Progressives didn’t get the earthquake they expected. Moderates are relishing in their stronger than expected showing.

In the early hours of Wednesday morning, with Michigan’s marquee Democratic Senate primary still in limbo, one of Democrats’ key questions of the midterms remains unresolved: Can the party’s most progressive faction successfully compete — and go on to win — in a battleground state?

The razor-thin margin between progressive Abdul El-Sayed and moderate Rep. Haley Stevens will leave Democrats arguing about the answer regardless of who ultimately prevails.

The finger-pointing within the party has already begun.

“These guys are unbelievably cocky,” said a Democratic operative granted anonymity to speak candidly. The person was frustrated over El-Sayed’s decision to attend a pool party with progressive streamer Hasan Piker on Monday, hours before polls opened.

El-Sayed led by three points by the time both candidates addressed their supporters around 1 a.m. Wednesday, with thousands of votes yet to be counted. He performed best in the state’s wealthiest and most highly-educated places, while Stevens outperformed him in areas with lower average incomes and where fewer voters have college degrees.

But that marginal lead was a far cry from what El-Sayed and his allies had expected.

Public polling in the campaign’s closing stretch showed El-Sayed ahead of Stevens by double digits. And his campaign projected confidence they would deliver a decisive win that would cement the strength of the progressive movement in Michigan, a state crucial to the Democratic Party’s prospects of retaking the Senate in November and, eventually, the White House in 2028.

The progressive wave never materialized on Tuesday night, igniting fresh questions about the potency of the movement. Progressive candidates have notched a series of wins throughout the spring primary season in safe and competitive districts, from California to Maine. Michigan, however, was widely viewed as their biggest test yet.

“The Democratic Party is a coalition that spans everything from center to socialist,” Democratic strategist Tré Easton wrote on social media Wednesday morning in response to Tuesday’s results. “Each part needs the other.”

El-Sayed has maintained a steady lead after the polls closed, and could very well still pull off a win for his progressive coalition and advance to the general election — but instead of kicking off the next phase of his campaign with a victory lap, he’ll emerge limping out of a closer-than-foretold primary.

Even beyond the Senate race, the results were mixed: Progressive Sunrise Movement co-founder William Lawrence won his primary for Michigan’s 7th District, but largely because two more moderate candidates had split the vote. Democratic socialist Donavan McKinney is still locked in a tight race with incumbent Rep. Shri Thanedar for Michigan’s 13th District. And over in Missouri, progressive Cori Bush’s comeback bid fell apart.

“Bottom line is if [El-Sayed] wins, the DSA brand beyond major urban areas is not popular,” a national Democratic operative granted anonymity to speak candidly said early Wednesday morning. “Certainly puts a dent in the movement especially with Cori Bush’s loss.”

Stevens sent her own supporters home on an optimistic note Wednesday morning: “I’m feeling good about this race.”

El-Sayed, for his part, quickly recast his narrow lead as a victory against the barrage of spending against him from pro-Stevens groups — despite projecting enough confidence to declare he would beat Rogers “by seven” percentage points in the general election earlier on Tuesday.

“I wish I could tell you that I was declaring victory right about now. Turns out it takes a long time to count some votes in Michigan,” El-Sayed told supporters at his election night party in Detroit.

For some El-Sayed allies a win is a win, even if the final margins are close. “Any win is good, as long as it’s called tonight,” Bhaskar Sunkara, a 2020 Bernie Sanders surrogate and former DSA vice chair, told POLITICO.

Regardless of the final outcome, the race’s narrow margin ensures that the winner will have significant work to do to unify the party after an acrimonious primary riddled with personal attacks from both sides — a reality both candidates appeared to acknowledge in remarks to supporters.

“To all of our supporters here tonight, watching on TV, tomorrow we begin to mend fences,” El-Sayed said. “If your instinct is to be like, ‘I told you.’ Nope. Let’s come together to build a movement that’s even bigger, that’s even stronger, that’s even more powerful, that reaches into the very depths of this state, that reminds us the best of who we are and who we can be.”

Democrats across the state had already set their focus on uniting their deeply fractured party ahead of another likely bruising contest in the general election.

“It’s no secret that this has at once been a contentious and bruising primary, but Democrats through it all have shown resilience towards coming together following primaries,” said Chris Herweyer, an organizing director for the Kent County Democratic Party.

Michigan State Sen. Mallory McMorrow, who ran for Senate before suspending her campaign a month before the primary, endorsed El-Sayed early Wednesday as he maintained a narrow advantage over Rep. Haley Stevens — another sign of swift efforts to reconcile, even as the race remained in limbo.

Republicans, meanwhile, are still hoping for an El-Sayed win. Rogers’ primary proved a bright spot for Republicans on the Senate map, where the party successfully avoided a costly and heated primary of their own and could focus early on the general election.

“El-Sayed is the preferred candidate” for Republicans, Jason Roe, a longtime Republican operative in Michigan, said in a text message. “El-Sayed is not doing very well outstate and I think that’s what a lot of Republicans are banking on. It will be very difficult for him to beat Rogers with those rural counties.”

Andrew Howard and Will Steakin contributed to this report. 

Source link

The Equality and Human Rights Commission’s (EHRC) transphobic code of practice — which recommends organisations that offer ‘single-sex’ spaces and services should exclude trans people — takes effect today.

The Canary has already highlighted the problems with the code at length. It’s utterly opaque, non-functional, and a blank cheque to harass trans, intersex and gender non-conforming individuals.

This article isn’t about the contents of the code. It’s not even about how this sorry shithole of a queer-bashing country got to this point.

Rather, this article expresses a heartfelt wish: that this code haunts its architects within Labour and outside of, in just the same way that Section 28 haunts the Tories to this day.

EHRC code: ‘Why are the government pushing ahead with this?’

MP Nadia Whittome’s early day motion calling on Parliament to disapprove the code received a record 167 signatures. Labour, Lib Dem, SNP, Green, Plaid Cymru, SDLP, Your Party and independent MPs lent their support. Nevertheless, it has now passed its 40 days of ‘scrutiny’ without so much as a vote.

The new code erases the vast majority of steps forward in trans inclusion since the Gender Recognition Act. The government originally passed the 2004 legislation after the European Court of Human Rights ruled that the UK had failed in its human rights obligations by failing to recognise trans people’s genders.

Apparently, the UK is now ignoring that fact.

For that matter, the Gender Recognition Act itself states:

Where a full gender recognition certificate is issued to a person, the person’s gender becomes for all purposes the acquired gender.

That law hasn’t gone anywhere. However, it suddenly grants a “certified sex” rather than a “biological sex”, giving question to what “all purposes” was worth in the first place.

During a June parliamentary debate on the EHRC’s code, Whittome asked and pointed out:

Why are the government pushing ahead with this? Why not instead withdraw the guidance, and legislate to clarify that the Equality Act 2010 was always intended to be trans inclusive? For goodness’ sake, it was passed after the last Labour government passed the Gender Recognition Act in 2004.

‘A legitimate aim’, the EHRC says

The government knows perfectly well its intention to be trans inclusive at the time the Equality Act was written. In fact, it included specific exceptions detailing when (and only when) trans people could be excluded. That is, the exclusion has to be a “proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim”.

However, limiting or modifying access to, or excluding a trans person from, the separate or single-sex service of the gender in which they present will be unlawful if you cannot show such action is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. This applies whether or not the person has a Gender Recognition Certificate.

That explanation was from the EHRC’s own website. The same wording remains in the Equality Act. However, the government is now treating the exclusion of trans people as a legitimate aim in and of itself.

If our public institutions hadn’t been captured by transphobic voices, that “legitimate aim” would be decried as the rank discrimination it is. Our left-wing politicians recognised that once, even if their memories have now become conveniently short.

Snivelling cowards

Just four years ago, when he was leader of the opposition in 2022, ex-prime minister Keir Starmer told the Times:

…a woman is a female adult, and in addition to that transwomen are women, and that is not just my view – that is actually the law.

After the Supreme Court ruled the Equality Act didn’t recognise trans people as their lived genders, Starmer then had a lackey state the opposite on his behalf. Asked if the then-PM agreed that trans women were women, they said:

No, the Supreme Court judgment has made clear that when looking at the Equality Act, a woman is a biological woman.

The job of overseeing the EHRC’s code as it comes into force now falls on Andy Burnham. Like his predecessor, he once ridiculed ‘single-sex’ restrictions on bathrooms. Then, when he wanted to grub for Reform-leaning votes in Makerfield, he suddenly became a supporter of the transphobic code.

Likewise, Women and Equalities Minister Bridget Phillipson once supported trans inclusive spaces. Now, she’s presiding over the wholesale destruction of those spaces. She’s one of the few cabinet members whom Burnham retained in her old role whilst also promoting her to Labour Party chair.

May it f*cking haunt you

This sudden and complete reversal in a nominally left-wing party’s attitude to any minorities rights — this naked political opportunism — should scare anyone. The fact that laws can suddenly be reinterpreted to justify the blanket removal of a minority’s rights is not a sign of a functioning legal system.

Rather, these are signs that none of us are safe, and none of us can trust our society. Trans people once had guarantees that this exact situation could not happen. The Gender Recognition Act and the Equality Act safeguarded them. However, the government has demonstrated that it’s happy to ignore those guarantees.

This is a demonstration of what they’ll do to any minority group, if they can get away with it; if they think it will win them a few dirty votes.

If, by some remote miracle, British society ever becomes trans inclusive again, I hope that the stain of this code never leaves Starmer, Burnham, Phillipson, and all the other ‘left-wing’ MPs who rushed headlong to strip a small, queer minority group of their rights in pursuit of a clap of the back from the transphobic media.

I hope this is what they’re remembered for. This bonfire of trans rights — alongside asylum seekers’ and migrants’ rights, protest rights and others — should obscure any good they may ever think they did. May their names be a byword for hatred, bigotry and spineless cowardice.

In a just world, this would be their legacy. May it f*cking haunt them.

And I’m still going to piss wherever I damn well like.

Featured image via Chantelle Whitehead/ Pexels

By Grace

Source link

Source link

Pete Buttigieg shares his theory for how Democrats can win over cherry ice cream

lead image

Source link

The Irish government has chosen not to purchase an ‘Israeli’ Elbit Systems navigation component for its new jet, leading various media outlets to speculate the plane may now struggle to land in foggy conditions. It is not actually clear there is in fact any loss of function on the plane.

Even if there was, however, the main points here should be that Micheál Martin’s government have for once done the right thing in relation to the genocidal settler-colony, and that sometimes boycotting requires sacrifice.

For its part, the Irish Department of Defence has responded to media claims that the jet is lacking without the Elbit component:

While it would not be appropriate to provide further comments on the specification of the aircraft it can be confirmed that there are no current limits on the operational capability of the aircraft.

Ireland rejected tech from Elbit Systems, key contributor to the Gaza holocaust

The matter relates to the government’s purchase of a “€53m Dassault Falcon 6X aircraft”. According to the Journal, the aircraft can:

…carry out a range of operations, including long distance air ambulance missions, but is generally used for transport of ministers and the Taoiseach.

The technology in question is the FalconEye system, which the French Dassault Aviation say was “developed in partnership with Elbit Systems”. According to the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) campaign, which calls for economic action against the apartheid entity squatting on historic Palestine, Elbit:

…provides 80% of the weapons and equipment for Israel’s land forces and 85% of the combat drones used by the airforce.

They have therefore been absolutely integral to the Gaza holocaust. It is hard to think of a worse company on Earth one could give money to.

The marketing guff from Dassault claims that the FalconEye tech provides an:

…unprecedented level of situational awareness for flight crews.

They say it enables pilots to navigate smoothly in various “severe weather conditions”. What they don’t say is whether this sort of tech is useful for dropping bombs on Palestinian children in similar inclement weather. They — and the media — also don’t mention that similar tech is made by a range of other companies. That means there is no necessity to purchase from Elbit.

It must be said that many of these other companies, such as Thales and BAE Systems, have also participated in the attempted extermination of the Palestinian people. This reveals the staggering level of assistance so-called ‘Israel’ has received from Western nations.

Even Dassault, the makers of the jet, have a long-standing economic relationship with the Zionist entity. A subsidiary of the Dassault Group, Dassault Systèmes, operates offices in ‘Israel’. Last year, the Irish government bought four helicopters containing ‘Israeli’ technology. Boycotting Elbit is a start, but long-term the Irish government must start detaching itself entirely from companies aiding the ‘Israeli’ apartheid and genocide economy.

All ‘Israeli’ tech is a grave risk

Extraordinarily, the Journal article makes no reference to Elbit’s crimes. Instead, they appear more concerned with the Taoiseach occasionally navigating some cloud than they do about funding the continued slaughter of children. Aside from the obscenity of pumping money into Elbit and the ‘Israeli’ government’s coffers, there are additional concerns about use of any tech from the illegitimate pseudo-state.

Firstly, the Zionist entity is notorious for spying on even its allies. One famous case is Jonathan Pollard, a US Navy intelligence analyst who stole info from the US military and passed it to ‘Israelis’. Additionally, the Guardian reported in 2025 that:

Israeli operatives are conducting widespread surveillance of US forces and allies stationed at a new US base in [‘Israel’s’] south, according to sources briefed on disputes about open and covert recordings of meetings and discussions.

Given the land thieves of Tel Aviv view Ireland with hostility due to its few tentative steps against the criminal regime, there is every reason to believe they would view tech attached to a government jet as an ideal surveillance opportunity. In the worst case scenario, it’s not impossible to imagine them using FalconEye as a proxy to sabotage the jet entirely.

If the Irish government did sacrifice some functionality when scrapping the Elbit tech, they still made the right decision. The same small sacrifices are necessary from all of us if we want to do our bit to cripple the ‘Israeli’ economy, as part of the same sort of boycott campaign that did in apartheid South Africa.

That means never buying ‘Israeli’ fruit and veg, and avoiding companies listed by the BDS movement. A small inconvenience for us, but cumulatively, it can contribute hugely to the demise of the genocidal land theft project of so-called ‘Israel’.

Featured image via the Canary

By Robert Freeman

Source link

Prime Minister Andy Burnham speaking to the media, August 2, 2026 (PA Images / Alamy)

4 min read11 min

The tone of a new administration is set early.

Advertisement

In a meeting in the 10 Downing Street pillared room just days into the Boris Johnson administration, his new chief of staff Dominic Cummings struck fear into the heart of the new cohort of newly appointed special advisers like me, summoning us for a meeting at precisely 7.55am that Monday morning.

“If you leak, you will be marched from your desk by the head of security at your department, your pass will be taken off you and you will be sacked,” thundered Cummings.  “You have no rights.”  The leaked words duly appeared in The Times the next day.

With perhaps a tad less directness than we spads became used to from Cummings, the Burnham administration has made clear it wants a “collaborative” government, free from leaks and hostile briefings. But similar consequences will ensue should the rules be broken, as set out in a letter to senior civil servants and ministers jointly authored by First Secretary of State Louise Haigh and Cabinet Secretary Dame Antonia Romeo.

Advertisement

Elements of this letter are both ridiculous and completely unworkable. Most impractically, special advisers, unless media-facing, are banned from speaking to journalists. This belies the entire way that Westminster works and cuts off a very useful source of information flow in both directions. It also indicates Burnham lacks faith in his policy spads.

As a journalist-turned-spad-turned-journalist again, I have been on both sides of the divide. As a media spad, I trusted the policy spads I worked with to speak to journalists responsibly and speak with one voice from our department, and indeed government. 

Brilliant policy spads I worked with such as Liam Booth-Smith, who later went on to be Rishi Sunak’s chief of staff, would freely speak to the media, brief them on policies and talk about stories. He would always tell me what he had said, who he had spoken to and why. I trusted him, he trusted me and our Secretary of State trusted us both. He also had far more detailed policy knowledge than I did. I would occasionally ask Jonathan Caine at the Northern Ireland Office, an expert on the relevant policy for decades, to help me brief a journalist, many of whom he had known far longer than I had.

Advertisement

The Burnham policy also fails to acknowledge the day-to-day reality of Westminster. Take Will Straw, the new chief of staff at the Treasury. He was actually an HMT press officer at the start of his career, has run large organisations such as the Remain campaign and The King’s Trust and knows dozens of journalists personally through a two-decades career in public life. Is he simply going to ignore Laura Kuennsberg when he next sees her at a drinks event at the Institute for Engineers?

Getting information conducive to helping the political process is something both media and policy spads have done since the role was set up in the 1960s. There are leaks and there are leaks.  Some can be very helpful to an administration. Reinventing the wheel now will not work; it will cause resentment and it undermines the role of policy and parliamentary handling spads. Spads also carry out many briefings that are not known to Cabinet ministers and nor should they be.

When things get tougher down the line for the Burnham administration, leaks and hostile briefings will undoubtedly occur. Their brutality and consequence will be far greater once spads have decided they have nothing to lose.

Trust is fundamental to how a government operates. If you don’t trust the spad, get rid of them.  Attempting to gag spads on day one will not work. With trust internally, an administration can at least have a chance of being successful.

Advertisement

Peter Cardwell is a presenter on Talk and the author of The Secret Life of Special Advisers, which is about his career in the May and Johnson administrations working in four departments for four Secretaries of State. His second book, Political Animals, is out in paperback on 1 September

Source link

A hard-right think tank and a former military general with links to arms firms have released a report lobbying for nuclear weapons funding.

The report, fronted by former top general Richard Dannatt, was published by the 878 Institute. The ‘think tank’ subscribes to the same bizarre ‘civilisational’ ideology loved by AI billionaires. Its ‘head of defence’ is a former soldier linked to another reactionary ‘think tank’ — The Henry Jackson Society (HJS).

The 878 Institute published a new report on 1 August titled ‘Britain’s Military Deterrence Gaps’. Among other things, it warns that the UK’s nuclear weapons programme is being ‘hollowed out’.

The foreword was written by former chief of the UK military, General Sir Richard Dannatt. Dannatt was caught lobbying against the proscribed group Palestine Action on behalf of the arms firm Teledyne in 2025.

Weird far-right ideology

878 is motivated by the same civilisational ideology which war firms like Palantir and Helsing have adopted. Here’s what they say on their ‘About’ page:

Our name – from the pivotal year of 878 AD – conveys the urgency of our own era. Britain and its closest allies are facing peril. But through the rediscovery of our culture, making the right choices, and finding the will to face down our philosophical and military adversaries, our shared civilisation will survive and thrive.

Now more than ever, it is incumbent on us all to rediscover and nurture the roots of our shared English-speaking civilisation in order to defend it.

In 878 AD, a key battle took place between Anglo-Saxons and Vikings. The name of the organisation appears to be a reference to those events.

The ‘About’ page continues:

At 878, we are renewing our Judeo-Christian culture and civilisational mission. Future leaders in Britain and America will need to appreciate the deepest roots of our political life and our freedoms.

The organisation says Israel is a vital source of “rejuvenating” knowledge:

Working with scholars in Israel and other closely allied nations, we are rejuvenating knowledge of the origins of our constitutional tradition. We build friendships with our closest civilisational allies to restore both the fabric of our countries and the resolve of our future leadership.

878’s (military) leadership

878’s work on defence appears to be overseen and led by Robert Clark, a former soldier linked to the far-right Henry Jackson Society. In 2024, Clark appeared on GB News, arguing that the British military had gone ‘woke’ on recruiting:

As a white male, I am well aware that the Army no longer actively tries to recruit men like me.

A 2025 government report states over 96% of officers and over 86% of non-commissioned ranks in the UK military are white.

Clark’s Linkedin account says he has worked for various US and UK think tanks. The site lists him as a former “defence fellow” and “research assistant” at HJS. You also can read our work on HJS’s link to Israel, the US far-right and the Nigel Farage-led Reform UK party.

The think tank names ex-Tory MP Jacob Rees-Mogg as a senior leadership figure.

Far from being a normal think tank trying to shape policy for public good, 878 Institute seems to be part of a hawkish and reactionary international network closely linked to arms firms, Trumpism and the settler-colonial state of Israel.

Featured image via the Canary

By Joe Glenton

Source link

A ‘rival’ World Cup could become the latest weapon against Gianni Infantino. UEFA and its allies are reportedly considering the idea as part of a wider challenge to FIFA’s leadership and direction.

According to the Times, UEFA, the Asian Football Confederation and CONCACAF are weighing a series of measures to pressure FIFA. These include reviving the “World Nations League” concept as leverage in their dispute with Infantino.

The proposal wouldn’t immediately create a rival to FIFA’s flagship tournament. Moreover, there is no indication that a launch decision has been made. But its revival shows how far opposition to Infantino has escalated. Critics are now willing to challenge FIFA’s control over the world of football.

Challenging FIFA’s World Cup dominance

The “World Nations League” was first proposed in 2017 as a new competition featuring leading national teams. According to The Times, the idea could be revisited if efforts to change FIFA’s leadership fail.

A competing tournament would strike at the centre of FIFA’s power. The World Cup is not only the organisation’s most prestigious event, but also the foundation of its commercial strength and global influence.

The possibility of a rival competition shows that the dispute has moved beyond individual decisions. In fact, it has become a wider battle over who controls the future of international football.

Inside FIFA, Infantino rivals close in

The threat of a rival tournament is not the only pressure facing Infantino.

According to the Times, critics within FIFA are discussing boycotting Council and committee meetings and refusing to approve decisions. These moves could create political deadlock inside the organisation.

Such action would intensify pressure on Infantino ahead of the 2027 presidential election. It would also deepen the divide between FIFA’s leadership and some of football’s most powerful governing bodies.

UEFA, the Asian Football Confederation and CONCACAF represent major centres of football’s sporting and commercial influence, giving their opposition significant weight.

The dispute that sparked the showdown

The current confrontation began with FIFA Forward Enterprises (FFE), a proposal to sell a stake in the World Cup’s commercial rights to private investors.

The plan triggered opposition from national and continental federations, forcing Infantino to abandon it. However, the fallout has since grown into a broader dispute over FIFA’s direction and decision-making.

According to the Times, Infantino has secured only 15 declarations of support from FIFA’s 211 member associations. With the 2027 election approaching, the fight is no longer only about one commercial proposal. Instead, it is about whether FIFA can maintain control over the future of world football.

Infantino’s Trump card cannot stop FIFA revolt

Featured image via the Canary

By Alaa Shamali

Source link

Gianni Infantino’s FIFA presidency is facing perhaps its most serious challenge since he took charge in 2016. Federations are turning against him, with former allies withdrawing support, UEFA openly challenging his decisions and critics questioning the way he runs FIFA.

The immediate trigger has been the fallout over plans to privatise part of the World Cup’s commercial rights. What began as a dispute over a business proposal has grown into a wider challenge to Infantino’s authority and his bid to secure a fourth term as FIFA president.

Until recently, Infantino’s path to another term appeared secure. However, the alliances that sustained his power are now beginning to unravel.

European support begins to collapse

The first major setback came from the Football Association of Wales, which withdrew its support for Infantino’s candidacy, citing:

recent failures in good governance, processes, leadership, values, stakeholder management, communications and sound judgement have led us to a position where Mr Infantino has lost the confidence of the FAW to remain at the helm of world football.

The association said it no longer had confidence in Infantino’s ability to lead world football.

Wales’ decision could have wider consequences. The Times reported that the English Football Association is also preparing to withdraw its letter of support for Infantino, a move that could encourage other federations to reconsider their backing.

UEFA has emerged as one of Infantino’s strongest critics, rejecting the proposed commercial plan and threatening legal action to secure the release of documents relating to the project. The dispute has now moved beyond a disagreement over FIFA’s finances and become a broader confrontation over how the organisation is run.

CONCACAF has also criticised FIFA’s approach, arguing that the reversal of the plan exposed deeper problems in the federation’s decision-making process.

Infantino’s Trump-card

The struggle over FIFA’s future has also taken on a political dimension.

French President Emmanuel Macron has intervened in support of UEFA’s opposition to the commercial plan, while reports suggest Infantino has sought support from US President Donald Trump’s administration as he attempts to contain the fallout.

The developments highlight the wider influence attached to the FIFA presidency. The role extends far beyond football, with the World Cup tied to major commercial interests, investment opportunities and international political relationships.

Rumbles of dissent inside FIFA

The pressure on Infantino is not limited to external opposition. Discontent has also grown within FIFA itself.

According to current and former officials, dissatisfaction has increased over Infantino’s management of the organisation. One executive said many staff members feel increasingly removed from decision-making, with their role reduced to implementing decisions made at the top.

Some employees believe FIFA’s culture has changed significantly, with commercial priorities taking precedence over the wider interests of football. The use of private jets and the lifestyle of senior officials have also drawn internal criticism over the image FIFA presents to supporters.

The unrest has coincided with the departure of several senior figures, including Infantino’s chief adviser Carlos Cordero and Chief Operating Officer Kevin Lamour. Their resignations have added to concerns about instability within FIFA’s leadership.

Infantino’s World Cup commercialisation push hits a brick wall

Germany joins the critics

Germany has become the latest major football nation to raise concerns over Infantino’s leadership.

Andreas Rittig, managing director of the German Football Association, said relations with FIFA had reached an “impasse” and described the situation as an “insurmountable loss of trust”.

Rittig criticised FIFA’s decision-making process, saying key decisions were being made behind “closed doors” and without sufficient transparency. He also warned against the growing influence of financiers and business figures around Infantino, arguing that commercial interests should not become the main driver of world football’s future.

Could this be the end for Infantino?

Infantino’s fourth-term bid, which appeared almost inevitable only months ago, is now facing its biggest challenge.

With federations withdrawing support, UEFA challenging his decisions and criticism growing within FIFA, the contest for the organisation’s future has already begun.

The next FIFA presidential election will not take place until March 2027 in Rabat, but the coming months will determine whether Infantino can rebuild his support base — or whether the opposition gathering around him becomes a decisive challenge to his leadership.

Featured image via the Canary

By Alaa Shamali

Source link

Illegal Israeli settlers have intensified their campaign of harassment, intimidation and terror across the occupied West Bank. Recent episodes mark a significant ratcheting up of attacks against Palestinian civilians. Supported and protected by Israeli occupation forces (IOF), settlers have been assaulting residents, seizing land, and vandalising or torching property.

Settlers desecrate Palestinian cemetery

In Tal, southwest of Nablus, armed settlers returned a week after the deadly shooting that killed four Palestinians and two “Israelis”. They raided the village and its surroundings several times.

They were accompanied by IOF soldiers who arrested several residents. In the same week, settlers vandalised a Palestinian cemetery in al Juneid, while the military fired live ammunition and tear gas at the unarmed residents. A 32-year-old man was evacuated to hospital after being shot in the abdomen.

Settlers terrorise village, open fire on children

In al Mughayyir village, 10-year-old Salim Abu Rahmah was shot in the shoulder by a settler inside his home. After the shooting, the military raided the village and fired repeated volleys of tear gas.

One day later, settlers attacked the passengers in a car travelling between Abu Falah and al Mughayyir. They assaulted the three occupants with clubs and pepper spray before ramming the vehicle with a government-supplied all-terrain vehicle.

There are now 10 outposts surrounding the village, some situated only a few hundred metres from the homes of Palestinians.

Settlers ramp up land grabs

In Beitillu, Northwest of Ramallah, settlers assaulted Mahmoud Radwan and his wife Nahil Yousef, as they worked on their land.

In the Eastern edge of the village of Idhna, West of Hebron, settlers armed with clubs, handguns and rifles descended from a nearby outpost, and attacked a Palestinian home. The settlers targeted the occupants, and targeted a car parked in the driveway. Soldiers arrived at the scene, and fired tear gas at residents who had arrived to help the family.

Destroying Palestinian livelihoods

Just two months before the olive harvest, settlers have been setting fire to olive groves in Burin, South of Nablus. They have then obstructed Palestinian Civil Defense crews attempting to reach the burning trees. The flames devoured olive groves tended by families for generations. Cultivated for thousands of years, the Palestinian olive tree has become a symbol of resilience and a vital source of income for generations of families.

In Bethlehem, settlers assaulted Yahya ‘Elian in the Abu Njei area southeast of the city, when he was working on his land. He was severely beaten and had pepper spray directed into his face, causing breathing difficulties. Residents in this area have been repeatedly attacked, and their vehicles and property vandalised.

These are just a few of the settler attacks which have taken place recently against Palestinians. Every day, across the West Bank and  East Jerusalem illegal settlers, accompanied by the IOF, use intimidation and violence against Palestinians. Due to the current climate of impunity, attacks are increasing in frequency and violence.

Commenting on the situation, the UN reported in July 2026 that:

Fatalities linked to settler attacks in 2026 have already surpassed the total recorded during all of 2025, with 18 Palestinians killed as of 20 July compared with 17 throughout 2025.

The escalation in the West Bank is part of a wider assault on Palestinians across the occupied territories. In Gaza, where a so-called ceasefire is supposedly in place, 152 Palestinians were killed in July alone, according to the Ministry of Health — the highest monthly death toll so far in 2026.

But Palestinians remain rooted in their land. After every attack, every displacement and every attempt to drive them away, they remain.

The occupation has failed.

Featured image via the Canary

By Charlie Jaay

Source link