its furniture outside the US.
He said he was doing so to make the state of North Carolina “GREAT again”, saying it had “completely lost its furniture business to China, and other Countries”.
The Middle East in 2025 is still a powder keg, a place where dreams of peace get chewed up by the gritty, messy reality of the region. Donald Trump is swinging big with his “peace through strength” slogan, doubling down on his love for Israel. His grand plan? Pump up Israel’s military muscle, hit Iran where it hurts, and get Arab nations to play nice with Israel. Sounds like a neat fix, right? But it’s slammed headfirst into a wall of troubles: the never-ending Palestinian crisis, the boiling rage of people across the region, and the flat-out refusal of countries like Saudi Arabia and Turkey to let Israel call the shots. Those recent strikes on Iran’s nuclear plants? They haven’t brought peace; they’ve just cranked up the odds of a full-blown disaster.
Where “Peace Through Strength” Comes From
Trump’s whole Middle East game plan boils down to one idea: flex enough muscle, and diplomacy will follow. He’s got Israel pegged as the region’s anchor, betting that backing it to the hilt while smacking Iran’s nuclear sites will somehow calm the storm. That’s why he’s cheering on Israel’s fights against groups like Hezbollah and Hamas and pushing hard to spread the Abraham Accords. But here’s the kicker; this plan’s all about brute force, not sitting down to talk, and it’s turning a blind eye to the Middle East’s messy politics and deep-rooted feelings. Israel’s dependence on Uncle Sam’s cash and weapons just shows how wobbly this idea is from the start.
This strategy, born from the alliance between America’s hard-right and Israel’s leadership, mistakenly believes military might can forge peace; a brutal approach that ignores the region’s history and heart. By dismissing the people’s realities and internal politics, the plan is inherently fragile. It hasn’t cooled tensions; it’s ignited them, proving you can’t bully your way to calm.
The Palestinian Challenge
The biggest snag in Trump’s big vision is Palestine. The war in Gaza’s been a gut-punch to the region, breaking hearts and making it tough for Arab states, especially Saudi Arabia, to buddy up with Israel. Gulf leaders are under fire from their own people; they can’t just sign deals that leave Palestinians in the dust. Without a real ceasefire and a promise to give Palestinians a state of their own, any talk of peace is just hot air. Netanyahu’s crew, egged on by hardliners, keeps betting on bombs over talks, digging everyone into a deeper hole. With no real plan for what’s next in Gaza, the region’s spiraling toward chaos and new waves of defiance.
This war’s not just hurting Israel’s rep in the Middle East; it’s tanking it worldwide. Israel’s operations, with their heavy toll on civilians, have lit a fire under Arab anger and slashed global support for Israel. Even countries that got on board with the Abraham Accords are feeling the heat at home to back off. It’s plain as day: without tackling Palestine head-on, no peace plan’s got a shot. Leaning on military might hasn’t steadied the region; it’s kicked it into a tailspin.
Big players like Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Egypt aren’t about to roll over for Israel’s power grab. Saudi Arabia laid it out straight: no Palestinian state, no deal with Israel. Turkey, which used to be on decent terms with Israel, is now one of its loudest critics, thanks to Gaza and Israel’s chummy ties with Greece and Cyprus. Turkey’s bulking up its military and missiles, carving out its own path in the region. Egypt and other Arab states are also holding back, scared of the blowback if they jump on Israel’s bandwagon. This pushback screams one truth: you can’t force peace at gunpoint.
Even Gulf states like the UAE and Bahrain, who signed onto the Abraham Accords, are getting jittery. They’re worried that sticking too close to Israel without progress on Palestine could spark trouble at home. Turkey’s stepping up in Syria and playing peacemaker, trying to cut Israel’s influence down to size. These rivalries show that banking on Israel to run the show doesn’t bring folks together; it splits them apart. Real peace? It’s still a distant dream.
Striking Out on Iran
Those recent hits on Iran’s nuclear sites, part of Trump’s go-hard-or-go-home strategy, didn’t land the way he hoped. Reports say only one of three targets got knocked out, and the others are set to fire back up soon. Iran’s digging in, moving its nuclear work to underground hideouts, proving bombs alone can’t stop them. Worse, these strikes have trashed any chance of Iran trusting talks, jacking up the risk of a bigger fight. Instead of breaking Iran’s spirit, this move’s just made it more stubborn.
The plan’s fallout is chaotic. Fearing a collapsed Iran would mean disaster and refugees, Gulf states are balking at the U.S.-Israel warpath. They’re keeping ties with Tehran to avoid a bigger blowup, proving the region isn’t buying a “peace through strength” doctrine. By juggling relations with both sides, they’re pulling the rug out from under a strategy that puts Israel first and ignores the complex realities on the ground.
The Shaky Ground of the Abraham Accords
The Abraham Accords, once Trump’s shiny trophy from his first term, are wobbling in 2025. They’ve warmed things up between Israel and some Gulf states, but good luck getting Saudi Arabia or Qatar to join without a fix for Palestine. Public fury over Gaza’s bloodshed has Arab leaders walking a tightrope; they can’t afford to get too cozy with Israel without paying a steep political price. This shakiness proves one thing: a plan that bets everything on Israel’s clout can’t pull the region together.
Trying to grow the Accords has hit a brick wall too. Countries like Oman and Qatar, who were once open to chatting, are backing off, squeezed by their own people and the region’s vibe. It’s a loud wake-up call: without real movement on Palestine, the Accords won’t turn into some grand regional love-fest. They’re more like quick deals for cash and military perks, not the deep roots needed for lasting peace. It’s another strike against forcing things through.
Israel’s Lonely Road
Israel’s moves, especially in Gaza, have left it standing alone on the world stage. Even old pals like the European Union are pulling back, though they’re not ready to throw punches. By scoffing at international law with a “rules are for losers” attitude, Israel and the U.S. have dented Israel’s cred as a regional heavyweight. This isolation, plus the crushing cost of war, is wearing down Israel’s staying power.
This global cold shoulder’s also messing with Israel’s ties to big players like China and Russia, who are calling out U.S. and Israeli military stances while eyeing their own slice of the Middle East pie. This global rivalry, paired with fading support for Israel in world forums, has kneecapped its regional swagger. Without legitimacy at home or abroad, a plan built on firepower can’t deliver lasting peace. It’s a screaming case for real diplomacy and regional teamwork.
Inside Israel, Netanyahu’s got a firestorm on his hands. Failing to lock in a full Gaza ceasefire or free all hostages has folks fed up, exposing deep cracks in the country. Israel’s die-hard belief that guns can bring peace doesn’t match the region’s reality. The war’s brutal cost, for Palestinians and Israelis alike, shows this road’s a dead end. Without a clear plan for Gaza’s future or a legit Palestinian setup, Israel’s just asking for more trouble and upheaval.
These homegrown woes are tangled up with money and social struggles. Crazy-high war spending, shrinking foreign cash due to global isolation, and political knife-fights between hardliners and moderates are tying Netanyahu’s hands. This mess, plus pushback from the region and the world, shows that Israel running the show isn’t just a long shot; it’s a one-way ticket to more chaos.
Trump’s big dream for Middle East peace, riding on Israel’s military might and a chokehold on Iran, has gone up in smoke because it ignored the real issues—Palestine above all. This muscle-over-talks approach hasn’t brought the region together; it’s lit a match under people’s anger and sparked pushback from local governments. Hitting Iran might’ve scored a few points for a minute, but it didn’t stop their nuclear plans; it just killed any hope of sitting down to talk. Countries like Saudi Arabia and Turkey, by saying no to Israel’s grip, have made it crystal clear: peace won’t happen without justice and respect for Palestinian rights. Israel’s growing loneliness, the wobbly Abraham Accords, and its own internal fights all shout that “peace through strength” has only churned up more trouble. A calm, steady Middle East needs real diplomacy, respect for people’s rights, and the guts to face the root of the fight, not just leaning on force and control.
Reporting from Sacramento — An Assembly panel on Tuesday recommended the confirmation of Los Angeles Rep. Xavier Becerra as state attorney general after the nominee pledged to aggressively defend state policies on immigration, civil rights and the environment against potential attacks by President-elect Donald Trump’s incoming administration.
Before the panel’s 6-3 vote in favor of confirmation, with all Republicans opposed, Co-Chairman Reggie Jones-Sawyer (D-Los Angeles) told Becerra that he expects the state will become involved in a “long and ferocious and hard-fought legal war” with the federal government.
“Now more than ever we need an attorney general who will defend our values and stand up to the next administration’s backward vision for America,” Jones-Sawyer said during the hearing, denouncing Trump’s campaign rhetoric as “xenophobic.”
Gov. Jerry Brown introduced Becerra at the two-hour hearing, warning that “there are big battles ahead” and calling his nominee an “outstanding candidate that can certainly champion the causes we believe in.”
The nomination still must be acted on by the full Assembly, which is scheduled to vote Friday, as well as the Senate. The Senate Rules Committee will hold a confirmation hearing Jan. 18.
Becerra was questioned for more than an hour by members of the Assembly Special Committee on the Office of the Attorney General. He told them he is ready to fight for the state’s values. He told the panel that as the son of hardworking immigrants, he is committed to fighting any federal policy that takes away the rights of Californians who are playing by the rules.
“As California’s chief law enforcement officer and legal advocate, I am going to be ready to deploy those values and life lessons to advance and defend the rights — big and small — of all Californians,” Becerra told the panel. “Everyone who plays by California’s rules deserves to know, ‘We’ve got your back.’ ”
The 12-term congressman said he supports the state’s policies protecting the environment and civil rights. He said he opposes racial profiling by police and the stop-and-frisk policies of other cities.
With Trump proposing mass deportations and registration of immigrants from predominantly Muslim countries, Becerra said, “the head winds from outside of California could threaten the basic rights of so many families like the one I grew up in.”
“At risk is the notion that anyone who, like my parents and yours, works hard and builds this country can dream to own their own home, send their kids to college, earn a dignified retirement,” he said.
Asked about threats of cuts in federal funding to sanctuary cities, Becerra said cities will not protect violent criminals.
“‘Sanctuary’ is simply saying we are not going to go out there and do the bidding of an aggressive immigration enforcement agency.”
Becerra noted that federal law, on occasion, preempts state law, but he said he will be vigilant in ensuring that the state’s laws are preserved to the extent possible.
“If we have laws in place, we have every right to protect those laws,” Becerra said. “And while the federal government has preemption authority in most cases against the state for matters that are federal in nature, the federal government would have to prove that what it’s doing is federal in nature and that it isn’t violating the state’s rights to enact laws that improve the welfare of its people.
“You will find me being as aggressive as possible working with all of you to figure out ways that we can make sure there is no federal intrusion in areas that are really left to the state in the U.S. Constitution.”
Republican members called on Becerra to make fighting crime his top priority and said they had concerns about the attorney general failing to defend the rights of gun owners and religious institutions facing interference by the state government.
Assemblyman James Gallagher (R-Plumas Lake) complained about religious nonprofits being told by the state they must inform clients of the availability of abortion services even if it is against their beliefs.
Becerra tried to lighten the mood in the face of deeply philosophical questions.
“You’re getting into some subjects that probably require a few beers,” Becerra said, offering to buy Gallagher a round so they could talk about weighty issues.
Some 50 people testified, with support coming from groups such as the Sierra Club, Los Angeles Police Protective League, Equality California and several labor unions. Only two people objected to the nomination, including an American Independent Party member who questioned whether Becerra had enough years serving as an attorney to be qualified.
Craig DeLuz of the Firearms Policy Coalition said his group wants a state attorney general who can protect the constitutional rights of gun owners.
“Unfortunately, based on the record, we simply do not believe that this nominee is capable of doing that,” DeLuz told the panel.
The National Rifle Assn. also opposed Becerra in a letter.
Follow @mcgreevy99 on Twitter
ALSO
Who’s in and who’s out in the race to replace Rep. Xavier Becerra in Congress
Carlos Alcaraz arrived at the U.S. Open on Monday with a new hairdo.
Actually, he arrived at Flushing Meadows with no hairdo — as in no hair at all, aside from some teeny, tiny specks on his head that come to a widow’s peak.
The world’s No. 2-ranked player was asked about his shocking new look following his 6-4, 7-5, 6-4 victory over Opelka. Alcaraz told reporters that he had simply wanted a haircut before the tournament, but one of his brothers “misunderstood” how to use the clippers.
The resulting mess, he said, left him with no choice but to start over with a clean pate.
“The only way to fix it is just shave it off,” a casual Alcaraz said.
Alcaraz isn’t bothered by the situation. As he reminded the reporters, hair grows back.
“I’m not really into, you know, the hair at all,” Alcaraz said. “So I’m the guy who thinks like, OK, the hair grows, you know? And then [in] a few days it’s gonna be already OK, I guess.”
Alcaraz apparently is not kidding about the speed at which his hair grows. He mentioned it to reporters during the Australian Open, after arriving in toasty Melbourne with shorter locks than usual.
Spain’s Carlos Alcaraz serves during a practice session ahead of the Australian Open on Jan. 9 in Melbourne.
(Mark Baker / Associated Press)
“I discussed with my barber that when I get a haircut… three days later it’s grown out,” Alcaraz said in Melbourne. “So I have to go more often.”
Alcaraz unintentionally provided a demonstration during the French Open, where he first sported a rather bushy look during his first-round win over Giulio Zeppieri on May 26.
Spain’s Carlos Alcaraz celebrates after winning a point during his first-round French Open match against Italy’s Giulio Zeppieri on May 26 in Paris.
(Thibault Camus / Associated Press)
Two days later, however, Alcaraz returned to the court for his second-round match against Nuno Borges with a ‘do possibly (but probably not) inspired by Moe Howard from the “Three Stooges.” Alcaraz told befuddled reporters after the match that he “had to do something” about his hair and beard, so he flew in his personal barber.
Spain’s Carlos Alcaraz returns the ball to Portugal’s Nuno Borges during their second-round match of the French Open on May 28 in Paris.
(Christophe Ena / Associated Press)
A mere 11 days later, when Alcaraz defeated Jannik Sinner in the final match for his fifth major championship, he was back to looking like this:
Spain’s Carlos Alcaraz celebrates after defeating Italy’s Jannik Sinner in the French Open final June 8 in Paris.
(Lindsey Wasson / Associated Press)
So if Alcaraz happens to win the U.S. Open championship, like he did in 2022, he might have a lengthy mane while hoisting the trophy at Arthur Ashe Stadium at the USTA Billie Jean King National Tennis Center.
In the meantime, though, some people might continue to respond to his haircut the way U.S. player Frances Tiafoe did when asked about it by a reporter following his first-round victory over Yoshihito Nishioka.
“It’s definitely terrible,” Tiafoe said with a laugh. “He’s my guy, though. It’s funny. I looked at him and I was like, ‘I guess you’re aerodynamic’ … I don’t know who told him to do that, but it’s terrible. From a guy who gets haircuts week in, week out and prides myself on good haircuts, it’s horrendous.”
Alcaraz also laughed when he was asked about Tiafoe’s comment.
“I know he’s lying,” Alcaraz said. “He likes the haircut. He likes it, he told me.”
Others might react like Irish golfer Rory McIlroy, who expressed his full support for the radical change atop Alcaraz’s head while meeting with the Spaniard earlier Monday.
“I like it,” McIlroy told him. “It’s good. It’s a good look.”
Overall, Alcaraz told reporters, reactions have been mixed — and he really doesn’t care either way.
“Some people like it. Some people don’t like it,” he said. “To be honest, I’m just laughing about the reaction of the people. It is what it is. So I can’t do anything else right now, so I’m just laughing about everything that they are talking about my haircut.”
United States President Donald Trump has announced his government will seek the death penalty in every murder case that unfolds in Washington, DC, as part of his crackdown on crime in the country’s capital.
Trump made the announcement in the midst of a Labor Day-themed meeting of his cabinet on Tuesday as he discussed a range of issues, from weapons sales to the rising cost of living.
“Anybody murders something in the capital: capital punishment. Capital capital punishment,” Trump said, seeming to relish the wordplay.
“If somebody kills somebody in the capital, Washington, DC, we’re going to be seeking the death penalty. And that’s a very strong preventative, and everybody that’s heard it agrees with it.”
Trump then acknowledged that the policy would likely be controversial, but he pledged to forge onwards.
“I don’t know if we’re ready for it in this country, but we have no choice,” Trump said. “States are gonna have to make their own decision.”
Washington, DC, occupies a unique position in the US. The US Constitution defined the capital as a federal district as opposed to a state or a city within a surrounding state.
Elsewhere in the country, most murder cases are prosecuted by state or local authorities unless they rise to the level of a federal crime.
But in Washington, DC, the US Attorney’s Office – a federal prosecutor’s office under the Department of Justice – prosecutes nearly all violent crimes.
The administration of former President Joe Biden had backed away from the death penalty. Under the Democrat’s leadership, the Justice Department ordered a moratorium that paused capital punishment as it reviewed its policies.
Biden himself campaigned on the promise that he would “eliminate the death penalty”, arguing that more than 160 people who were executed from 1973 to 2020 were later exonerated.
“Because we cannot ensure we get death penalty cases right every time, Biden will work to pass legislation to eliminate the death penalty at the federal level and incentivize states to follow the federal government’s example,” Biden’s team wrote on his 2020 campaign website.
While Biden ultimately did not eliminate the federal death penalty, in one of his final acts as president, he commuted the sentences of 37 of the 40 people on federal death row.
In a statement in December, he anticipated that a second Trump administration would pursue the death penalty for federal cases.
“In good conscience, I cannot stand back and let a new administration resume executions that I halted,” Biden wrote.
But when Trump took office for a second term on January 20, one of his first executive orders was to “restore” the death penalty.
“Capital punishment is an essential tool for deterring and punishing those who would commit the most heinous crimes and acts of lethal violence against American citizens,” Trump wrote in the order.
“Our Founders knew well that only capital punishment can bring justice and restore order in response to such evil.”
The Republican leader had campaigned for re-election on a platform that promised a crackdown on crime and immigration, sometimes conflating the two despite evidence that undocumented people commit fewer crimes than US-born citizens.
In the days leading up to his inauguration, Trump doubled down on that pledge, denouncing Biden for his decision to commute the majority of incarcerated people on federal death row.
“As soon as I am inaugurated, I will direct the Justice Department to vigorously pursue the death penalty to protect American families and children from violent rapists, murderers, and monsters,” Trump wrote on his platform Truth Social. “We will be a Nation of Law and Order again!”
Trump has repeatedly pushed for the increased use of the death penalty in the seven months since, including during an address to a joint session of Congress in March.
In that speech, he called on Congress to pass a law to make the death penalty a mandatory sentence for the murder of a law enforcement officer in the US.
During his first term, from 2017 to 2021, Trump gained a reputation for accelerating the use of capital punishment on the federal level.
While federal executions are rare, the first Trump administration conducted 13 of the 16 executions that have taken place since 1976, the year the Supreme Court reinstated the death penalty.
The only other president to carry out capital punishment during that time was a fellow Republican, George W Bush. His administration oversaw three federal executions.
Critics fear a similar uptick in death penalty cases during Trump’s second term.
Public support for capital punishment has been steadily declining over the past decade, according to surveys. The research firm Gallup found that, as of 2024, a narrow majority of Americans – 53 percent – were in favour of the death penalty, down from 63 percent a decade earlier.
Trump’s call to apply the death penalty to all murder cases in Washington, DC, coincides with his controversial push to crack down on crime in the capital city.
That comes despite data from the Metropolitan Police Department that show violent crime in the capital hit a 30-year low in 2024, a statistic shared by the Justice Department in a statement in January.
Homicides, it added, were down by 32 percent over the previous year.
But Trump has maintained that crime fell only when he deployed more than 2,000 armed National Guard troops to patrol the city this month.
“Crime in DC was the worst ever in history. And now over the last 13 days, we’ve worked so hard and we’ve taken so many – and there are many left – but we’ve taken so many criminals. Over a thousand,” Trump said at Tuesday’s cabinet meeting.
He also claimed – without evidence – that the local government in Washington, DC, gave “false numbers” in its crime reporting.
“What they did is they issued numbers: ‘It’s the best in 30 years.’ Not the best. It’s the worst. It’s the worst,” Trump said. “And they gave phoney numbers.”
Just a day before, Trump signed an executive order to develop a new unit within the National Guard “to ensure public safety and order in the Nation’s capital”.
But under the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, the federal government is largely prohibited from using military forces for domestic law enforcement except in cases of disasters or major public emergencies.
Trump has described crime in Washington, DC, as a national emergency although local leaders have disputed that assertion.
At several points during Tuesday’s cabinet meeting, he defended his strong-arm approach to law enforcement as necessary, even if it earns him criticisms for being a “dictator”.
“The line is that I’m a dictator, but I stop crime. So a lot of people say, ‘You know, if that’s the case, I’d rather have a dictator.’ But I’m not a dictator. I just know to stop crime,” Trump said.