Author

admin

Browsing

In Frankfurt an der Oder, an ironic sign reads, “Frankfurt Oder/Slubice – no borders.” Slubice is the Polish town across the fast-flowing Oder river that marks the beginning of German Federal Republic.

Straddling the river, a bridge connects these two European nations. A single-file line of cars waits patiently to enter from Poland. German police, some carrying machine guns and adorned in high-viz vests, wave cars through or pull over the ones they deem suspicious.

“It’s daily business here that people don’t meet the entry requirements for Germany and perhaps even for the Schengen area and then have to be subjected to further police measures,” Tom Knie, a youthful-looking police officer says in between checks, referring to the passport-free travel zone within the European Union.

These are now the new realities on all of Germany’s land borders.

On September 16, Berlin ordered the “temporary reintroduction of border control” at Germany’s borders with Belgium, Holland, Luxembourg, France and Denmark.

The move extends the controls already in place at the borders with Poland, Austria, the Czech Republic and Switzerland that have been in operation since October.

The reason for the reintroduction of these checks lies largely in German domestic issues, all of them interconnected, but each compounding pressure on German Chancellor Olaf Scholz and his governing coalition, the most severe of which is coming from Germany’s burgeoning and increasingly confident far right.

But they also mark the end of an era of Germany’s liberal migration policy – Wilkommenskultur, or “welcome culture” – initiated by Scholz’s predecessor Angela Merkel in 2015 and raise questions over the viability of the entire Schengen zone.

Terror, migration and the AfD

As if a reminder of the importance the surging Alternative for Germany (AfD) party places in securing Germany’s border, pinned to the lamp posts along the road into Frankfurt/Oder are their campaign posters.

One reads “WE PROTECT YOU!” with an eagle, the federal symbol of Germany, swoops over a bin which contains a traffic light – the symbol of the coalition government here, known as the “traffic light coalition” – and more insidiously, a mosque.

A spate of terror attacks ahead of key state elections in right-wing leaning regions thrust the issue of migration front and center of the recent votes.

In June, a 25-year-old Afghan man killed a police officer in Manheim, and weeks later a 26-year-old Syrian man killed three people in knife attacks in Solingen. Both incidents were capitalized on by the AfD.

One of the party’s most controversial figures, Bjoern Hoecke, called on X for an “end to this misguided path of forced multiculturalism.”

In early September, the AfD became the first far-right party since the Nazi era to win outright a state election. Victory in Thuringia, a former East German state, was followed by a close second in Saxony.

Eroding Scholz’s control

The AfD has long campaigned on a ticket that is largely anti-immigration. Alice Weidel, the co-leader of the AfD, has said in the past that Germany had become “a country without borders, where anyone can come in and we do nothing about it.”

Their success, coupled with the rise of the far left, which also has anti-immigration stances, has found a way to gnaw at Scholz’s support and has ultimately forced the chancellor to act, especially on migration.

Speaking in the Bundestag ahead of the border restrictions, Scholz said “we’re doing this although it will be difficult with our neighbors… I think we have to get through this. It is now necessary for us to endure this dispute.”

There is potential for more misery to be heaped on Scholz and his government this weekend, as Brandenburg also goes to the polls to elect its regional leaders.

Current forecasts put the AfD on course for 28.4% of the vote, beating Scholz’s  Social Democratic Party, which is polling in second with 24.7%.

The outcome could easily spell more trouble for Scholz and a further weakening of his coalition, and increase the calls for new federal elections sooner than next September.

The end of Wilkommenskultur?

The calls for more checks on Germany’s borders also mark a step-change at the heart of the European Union from Merkel’s policies.

In 2015, the long-serving, and ever popular former German chancellor Merkel opened Germany’s borders to migrants fleeing their homes – at the time largely Syrians because of the country’s civil war.

Migration data from the German government shows that 13.7 million non-German migrants entered from 2015-2023. In the same period before 2015 that number was just 5.8 million.

The moves by Merkel became known as Wilkommenskulturand and set Germany apart on the world stage in liberal migration policy.

He said the promise to control irregular migration at the border won’t be possible but instead “will raise expectations that will lead to demands to really build fences, in the end, to turn countries into fortresses.”

The current government, Knaus said, is “faced with the demand to regularize and control movement, [and] the government accepts the legitimacy of the demand [by the far-right] but then doesn’t have a policy that will work.”

For Knaus, the prospect of the change in German policy raises another specter.

“If you promise to control an emotional issue like migration and what you propose doesn’t work, not only are you not going to achieve your objective, you’re setting yourself up for a failure that will be exploited by those prepared to go much, much further,” Knaus said.

This post appeared first on cnn.com

It’s time for UNGA 79!

Quick explanation: the United Nations General Assembly is an annual world leaders’ summit that has gone on for nearly eight decades since the international body’s founding in San Francisco. It’s a place for long speeches, private country-to-country whisper sessions, and group meetings on everything from regulating artificial intelligence to global conflicts.

This year features a UN once again caught in a debate over its relevancy while attempting to stem wars in Gaza, Ukraine and Sudan. All of which its Secretary General Antonio Guterres is keen to remedy.

“I have one overriding message today; an appeal to member states for a spirit of compromise,” Guterres implored on Wednesday.  

It is a refrain he and his predecessors have been saying for years. The UN’s 193 member states can’t decide on what to order for lunch, let alone find consensus on how to deal with the Israel’s ongoing siege of Gaza, a major issue in Security Council meetings since the war began last October with militant group Hamas’ terror attacks in Israel.

The Security Council, the UN’s most powerful organ, has been dominated by just five veto-wielding countries (the United States, China, Russia, France, and the United Kingdom) since its inception and has increasingly found itself at a stalemate.

Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine is part of a series of stunning developments that have rocked the UN system and runs contrary to what the international body was established to prevent.

But the past years have seen Russia block any pro-Ukraine resolution it doesn’t like, while the US stops the most sharp-edged resolutions aimed at Israel. Moves that only help to reinforce the idea that the West uses multilateral institutions to criticize its geopolitical adversaries.

The tone inside the Security Council has notably become rough, said one UN diplomat. “It has changed. I think it is harsher,” the diplomat added.

Sniping in the open council sessions often feature sharp-tongued exchanges between the big powers. Slovenia’s UN envoy Samuel Žbogar, who is also the current president of the Security Council, described the atmosphere of council meetings as “poisonous.”

The Council meets Friday to speak about exploding communications devices in Lebanon. That’s a new one amid hundreds of angry meetings on Gaza, Ukraine and the rest.

Taking the world stage

Still, diplomats are optimistic about the possibility of change. US Ambassador to the United Nations Linda Thomas-Greenfield said this week: “it’s easy to fall into cynicism, to actually give up hope and to give up on democracy, but we can’t afford to do that.”

She is leading a US effort to expand the Security Council with two seats for Africa. However, new members would not have the crucial veto power that the the post WW2 five wield.

The veto allows permanent members, known as the P5, to block any resolution, ranging from peacekeeping missions to sanctions, in defense of their national interests and foreign policy decisions.

The council also has 10 non-permanent members elected to two-year terms – but some feel toothless without veto privileges.

“I am critical of the permanent members because they have a bigger responsibility than the elected (10) members,” Slovenia’s Žbogar said.

What the New York headquarters of the UN will provide next week is a forum for the Palestinians, Israelis, Ukrainians, Russians and others to speak their minds to the world and directly to each other.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky is due to give a speech next Wednesday and appear at a special Security Council meeting.

Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu – a former ambassador to the UN – may also be in attendance, speaking to the General Assembly later next week, which is expected to lead to a lot of walkouts from the assembly hall.

According to Richard Gowan, UN director at the International Crisis Group, Netanyahu “hates the organization and he has a deep mistrust of it.”

New British Prime Minister Keir Starmer is expected to make his first showing at the General Assembly after his predecessor, Rishi Sunak, skipped last year’s meeting.

And once again the leaders of China and Russia will skip it all, sending high-ranking ministers to speak in their stead.

Climate, conflict, hunger and US politics

The amount of hot air from the speeches could turn the UN into one of the biggest emitters of greenhouse gases next week.

Climate change will be one of the biggest issues being discussed, with the General Assembly expected to hold a meeting on sea level rise on Wednesday. Look out for leaders from vulnerable island nations push for more action to tackle global warming.

The war in Sudan will also be a talking point, where famine was declared in a refugee camp near El Fasher, the capital of Sudan’s North Darfur state. The city has for months been besieged by the Rapid Support Forces (RSF), a rebel group that took up arms against the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) in April 2023.

Millions have been forcibly displaced in the conflict and 25.6 million people in the country are facing acute hunger, according to UN agencies

The US presidential race also looms. A lot of diplomats are already concerned about who will be speaking for the US next year.

“I think in a lot of the private conversations around the General Assembly, the number one question will be: “what will [Republican presidential nominee Donald] Trump do to the organization?” Gowan said.

If the former US president is re-elected, the fallout for the UN won’t be pretty, he said, predicting some heavy budget slashing. The US and China are by far the biggest funders to the UN.

If you felt six days of speeches could glaze the eyeballs, there is another big summit right before UNGA.

Do not feel like you have to read on here, but it’s a meeting called the “Summit of the Future,” and naturally countries are still negotiating its final summit document, called the “Pact for the Future,” after months of talks.

The pact, now in its fourth revision, aims to provide a blueprint on how to tackle critical issues like conflicts, climate change, security council reform and the regulation of artificial intelligence.

The UN Secretary-General thinks the final document has the most significant reform in a generation. Another diplomat said “it should make the UN more relevant.” But getting 193 of anything to agree on anything is difficult; so is the task for the 193 members of the UN General Assembly.

Just think we almost made it through an UNGA story before a mention of New York traffic delays during UNGA. Watch out for those motorcades!

This post appeared first on cnn.com

A new poll has found that former President Trump has higher favorability numbers among likely voters compared to pop superstar Taylor Swift. 

The New York Times, Philadelphia Inquirer and Siena College poll of 2,436 likely voters nationwide revealed that 44% have a favorable opinion of Taylor Swift, compared to 34% who have unfavorable views. 

The same poll found that 47% view Trump favorably, compared to 51% who don’t. Vice President Kamala Harris, meanwhile, was viewed favorably by 48% of the likely voters and unfavorably by 49%, the newspaper says. 

The poll, with a margin of error of plus or minus three percentage points, was conducted from Sept. 11 to 16, starting one day after Swift endorsed the Harris-Walz campaign. 

‘I will be casting my vote for Kamala Harris and Tim Walz in the 2024 Presidential Election,’ Swift wrote on her Instagram account on Sept. 10, following the presidential debate between the two candidates that day. 

‘I’m voting for @kamalaharris because she fights for the rights and causes I believe need a warrior to champion them. I think she is a steady-handed, gifted leader and I believe we can accomplish so much more in this country if we are led by calm and not chaos,’ Swift added. ‘I was so heartened and impressed by her selection of running mate @timwalz, who has been standing up for LGBTQ+ rights, IVF, and a woman’s right to her own body for decades.’ 

The New York Times reports that her endorsement appears to have divided voters along party lines. 

The poll shows that 70% of Democrats have a favorable view of Swift, compared to 41% of independents and just 23% of Republicans.

A total of 60% of Republicans indicated that they had an unfavorable view of Swift, while only 11% of Democrats felt the same way. 

This post appeared first on FOX NEWS

The House of Representatives has passed a bipartisan bill increasing U.S. Secret Service (USSS) protections for major presidential and vice presidential candidates after two foiled assassination attempts against former President Donald Trump.

It passed with an overwhelming unanimous 405 to 0 vote, a rare show of bipartisanship in Congress.

The legislation was introduced by Reps. Ritchie Torres, D-N.Y., and Mike Lawler, R-N.Y., in response to the July 13 shooting at a Trump rally in Butler, Pennsylvania.

A 20-year-old gunman was able to open fire on the rally from a rooftop just outside the rally perimeter, killing one attendee and injuring Trump and two others.

Weeks later, USSS agents arrested a man near Trump’s West Palm Beach golf course who had been waiting for the ex-president during a game on Sunday with an SKS rifle.

If passed by the Senate and signed into law by President Biden, the bill would mandate a comprehensive review of USSS protective standards and impose uniform standards for the security of presidents, vice presidents and major White House candidates.

‘Regardless of how every American feels, regardless of how every American intends to vote, it is the right of the American people to determine the outcome of this election. The idea that our election could be decided by an assassin’s bullet should shake the conscience of our nation, and it requires swift action by the federal government,’ Lawler said during debate on the bill Thursday.

‘It is shocking that it took a second assassination attempt for Donald Trump to get the same level of protective detail from the Secret Service as the president of the United States.’

Progressive Rep. Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y., said he is backing the bill but argued it would be meaningless without stronger firearm laws.

‘I support this legislation because the Secret Service must be able to protect our highest elected officials and candidates. But this legislation will do nothing to make the rest of us any safer, or change the fact that gun violence continues to take the lives of more than 100 Americans every single day,’ Nadler said.

House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, pushed back on Nadler’s comments and accused him of painting the assassination attempts as ‘Republicans’ fault.’

‘Next thing they’re going to say is, oh, some crazy guy on the left tries to assassinate President Trump, and it’s President Trump’s fault. Oh, wait a minute. They said that too. This is ridiculous,’ Jordan said.

It is not immediately clear how the bill would classify ‘major’ candidates.

Following the first attempt against Trump, Biden extended heightened USSS protection to the ex-president, who he was still running against at the time before dropping out of the race.

He also granted a request by Robert F. Kennedy Jr., then running as a third-party candidate, for USSS protection.

This post appeared first on FOX NEWS

As CBS anchors Norah O’Donnell and Margaret Brennan prepare for the vice-presidential debate on Oct. 1, they have two models to choose from: CNN’s attempt to avoid ‘fact-checking’ the candidates or ABC’s aggressively one-sided ‘fact-based’ assault on the Republicans. 

ABC’s immoderate moderators David Muir and Linsey Davis uncorked the most flagrantly unfair and unbalanced debate in the history of modern presidential debates, going back to the Nixon-Kennedy debates of 1960. They don’t care that anyone objects to their strategic decision to join in debating former President Trump, giving everyone the distinct impression that this was a three-on-one conversation. 

Muir appeared on the Disney-syndicated chat show ‘Live with Kelly and Mark’ and dismissed all criticism of ABC’s shoddy performance as ‘noise.’ He sounded like Jimmy Kimmel when he told Republicans he didn’t want them watching his late-night show. ABC isn’t here to please Republicans, only Democrats. 

‘All of the noise that you hear afterward about, you know, ‘Which candidate won the debate, did the moderators win or lose?’’ Muir said. ‘That’s just noise. You all know that. The most important thing to remember is you all have the power.’ 

Voters don’t have the power to tilt the election discussion in one direction. Conspiracy theories bubbled up from an alleged anonymous whistleblower about Vice President Kamala Harris getting questions in advance. ABC hired former Democratic Party chair Donna Brazile as a contributor, and in 2016, when she was a contributor at CNN, she sent Hillary Clinton’s campaign some topics for a town hall discussion in advance, and CNN let her go. 

It could be enlightening to drag ABC before a congressional probe and ask how this incredibly biased debate was organized. But Harris didn’t need to have these questions in advance. Team Kamala could know there would be an inflation question, an immigration question, an abortion question, an Israel question, and maybe another mention of her flip-flop on fracking. There were no surprises, and the questions were vague enough that she repeatedly dodged a direct answer and uncorked her prepared speeches, and the moderators naturally allowed it. 

Davis gave a revealing interview to the Los Angeles Times, explaining they didn’t want to be like CNN. ‘People were concerned that statements were allowed to just hang and not [be] disputed by the candidate Biden, at the time, or the moderators,’ she said. Those ‘people’ are Democrats. 

Davis told Times media reporter Stephen Battaglio that she had to turn off her social media accounts to shut out people who accuse her of pulling for Harris. ‘There is a stereotype that I am acutely aware of that I can’t be unbiased covering this moment,’ she said. Then she went on the debate stage and proved it. Davis, like Muir, had no time for people charging her with blatant favoritism. 

Davis also cited her mentor, ABC News veteran Carole Simpson, a woman of color best known for moderating a 1992 presidential debate where she sneered at President George H.W. Bush for calling himself the ‘education president.’ Simpson openly called Hillary Clinton’s election to the Senate in 2000 an ‘exhilarating moment’ and in 2007, proclaimed it was time for Hillary to be elected the first woman president. That says a lot. 

So how did Team ABC decide to tilt toward only ‘fact-checking’ Trump? Davis said she and Muir had studied hours of campaign rallies and interviews to prepare for the debate, so they were ‘ready to counter the candidates’ most egregious statements.’ For example, she fully anticipated fighting back on Trump’s supposedly ‘erroneous’ claim that the Democrats favor abortion at any time for any reason. 

‘That was an obvious thing to get on the record,’ Davis said. ABC’s partisans should have studied what Trump typically cites, that then-Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam said in a radio interview about keeping a baby that was born alive ‘comfortable’ as they decided whether to kill it (or perhaps let it die unassisted). A state legislator had proposed a bill that she admitted would allow abortion up until birth. 

They could have reviewed the 2020 Democratic Party platform, which proclaimed, ‘We believe unequivocally, like the majority of Americans, that every woman should be able to access high-quality reproductive health care services, including safe and legal abortion… Democrats oppose and will fight to overturn federal and state laws that create barriers to reproductive health and rights.’ 

Davis gave a revealing interview to the Los Angeles Times, explaining they didn’t want to be like CNN. ‘People were concerned that statements were allowed to just hang and not [be] disputed by the candidate Biden, at the time, or the moderators,’ she said. Those ‘people’ are Democrats. 

They will fight to overturn barriers, with no exceptions. Liberal ‘fact-checkers’ have attacked Trump and many other Republicans (like Montana Senate candidate Tim Sheehy) for ‘lying’ about Democrats supporting abortion on demand, when the facts are there, in black and white. They claim Republicans are debunked because late-term abortions are ‘rare.’ That’s not a factual rebuttal. 

On the Sunday after the debate, ABC’s ‘This Week’ host Martha Raddatz, who has specialized in foreign policy, pushed a belated fact-check on Harris’ claim that there were no American service members in war zones. ‘Our fact-checkers found that to be false,’ Raddatz told Gov. Maura Healey, D-Mass. ‘There are currently 900 U.S. military personnel in Syria, 2,500 U.S. troops in Iraq. All have been under regular threat from drones and missiles for months. We also have action in the Red Sea. Also, every single day, the Navy SEALs, Delta Forces special operators can be part of any sort of deadly raid.’ Muir and Davis didn’t prepare for that one. 

Battaglio apparently had no questions about whether they studied Harris’ record for ‘fact-checks.’ They obviously needed no preparation on that front, since they never touched her. Let’s guess that shameless zero occurred because, on the left, any attempt to fact-check a Democrat opposing Trump is objectionable, because it suggests that a Democrat’s falsehoods might be made equivalent to Trump’s. Every anti-Trump journalist acts on the belief that any measure of neutrality is an atrocity. 

This post appeared first on FOX NEWS

Democrats roundly condemned political violence after news that a suspect had been arrested for threatening to hurt and kill six of the Supreme Court’s nine Justices and some of their family members.

‘Threats and acts of violence are unacceptable. Period,’ Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., told the Washington Post. ‘As President Biden and Vice President Harris have always said, violence has absolutely no place in our country. Violent rhetoric and threats are unacceptable,’ White House Deputy Press Secretary Andrew Bates said. ‘There’s absolutely no place for political violence in this country – full stop,’ said Sen. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md.

It remains unknown exactly which justices 76-year-old Alaska resident Panos Anastasiou intended to attack. 

However, a complaint filed against him Wednesday indicated that his threats included anti-Black slurs, and there is only one Black Supreme Court Justice – Clarence Thomas, who typically votes with the Court’s conservative majority. Additionally, the complaint laid out that Anastasiou’s threats included extreme remarks about a former president described by Anastasiou as a ‘convicted criminal.’ Former President Donald Trump became the first former president to be convicted of a felony, earlier this year.

Democrats have repeatedly slammed the Supreme Court as illegitimate. In a foretelling speech from Duke Law School on Monday, Kannon Shanmugam, who is widely considered one of the nation’s top appellate litigators and has argued 35 cases in front of the Supreme Court, said that ‘attacks on the legitimacy of the courts are contributing to the threat of violence against judges in general.’ 

‘Enough is enough. When will the media press Democrats like Sen. Schumer, Sen. Durbin, Sen. Whitehouse, VP Harris and others to stop their baseless attacks on the Supreme Court that have created actual threats to the safety of our Justices?’ questioned GOP Florida Sen. Rick Scott following news of Anastasiou’s arrest. ‘Hey, look, someone who took Chuck Schumer seriously,’ said Trent England, the founder and executive director of conservative nonprofit Save Our States. Other critics pointed to how Anastasiou was a frequent donor to Democrats. 

Trump’s ability to shakeup the Supreme Court with new Justices has not sat well with Democrats. 

In a fiery speech in front of the Supreme Court after a preliminary draft opinion overturning Roe v. Wade was leaked in spring 2020, Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., put conservative Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch, both nominated by Trump, in his crosshairs: ‘I want to tell you, Gorsuch. I want to tell you, Kavanaugh. You have released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price,’ Schumer exclaimed outside the steps of the Supreme Court in 2020. ‘You won’t know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions.’

‘The Supreme Court is not well. And the people know it,’ a cohort of Democratic senators said in an August 2019 brief after the High Court took up a case about the constitutionality of a New York City law restricting legal gun owners from transporting their firearms.

In 2020, during the confirmation of Amy Coney Barrett, Trump’s final Supreme Court nomination that would eventually make it to the bench, then-Sen. Kamala Harris called the confirmation ‘illegitimate’ and ‘reckless.’ Following the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, Harris warned that there is ‘a national movement afoot to attack hard-won and hard-fought freedoms.’ 

‘I don’t want to, at this point, use my voice in a way that is alarmist,’ she added earlier this year in an interview with the New York Times. ‘But this court has made it very clear that they are willing to undo recognized rights.’ 

Meanwhile, in July, Sen. Ed Markey said: ‘Donald Trump and his MAGA partners’ were to blame for the fact that ‘Our most fundamental freedoms are under attack from an illegitimate, extremist U.S. Supreme Court majority.’ 

‘They started by breaking the rules for confirming justices and ended up breaking the Supreme Court itself,’ Markey said.

The DOJ indicated Wednesday that Anastasiou was charged with nine counts of making threats against a federal judge and 13 counts of making threats in interstate commerce. He faces up to 10 years in jail. 

‘Our justice system depends on the ability of judges to make their decisions based on the law, and not on fear,’ Attorney General Merrick Garland said Thursday. ‘Our democracy depends on the ability of public officials to do their jobs without fearing for their lives or the safety of their families.’

This post appeared first on FOX NEWS

After months of public optimism about the prospects of a ceasefire, Biden administration officials have soured on the prospects of an end to the war between Israel and Hamas. 

‘We aren’t any closer to that now than we were even a week ago,’ National Security Council spokesman John Kirby admitted to reporters on Wednesday. He called the prospects of a completed deal ‘daunting.’ 

‘No deal is imminent,’ one U.S. official told The Wall Street Journal. ‘I’m not sure it ever gets done.’

Israelis point the finger at Hamas for killing six hostages earlier this month, including a U.S. citizen. Arab officials lay blame on Israel for explosive pagers and walkie-talkies and airstrikes aimed at killing Hezbollah fighters for making the prospect of a multi-front war more likely. 

‘There’s no chance now of it happening,’ an Arab official said after the recent campaign against Hezbollah. ‘Everyone is in a wait-and-see mode until after the election. The outcome will determine what can happen in the next administration.’

For Biden, a former chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee who ran on his diplomacy chops, failure to secure a deal would be a blow to his legacy. It would mean a presidency bookended by a chaotic pullout from Afghanistan at the start and the false hope that peace — and the return of some 250 hostages taken by Hamas on Oct. 7 — was just around the corner after the outbreak of war in the Middle East. 

Along with the recent attacks on Hezbollah, officials cited another main reason for pessimism to the Journal: the number of Palestinian prisoners that Israel would be asked to release to bring home its hostages.

Joel Rubin, former deputy assistant secretary of state, told Fox News Digital he’s less pessimistic about the potential for a deal. 

‘Nobody’s walked away from the table. They haven’t stated they’re done. Qatar and Egypt are still partnering with us on these talks. The three-stage agreed-upon framework is still in place,’ he said.

‘The hangups are on the implementation side, not the framework side,’ he said, noting that negotiations as far as which prisoners will be released, how their safety will be guaranteed and what to do with Hamas Leader Yahya Sinwar remain open-ended. 

‘These implementation issues keep coming up,’ he said. ‘That’s where you keep hearing Hamas growing its demands, adding new names, expecting more. And that’s where you hear Israel, you know, calling for the Philadelphia corridor, which suddenly has dropped out of the discussion, right? They both want more and more advantage and gains on their side, which is why negotiators are exasperated.’

While the Biden administration continues to try to find ways forward on a deal, public comments that have strung along hope for months are now conflicted by some of the privately held sentiment that cease-fire efforts are futile. 

On July 19, Secretary of State Antony Blinken said a cease-fire deal was within sight. 

‘I believe we’re inside the 10-yard line and driving toward the goal line in getting an agreement that would produce a cease-fire, get the hostages home and put us on a better track to trying to build lasting peace and stability,’ Blinken said.

On Aug. 17, President Biden said he was ‘optimistic’ a deal could be reached. ‘We are closer than we’ve ever been,’ he said, adding that he was sending Blinken to Israel to continue ‘intensive efforts to conclude this agreement.’ 

On Aug. 19, Blinken said that Israel had ‘accepted a proposal’ and the next step was for Hamas to agree.

‘The next important statement is for Hamas to say ‘yes,’ and then, in the coming days, for all of the expert negotiators to get together to work on clear understandings on implementing the agreement,’ Blinken said at a press conference in Tel Aviv.

‘This is a decisive moment, probably the best, maybe the last opportunity to get the hostages home, to get a cease-fire and to put everyone on a better path to enduring peace and security.’

But those comments came one day after Hamas had said it would not agree to that proposal. They objected to Israel having control of the Rafah and Philadelphia corridors, as Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had demanded. 

Then again on Sept. 2, Biden claimed the U.S. was ‘very close’ to finalizing a cease-fire deal that would see the release of hostages. Asked why he was optimistic despite other deals having failed, he said, ‘Hope springs eternal.’

Even this week, Blinken expressed optimism about a deal, though he warned after the pager blasts that ‘escalation’ threatens to thwart progress.

‘It’s imperative that all parties refrain from any actions that could escalate the conflict,’ Blinken said at a news conference in Egypt. 

He said he was focused on a deal that would bring calm on all fronts, including Israel’s northern border with Lebanon. Blinken said that 15 out of 18 paragraphs of a deal had been agreed by all sides.

He blamed long wait times for messages to be passed between the parties for leaving space to disrupt the talks. 

‘We’ve seen that in the intervening time, you might have an event, an incident — something that makes the process more difficult, that threatens to slow it, stop it, derail it — and anything of that nature, by definition, is probably not good in terms of achieving the result that we want, which is the cease-fire,’ Blinken said.

After Egypt, he went to Paris to discuss the prospects of a deal with his European counterparts. 

U.S. national security adviser Jake Sullivan met Wednesday with the relatives of the seven remaining U.S. hostages held in Gaza, where the families said they ‘expressed ​frustration with the lack of tangible progress’ to Sullivan. 

On Thursday, ​​Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah in a televised address called the pager attacks ‘a declaration of war’ and that attacks against Israel would continue until the war with Gaza is over. Likewise, Israel’s defense minister vowed to continue striking Hezbollah in Lebanon, aiming to stop the group’s rocket and missile attacks so some 70,000 Israelis who live in the northern border region could return home. 

This post appeared first on FOX NEWS

Elon Musk’s X faces steep daily fines in Brazil for allegedly evading a ban on the service there, according to a statement from the country’s supreme court on Thursday.

The fines, imposed by Brazil’s supreme court (Supremo Tribuno Federal or STF) amount to $5 million in Brazilian reals, about $920,000, a day. The court said it would continue to impose “joint liability” on Starlink, the satellite internet service owned and operated by SpaceX, Musk’s aerospace venture.

The suspension of X in Brazil was initially ordered by the country’s chief justice Alexandre de Moraes at the end of August, with orders upheld by a panel of justices in early September. The court found that under Musk, X had violated Brazilian law, which requires social media companies to employ a legal representative in the country and to remove hate speech and other content deemed harmful to democratic institutions. The court also found that X failed to suspend accounts allegedly engaged in doxxing federal officers.

X recently moved to servers hosted by Cloudflare, and appeared to be using dynamic internet protocol addresses that constantly change, enabling many users in Brazil to access the site. In a previous setup, the company had used static and specific IP addresses in Brazil, which were more easily blocked by internet service providers at the order of regulators.

Musk, who owns the company formerly known as Twitter, has been lashing out at de Moraes for months, and continued to do so after the order was issued. He’s characterized de Moraes as a villain, comparing him to Darth Vader and Harry Potter character Voldemort. He has also repeatedly called for de Moraes to be impeached.

Brazil previously withdrew money for fines it levied against X from the accounts of X and Starlink at financial institutions in the country. The new fines will begin as of Sept. 19, with the court calculating a total based on “the number of days of non-compliance” with its earlier orders to suspend X nationwide.

While Musk presents himself as a free speech absolutist, X has acquiesced to requests to remove profiles and posts in countries including India, Turkey and Hungary.

Musk and X may be in the process of complying with Brazil’s takedown orders as well. Correio Braziliense, a Brazilian publication, reported on Wednesday that X has started blocking accounts as per suspension orders issued by the country’s supreme court.

Among the apparently banned accounts were those of some internet influencers who are reportedly being investigated for spreading misinformation and promoting attacks against democratic institutions in Brazil. 

X said it wasn’t intending to restore access for Brazilian users.

“When X was shut down in Brazil, our infrastructure to provide service to Latin America was no longer accessible to our team,” a company spokesperson told CNBC on Wednesday. “To continue providing optimal service to our users, we changed network providers. This change resulted in an inadvertent and temporary service restoration to Brazilian users. While we expect the platform to be inaccessible again in Brazil soon, we continue efforts to work with the Brazilian government to return very soon for the people of Brazil.”

Brazil’s national telecommunication agency, Anatel, has been ordered by de Moraes to prevent access to the platform by blocking Cloudflare, as well as Fastly and EdgeUno servers, and others that the court said had been “created to circumvent” a suspension of X in Brazil.

Cloudflare didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment, but the company is reportedly cooperating with authorities in Brazil.

Before the suspension, X had an estimated 22 million users in Brazil, according to Data Reportal.

This post appeared first on NBC NEWS

A unit of Pennsylvania’s Three Mile Island nuclear plant will be restarted as part of a new energy-sharing agreement with Microsoft, which plans to use it to power the data centers it operates as part of its push into artificial intelligence.

In a joint release, Microsoft and Constellation Energy, Pennsylvania’s main utility, said Three Mile Island Unit 1, a unit separate from the one that sparked the infamous shutdown nearly five decades ago, will be used to provide clean energy to the tech giant as the artificial intelligence arms race heats up.

Constellation shut down Unit 1 in 2019 due to operating losses. Unit 2 was shut down in the wake of the 1979 incident that saw a partial core meltdown that led radioactive compounds to be released into the environment.

Studies have produced a range of estimates for the death toll over the course of 30 years as a result of the radiation release — but it is often cited as having set back America’s nuclear-energy push for a generation.

Today, energy has become the new coin of the realm for companies investing in artificial intelligence. That’s because the data centers tasked with running the complex calculations needed to power artificial intelligence applications require enormous amounts of power. Restarting Unit 1 will mean bringing 800 megawatts back onto the grid, greater than the amount of hydroelectric power supplied by the Hoover Dam.

Additional shuttered nuclear factories now being considered for reactivation amid the broader AI-data center push can be found in Michigan and Iowa, while a half-dozen other states are reversing moratoriums on new nuclear plants.

Microsoft’s vice president of energy touted the clean-energy benefits of reviving the facility in a statement.

“This agreement is a major milestone in Microsoft’s efforts to help decarbonize the grid in support of our commitment to become carbon negative,’ Bobby Hollis said. ‘Microsoft continues to collaborate with energy providers to develop carbon-free energy sources to help meet the grids’ capacity and reliability needs.”

Earlier this week, Microsoft and investment group BlackRock announced a new, $100 billion initiative to develop data centers for artificial intelligence. While analysts are still debating what the AI push has accomplished to date, companies worldwide see it as the next great business opportunity.

Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella recently shrugged off doubts about AI’s payoff, comparing it to the trajectory of the Industrial Revolution

‘There was not that much industrial growth, and then it took off,’ he said at a recent conference. ‘1817 in the United States to the 1940s was just one of those golden ages.’

This post appeared first on NBC NEWS

The main national body of the Teamsters union may have declined to endorse a candidate for the 2024 presidential election, but that hasn’t stopped local units from doing so.

According to the Kamala Harris campaign, almost two dozen local Teamsters unions and joint councils representing approximately 1 million Teamster-affiliated workers have endorsed the vice president in recent days, including ones in the key battleground states of Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.

The support comes as the International Brotherhood of Teamsters (IBOT) said this week that it was breaking with precedent by not issuing an official presidential endorsement. The teamsters have generally backed Democrats for president in recent races.

“Neither major candidate was able to make serious commitments to our union to ensure the interests of working people are always put before Big Business,” Teamsters General President Sean O’Brien said in a statement. O’Brien spoke at the Republican National Convention and has stated he did not receive a similar invite from the Democrats.

Harris enjoys broad support from other union groups including the AFL-CIO, the nation’s largest labor group, the Service Employees International Union and the Culinary Workers Union. These are traditionally Democratic-aligned groups with a diverse set of workers.

However, the Teamsters are more traditionally associated with white working-class voters — a key voting bloc for determining November’s outcome.

And while the Teamsters’ official non-endorsement was a clear setback for Harris, the action has not stopped individual Teamsters units from offering their own statements of support.

Kevin Moore, president of the Michigan Teamsters, said the state unit’s decision to endorse Harris and her running mate, Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, was unanimous among its board.

‘The Joint Council and Teamsters of Michigan know it’s too important for us to do a neutral endorsement,’ Moore told NBC 25, an NBC News affiliate in central Michigan. ‘We’re going to do a full force endorsement for Kamala Harris and Tim Walz … our members are telling us that.”

Moore was slated to make an appearance at a Harris campaign stop in Michigan on Friday.

Meanwhile, Bill Carroll, head of Teamsters Joint Council 39, which represents 15,000 workers in Wisconsin, said ‘some’ of its 15,000 unit members support Trump.

Nevertheless, the unit was endorsing Harris and Walz.

“There really hasn’t been any type of action that the Republicans in Wisconsin have done that have really benefited organized labor or working families in general,’ Carroll told the radio station WTAQ.

In a statement this week, James P. Hoffa, president emeritus of the Teamsters and the son of former Teamsters leader Jimmy Hoffa, said the 2024 election was “too important for our union to not do its duty.”

“There is only one candidate in this race that has supported working families and unions throughout their career and that is Vice President Kamala Harris,” he said.

It is not clear what impact the latest constellation of endorsements will ultimately have on Harris’ election chances. An internal poll conducted by the Teamsters had shown its members overwhelmingly favoring Trump, even as an earlier poll showed majority support for President Joe Biden before he dropped out of the race.

Trump has hailed the non-endorsement.

“The Teamsters carry a lot of weight,’ he told reporters Wednesday. ‘The Democrats cannot believe it. Look, it was always automatic that Democrats get the Teamsters, and they said, ‘We won’t endorse the Democrats this year,’ so that was an honor for me.”

This post appeared first on NBC NEWS