Andrew Harnik/Getty Images
Though regular Americans are paying more at the pump, US oil companies are striking it rich, President Donald Trump said on Saturday.
Speaking at a rally in Georgia, Trump said that oil prices are "temporarily high," but added that the throttling of the Strait of Hormuz has pushed oil buyers to American companies with operations in Texas, Oklahoma, and Louisiana.
"The United States oil and gas business is making hundreds of billions of dollars," Trump said. "I don't give a damn, I'm going to say it — we're making a freaking fortune."
Indeed, a Q2 report this year from the Oil & Gas Journal, a trade publication, noted that "surging crude prices tied to ongoing Strait of Hormuz disruptions" fueled massive windfalls for North American oil companies.
Year over year, a sample of 38 US producers and refiners collectively grew revenues by about $140 billion, the Oil & Gas Journal reported.
Those profits, however, are not exactly shared by the American public.
AAA reported that the average price of regular gas in the United States is now at $4.29 a gallon. In February, one day before the US and Israel launched surprise attacks on Iran, gas prices were at $2.98.
Diesel prices have also increased precipitously since the American war on Iran began. On Sunday, AAA reported that they sat at $6.35, up from $3.75 a day before the conflict began. Shipping companies rely on diesel to power their boats and trucks. Higher diesel costs are often passed onto consumers in the form of higher prices.
Trump's comments are unlikely to curry goodwill among an American electorate reckoning with an affordability crisis less than two weeks out from midterm elections. The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment sent on Sunday.
As the midterms approach, Trump has taken steps to lower gas prices.
On October 9, Trump said he reached a deal with Russian President Vladimir Putin to import Russian diesel, which had been heavily sanctioned since the start of Russia's invasion of Ukraine. Analysts warned the move could provide a lifeline to the Russian economy as the country seeks to bombard Ukraine into submission this winter.
"I can see just the fake headlines — 'President Trump is talking about all the money they're making while people are suffering at the pump,'" Trump said at the Georgia rally. "That'll be the headline."
© Ahmad Al-Rubaye/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images
El 25 de septiembre, apenas una semana después de esta entrevista, Susan Sarandon (Nueva York, 80 años) fue detenida a las puertas de la ONU en Nueva York. Protestaba, junto a otras actrices como Hannah Einbinder o Cynthia Nixon, contra la comparecencia en la Asamblea del primer ministro israelí, Benjamin Netanyahu. No era la primera vez que la detenían y quizás no sea la última. Susan Sarandon, actriz en más de 100 películas, ha protagonizado éxitos de Hollywood como El cliente, Quédate a mi lado o Las brujas de Eastwick; películas de culto como The Rocky Horror Picture Show o Thelma y Louise; y películas comprometidas como Pena de muerte, que le valió un Oscar. Ha aparecido en la serie Friends y ha rodado con Louis Malle. Porque Sarandon escoge sus proyectos como vive, de forma desprejuiciada, con una mezcla de curiosidad y desafío: “Cuando leo un guion quiero que me conmueva. Quiero que el personaje sea algo que no haya hecho antes. Está muy bien si hay un director con una buena trayectoria, pero a veces son directores nuevos. Es genial si te pueden pagar, pero a veces no pueden”. Es el caso de su último proyecto, The Accompanist (aún pendiente de título en español), donde interpreta a Sylvia, una madre de acogida atormentada y excéntrica.
Juan Cebrián
Genevieve Herr (Sally Harlor), Matthew Monzon (TMG LA) y Pattie Yankee.
Cristina Serrano.
Pete Koukov.
Elaine Winter y Mari Siviakova.
La machine.
Drita Curanaj (R3 Mgmt) y Wojtek Szaulinski.
Margarita Babina.
Christopher Morel y Keegan Eckart.
Fern Cerezo y Jan Anthonio Diaz.
© YULIA GORBACHENKO (EL PAÍS)
Some fifteen years ago, I was lucky enough to be in Palestine during the olive harvest season. So much about what I saw on that visit was overwhelmingly sad and infuriating. The ugly infrastructure of apartheid was everywhere—the huge concrete apartheid wall with the looming Israeli sniper towers, checkpoints seemingly at every turn, menacing armed soldiers and hilltops dotted with settlements. But a visit with farmers in a village outside Jenin felt like stepping into an alternate universe, full of joy and beauty.
Multiple generations of Palestinian families all gathered together in varying degrees of work and play. Teenagers, usually glued to their mobile phones, were getting gentle lessons from their elders on the best way to shake the tree branches to loosen the crop. Joyful toddlers waddled around their grandmothers and mothers, who made tea while chatting and preparing the freshest, most delicious bread I’ve ever eaten, filled with fresh cheese and za’atar.
If you could train your eyes on this scene, you could imagine, for a moment, what a free Palestine might look and sound like.
The olive harvest season is not just a time for Palestinians families to gather and celebrate their heritage. It is traditionally the economic lifeblood of Palestine, already under significant pressure because of decades of Israel’s land grabs, not to mention restrictions on exports which benefit Israeli settlers and harm Palestine’s indigenous olive economy under occupation.
The olive harvest used to be a significant part of the economy in the Gaza Strip, where olive trees are now largely a memory of a time past, before endless expanses of rubble dominated the terrain.
In recent years, on top of the ordinary hardship of occupation, the olive harvest in the West Bank has increasingly been hit with violence and danger. Gone are the days when the olive groves could offer a glimpse of a possible future life — now they are a site of existential threat and fear.
The UN reported that last week, the official week starting the olive harvest, saw nearly 200 settler attacks across the expanse of the West Bank, with casualties, property damage or both, including damage to 2,500 trees and saplings. This is already more than the 185 comparable incidents recorded during the entire olive harvest season last year in 2025, which was already the worst many could remember.
These settler attacks don’t come out of nowhere. UN human rights experts raised alarm that the Israeli military had issued orders in September for the removal of vegetation, including provisions to uproot olive trees, from approximately 339,000 square metres (84 acres) of Palestinian agricultural land in the West Bank.
In what has now become a predictable pattern, the Israeli military provided a blueprint for settler attacks on the olive harvest through its policies. It is the same military, of course, which provides armed cover for the settlers when they wage their violent attacks.
When Palestinians report that the settlers and the army are working hand in hand, this is what they mean.
News footage from Palestine this week shows this starkly. Farmers work as quickly as possible before the mobs of settlers arrive, armed with clubs or worse. For Palestinian farmers, the thought of bringing family members who aren’t able to work quickly is unimaginable now, because of the looming danger in every minute.
The settler attacks are ruthless and don’t spare any man, woman or child. Mainstream news outlets globally showed videos last weekend of settlers beating and attacking a Washington Post journalist covering the West Bank, as well as European diplomats who had been on an official visit. One journalist who tried to help his colleague reported the difficulty of reaching her. This was not only because of the settlers, but also because the Israeli military was firing tear gas and live ammunition into the area, forcing the Palestinian farmers to flee their own fields.
You don’t need much more information to guess that if that is how white Americans and Europeans are being treated, Palestinians are confronted with violence that is ten times worse.
Here in Britain, Israel’s colonial settlements have had more media exposure in the past few months than possibly ever before, as the British government announced new measures last month to ban the import of settlement goods and some limited sanctions, along with other measures designed to curb the actions of what Foreign Secretary Ed Miliband called “settler terrorists”.
Whilst these measures are certainly a step in the right direction, they don’t go nearly as far as they should. This month’s spike in attacks on Palestinians harvesting their olives shows both the weaknesses of the British sanctions as they are currently formulated, but also the possibilities that could be pushed if the government is serious about tackling settler violence.
The weakness of the British government’s position is that it has rhetoric that is tough on settler violence but treats that phenomenon as its own isolated problem. Understanding the inextricable link between the settler movement, the colonial settlements already established for decades, and Israel’s military occupation itself is key to intervening in the violence.
The settlers couldn’t function as they do without the full-throated support they enjoy from the Israeli military. And despite commitments to curb the flow of arms that enable the occupation, no additional arms exports to Israel have been halted since Miliband’s announcement last month.
The problem goes even further if one understands the link between the settler movement and the Israeli government itself. The British government seems to be still entertaining the fantasy that the settler movement can be isolated and treated separately from the Israeli state.
Of course it is the Israeli state itself which, over decades and across parties, has enacted policy and funded the settlements. Nowadays top Israeli government ministers come directly from the far-right settler movement, but this is a result of decades of normalisation of settlements, rather than the start of it.
Even if you could magically remove the far-right settler movement in isolation, many of Israel’s earliest West Bank settlements are now major hubs of the Israeli agricultural industry. They profit from land grabs from Palestinians, enriching themselves from Palestinian land and water, and dominating the exports of produce abroad, whilst Palestinian olive farmers struggle, and still would even without the violent settler attacks.
In order to really tackle settler violence, the British government must extend its sanctions proposal to be state sanctions on Israel. There is no separating out the settlements from the state, and there is no legitimate trade with a state committing apartheid and genocide.
These sanctions must include, but not be limited to, a full two-way arms embargo on Israel.
Stemming from this, the tasks of the solidarity movement are clear. We must continue to push the British government to strengthen its sanctions on Israel, through lobbying and protesting, but also by exposing the contradictions in what is currently in place.
None of these actions will stop the horror of settler attacks during this olive harvest season. The coming month will be a painful time for Palestinians who are being forced to defend themselves, their families, their livelihoods and their lands.
Whilst political debates within our solidarity movement rage on, certainly we can all agree that we absolutely cannot lose sight of the stakes for Palestinians, and the horrible costs they are paying every day. But this urgency must compel our solidarity forward to push our government to enact full sanctions on Israel now.
Ryvka Barnard is the Deputy Director of the Palestine Solidarity Campaign UK.
Have questions or comments? Email us at: editorial-english@newarab.com
Opinions expressed here are the author's own, and do not necessarily reflect those of their employer, or of The New Arab and its editorial board or staff.
Apple shrugged off widely-reported delays to shipments of iPhone Duo models by delivering the first units to eager customers worldwide.
Pictures from various of the vendor’s retail locations showed a clamour for its first foldable model, which hit stores on time based on the release schedule Apple gave when it unveiled the device in September.
Apple stated it is offering a range of trade-in and leasing options on the devices, which have a starting price of $1,999 for versions with 256GB of storage.
The vendor may be particularly pleased with the turnout at a store in Shanghai, China, given the nation is one of its biggest markets.
Bloomberg journalist Vlad Savov wrote the iPhone Duo could ignite a so-far muted foldable smartphone market, though also cautioned the sector may remain niche if Apple fails to shift enough of the devices.
Reports last week pointed to significantly longer waiting times for customers ordering the devices online compared with previous Apple smartphones, with shipments tipped to take up to three months instead of the roughly six weeks of past devices.
Apple highlighted there are “exceptional” deals to be had purchasing iPhone Duo models through mobile operator channels.
The post iPhone Duo hits stores appeared first on Mobile World Live.
Like most of American healthcare, kidney care has for decades been plagued by red tape. The Trump administration says it wants to change that. On Tuesday, Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. announced his department's Kidney Care National Plan, which promises to introduce more competition, reduce regulatory barriers, expand patient choice, and overhaul America's kidney transplant system.
Much of the plan focuses on barriers to entry in dialysis care, which treats nearly 558,000 Americans. While dialysis can be performed at home, most patients receive treatment at specialized facilities, which must comply with federal certification requirements governing equipment, staffing, water quality, and patient safety in order to participate in Medicare.
Kennedy argues that regulatory barriers have discouraged competition and innovation, leaving patients with fewer dialysis treatment options. "Dialysis technology is an extraordinary technology," said Kennedy at the press conference, but "because of monopolies in the system and the barriers to new entrants, we have not seen any real improvements in that technology."
Of course, the existence of large or even monopolistic companies is not in itself evidence of a problem, but government regulation can often entrench those companies' positions in the market. "I like the fact that they're recognizing that a lot of regulatory…barriers are contributing to the problem, and that's refreshing to hear," says Jeffrey Singer, a practicing general surgeon and senior fellow at Reason Foundation, the nonprofit that publishes Reason. Singer says that removing barriers that prevent new companies from competing with established providers could not only increase choice but also drive down prices.
HHS says that two companies, DaVita and Fresenius Medical Care, control approximately 74 percent of the American dialysis market. As of 2019, roughly a third of Americans lived in areas where the only available dialysis provider was one of those two companies, according to the agency. The administration argues that government regulation has helped entrench this dominance by making it difficult for new providers to enter the market.
To address this, the Kidney Care National Plan suggests a number of reforms, including simplifying certification requirements. HHS also plans to investigate whether dominant dialysis providers have used payment arrangements and legal strategies to secure higher reimbursements without delivering better care.
The 17-page report calls for a review of existing requirements, but it does not specify which regulations will be repealed, nor does it establish a timeline for doing so. It also does not propose any significant reduction in the government's role in financing the distorted market. Instead, the plan largely seeks to make existing government-financed systems such as Medicare more competitive and efficient.
Kennedy has also correctly identified the need for reform regarding kidney donations. Nearly 90,000 people are waiting for a kidney transplant at any given time in America, and 11 people die every day waiting for a kidney. The transplant process is currently managed by Organ Procurement Organizations (OPOs), which are federally certified nonprofits responsible for recovering organs from donors and coordinating their transfer. There are currently just 55 federally designated OPOs operating in the United States, and HHS argues that they behave as "regional monopolies." Since no new OPOs have been approved in the last year, the Kidney Care National Plan suggests fast-tracking certification.
The plan also seeks to make living kidney donation easier by reducing financial barriers. Following the passage of the Honor Our Living Donors Act in February, HHS revised federal reimbursement rules so that a donor's eligibility for financial assistance is no longer determined by the transplant recipient's income. Eligible donors can receive up to $6,000 to cover expenses, including travel, lost wages, and childcare.
However, the reforms proposed stop short of allowing kidney donors to receive direct compensation for the organs themselves, which remains prohibited under federal law. "I can sell my blood. Why can't I sell my kidney?" Singer asks.
Peter Jaworski, director of the Georgetown Blood and Plasma Research Group, feels similarly, arguing that financial incentives are available to nearly everyone involved in kidney transplantation except the donors themselves. "According to this plan, it's OK to use incentives to encourage them to be more productive, to actually do a better job," Jaworski tells Reason, referring to transplant surgeons, hospitals, and organ procurement organizations. "The only exception, once again, is the donor who is offering a kidney."
Better solutions exist, according to Jaworski, who points to the proposed End Kidney Deaths Act. The bill, which was introduced by Rep. Nicole Malliotakis (R–N.Y.) last year, would offer living kidney donors a $50,000 refundable tax credit, distributed over five years. "We have those systems in order to make sure that we can treat patients. That's the point of blood donation. That's the point of plasma donation. That's the point of kidney donation too."
America's plasma market is an excellent example of financial incentives encouraging donation. Unlike many other countries, the U.S. allows plasma donors to be compensated, and despite accounting for just over 4 percent of the world's population, it supplies approximately 68 percent of the plasma collected globally for manufacturing medicines.
"Why do you think America does it? Is it because in America there's way more altruism than in France or Italy or Belgium? No, it's because in the United States you can be paid to donate plasma," argues Jaworski.
The Trump administration appears to recognize that government overreach has stifled competition and restricted patient choice. It also recognizes that living adults donating kidneys will be part of the solution to the long, deadly waiting lists. But its plan leaves the government's outsize role in kidney care largely untouched. For patients facing years on dialysis or waiting for a lifesaving transplant, recognizing the problem is not enough.
The post RFK Jr. Wants To Cut Red Tape in Kidney Care. He Should Go Further. appeared first on Reason Magazine.
US President Donald Trump has failed to reach an agreement with Russian ruler Vladimir Putin on halting strikes against Ukraine's energy infrastructure. However, Trump is trying to shift the blame for this failure onto President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, he said on The Diary of a CEO podcast.
His words came amid Russia's four record waves of ballistic missile attacks, after US Special Envoy Steve Witkoff described Putin as a "humanitarian." Previously, US officials cut Kyiv off from US intelligence and lowered a speed cap on Starlink to pressure Ukraine into stopping strikes on Russia's oil refineries that bring Moscow revenue for its war.
Zelenskyy explained the behavioral pattern behind Trump's recent actions and statements. At first, Putin rejected his proposal for a ceasefire. Then, the US president blamed it all on him, explaining to his people that world fuel prices are rising because of him, which is not true at all, said the Ukrainian leader.
He pointed to the blocked Strait of Hormuz shipping chokepoint, not Ukraine’s refinery campaign, as the driver of higher prices.
He also noted that the volumes of diesel allowed by the US are insufficient to lower global oil prices.
Even so, Zelenskyy said he keeps a working relationship with Trump. What he will not accept is being cast as the villain in Russia’s war: by his account, the US president is rewriting the context, turning Ukraine’s leader into the target for a problem that starts in Moscow.
Earlier, experts said the diesel deal was unlikely to meaningfully lower diesel prices. For Putin, the agreement itself was a win.
A former senior State Department official says it hardly matters whether the fuel arrives, because Putin “has already achieved the result he wants,” with Trump believing he has a pre-election card that could move markets.
Last week, the forensic digital security NGO Citizen Lab documented a cyberattack it named Adfection. It was found on 45 Al Jazeera journalists’ computers. It used zero-click spyware created by Israeli spyware developer Candiru, which implanted malware in ads displayed on a web page. It infected the computer and gave access to nearly every user activity, including email, texts, video and audio, browser activity, etc. The targeted user did not have to click on a link or download a file.
The campaign required an online company to buy the ads which compromised the device. It was an Israeli company called Discover-Tech. Its platform, Controlium, strips the anonymity of targeted individuals even if they have encrypted or masked their digital footprint. The ads also covertly directed millions of devices to Candiru’s servers, where their content was harvested for large-scale tracking and reconnaissance.
Citizen Lab noted that Discover Tech purports to be a legitimate ad company. But in reality, it is a front for large-scale Israeli espionage
This campaign required a second player, the spyware firm, Candiru. Ironically, it was named for an Amazonian fish which feeds on the blood of host fishes. Considering its business model, the name seems apt. Candiru wrote the code which was implanted with the ads. They then placed the ads on specific websites visited by targeted individuals.
Its partner, Discover-Tech, not only placed the ads but also amassed geo-data that let it identify and track targets, a process known as microtargeting. They track users’ physical location and follow their movements. The spyware also tracks devices in cellular, Wi-Fi, or VPN modes.
Discover-Tech placed 4 billion ad bids. The ads were served on 200,000 different Android and Apple apps and various websites. In particular, they targeted defence, foreign affairs, internal security, military and intelligence bodies. These agencies included NATO, the Pentagon, the International Criminal Court, Israeli government ministries (foreign, defence, police), and the European Parliament. In all, users in 23 countries were attacked.
Candiru, which designed Adfection, has led a mysterious existence since its founding in 2014. It has changed its name repeatedly to skirt sanctions and accountability. It is currently named Integrity Labs. Another bit of irony considering the “integrity” of malware design.
Its website claims it is based in Hong Kong with offices in various Asian cities. It doesn’t mention Herzliya, where it was founded and where its CEO is based.
In fact, Israeli companies seeking to shield themselves from exposure and avoid potential interference from Israeli regulations employ a well-known subterfuge by moving operations abroad. Similarly, Integrity Labs’ peripatetic existence “created a corporate buffer to distance its operations from US sanctions [against Candiru] while continuing to deploy surveillance tools.”
Citizen Lab declined to identify which country or government entity managed this overall project. It seems highly likely it was Israel, considering a majority of those targeted were either in Europe or the Middle East.
The most likely Israeli source for such a campaign is the IDF’s SIGINT branch, Unit 8200, whose mission is to intercept communications using precisely the tools developed by Candiru/Integrity Labs.
Israel also has explicit interest in many of the entities targeted, including the Pentagon, ICC and Al Jazeera. Though Adfection appeared on Pentagon computers, Citizen Lab did not indicate whether US intelligence assets were attacked as well.
Israel is a world leader in developing surveillance, spyware, and cyber-attack products. The IDF field tests many of them in Palestine, which is among the most surveilled places on earth. There are tens of thousands of CCTV cameras, facial recognition technology, AI, drones, telecommunication intercepts, and a massive database compiled on every individual Palestinian.
Israel's primary signals intelligence corps, Unit 8200, has created multiple AI-based tools to exert control over a restive population. Among them are Where’s Daddy, Ha’bsorah (“Good News”), and Fire Factory. The AI program, Lavender, assigns a 1 to 100 score for all 2.5 million Gazans to determine if they should be killed. In other words, artificial intelligence makes life-and-death decisions leading to the murder of thousands of Palestinians.
Many Israeli companies like NSO Group, Candiru, Intellexa, Cellebrite, Circles and Paragon were founded by Unit 8200 veterans. They are leaders in the development of spyware used by police and intelligence agencies throughout the world to surveil—and even murder--human rights activists, journalists (among them, Jamal Khashoggi), and lawyers. They are products of the Israeli surveillance state, exported worldwide along with the oppressive values they represent.
Israel has created a Brave New World of digital surveillance and sold it to some of the most dangerous individuals and repressive regimes on earth. It is a World of chaos and cruelty, like Hobbes' war of all against all.
International bodies like the United Nations appear unable or unwilling to impose any regulation on these nefarious tools, which pose a grave threat to democracy, justice and human rights.
Richard Silverstein writes the Tikun Olam blog and is a freelance journalist specialising in exposing secrets of the Israeli national security state. He campaigns against opacity and the negative impact of Israeli military censorship.
Follow Richard on X: @richards1052
Have questions or comments? Email us at: editorial-english@newarab.com
Opinions expressed in this article remain those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The New Arab, its editorial board or staff.
© Abdul Saboor/Reuters
The eurozone economy has proved more resilient to the energy price shock of 2026 than economists initially expected, supported by increased investment in artificial intelligence, reduced dependence on fossil fuels and higher government expenditure, according to an assessment published by the European Central Bank on Wednesday, 21 October.
ECB economists Óscar Arce, Gerrit Koester and Beatrice Pierluigi found that structural changes in European energy consumption have reduced the economic consequences of rising oil and gas prices. Stronger international demand for technology equipment and additional public spending, particularly in Germany, have also supported growth.
The findings come as the ECB faces renewed inflationary pressure following disruption to global energy markets caused by the conflict involving Iran, raising questions about the outlook for interest rates and economic activity.
In their assessment of the eurozone’s economic resilience, ECB economists reported that economic output continued to expand despite the sharp increase in energy prices earlier this year.
Excluding Ireland, where economic statistics are frequently affected by the activities of multinational companies, real eurozone GDP in the second quarter was 0.6 per cent above its level at the end of 2025.
The ECB also identified quarterly growth of approximately 0.3 per cent over the preceding four quarters, excluding Irish figures.
These results exceeded earlier expectations that the disruption to energy markets would have a greater impact on European manufacturing, consumer spending and business investment.
Nevertheless, the eurozone’s rate of expansion remains modest compared with its longer-term historical performance.
The ECB’s findings suggest that the economy has become better able to absorb international disruptions without experiencing the immediate contractions that might previously have followed comparable energy price increases.
One of the most significant structural changes concerns energy consumption.
According to the ECB, the eurozone economy is now approximately half as dependent on oil as it was during the early 1990s, measured against economic output.
Greater energy efficiency, the expansion of services and investment in alternative electricity generation have progressively reduced the amount of fossil fuel required to produce economic activity.
The growth of renewable energy has also altered the relationship between natural gas prices and electricity costs.
In Spain, the proportion of hours during which gas-fired power stations determined wholesale electricity prices fell from approximately 80 per cent in 2020 to just over 20 per cent during the first nine months of 2026.
France recorded a similar decline, from approximately 60 per cent to around 20 per cent, supported by its extensive nuclear generating capacity.
Consequently, increases in international gas prices are having a smaller effect on electricity markets in countries with substantial renewable or nuclear generation.
The ECB cautioned, however, that European economies remain exposed to global energy disruptions, particularly through industrial activity and international supply chains.
The international expansion of artificial intelligence has generated an additional source of demand for European manufacturers and technology companies.
Investment in computing infrastructure, digital services and specialised equipment has increased demand for products supplied by European businesses.
According to the ECB, global trade has performed considerably better than expected at the end of 2025.
The latest projections indicate international trade growth of approximately 4.7 per cent in 2026, compared with the 2 per cent forecast in December.
AI-related investment accounts for part of that improvement.
European manufacturers producing specialised machinery and technology equipment have benefited from increased export orders, while domestic investment in technology has supported economic activity.
However, the ECB found that the effects vary considerably between sectors.
Technology-equipment manufacturers recorded comparatively strong growth in output, employment and new orders.
Software companies performed better in output terms, but the improvement was less evident in employment and new business.
This uneven performance suggests that the economic benefits of the AI investment cycle are concentrated in particular industries.
Fiscal policy has provided another source of support.
The ECB estimates that the expansionary fiscal stance in the eurozone has increased to approximately 0.5 percentage points of GDP, twice the level anticipated in December 2025.
Much of the additional stimulus reflects higher German government spending on defence and infrastructure.
Other eurozone governments have introduced measures to limit the effect of energy prices on households and businesses.
Public investment and expenditure have therefore helped compensate for weakness in areas affected by higher import costs and international uncertainty.
Yet the ECB warned that fiscal support cannot necessarily continue at its present level.
Several eurozone governments face borrowing constraints, while additional public spending can place pressure on national budgets.
The ECB’s assessment comes amid expectations of further monetary tightening as policymakers respond to renewed energy-related inflation.
The central bank must consider whether higher energy costs will remain temporary or begin influencing wages, prices and inflation expectations more broadly.
Additional interest-rate increases could reduce inflationary pressures but would also raise borrowing costs for businesses, governments and households.
The economic recovery remains exposed to potential reversals in global demand, international trade and investment in artificial intelligence.
The ECB’s economists also identified geopolitical escalation and further supply-chain disruption as continuing risks.
Their findings indicate that reduced fossil-fuel dependence has made the eurozone less vulnerable to energy shocks, while technology investment and government spending have provided additional support.
Whether that resilience continues into 2027 will depend partly on the durability of international demand and the ability of European governments to maintain investment without increasing inflationary pressure.
Apple added a US titanium supplier for the iPhone Duo, committing up to $100 million to Pennsylvania-based Perryman Company while expanding domestic production of camera technology for the iPhone 18 Pro.
As part of its American Manufacturing Program (AMP), Apple said today (20 October) the deal with Perryman is over the next three years for titanium used in its products, including the iPhone Duo, which starts at $1,999.
The announcement follows reports of tight supply for Apple’s first foldable. The phone is due in stores on 23 October, but online delivery estimates slipped to January 2027 within minutes of preorders opening on 16 October.
Apple stated Perryman will melt, forge, and roll grade 5 titanium, which it said will contain at least 80% recycled material. Titanium is used for the Duo’s enclosure, providing durability, according to the iPhone maker.
It is also expanding its partnership with Qnity Electronics, headquartered in the US state of Delaware, to produce technology for the new variable aperture in the iPhone 18 Pro camera system.
Apple said nearly 100 components used in the iPhone Duo and iPhone 18 Pro, from wireless chips to the silicon which powers key functions across the devices, are produced by US companies across more than a dozen states.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company’s (TSMC) Arizona plant will produce more than 100 million chips for Apple in 2026, while Corning’s Kentucky facility will make all cover glass for iPhones and Apple Watches sold worldwide by year end.
Apple also highlighted investments with other AMP partners, including Broadcom for US-made chips and Amkor Technology, which is building a semiconductor packaging and testing facility in Peoria, Arizona.
“We’re thrilled to expand our work with companies producing advanced materials and components for our newest iPhone lineup right here in America,” stated Apple COO Sabih Khan.
The post Apple pledges $100M to US titanium supplier for iPhone Duo appeared first on Mobile World Live.
In Paradigm Lost: From Two-State Solution to One-State Reality, Ian Lustick borrows a joke from Woody Allen’s Annie Hall. A man tells his therapist that his brother thinks he is a chicken. Why not have him treated? I would,’ the man replies, ‘but I need the eggs.’
When I interviewed Lustick some years ago, I asked who was still collecting eggs from the two-state solution long after the conditions for it had vanished. He replied: American administrations, the Palestinian Authority, the Israeli government, and what he called the ‘peace process industry’. By that, he meant the international institutions, NGOs, and experts whose careers rest on the promise of a settlement that never materialises.
That joke stayed with me as the West Bank moved to the centre of mainstream media coverage. Journalists have been attacked by settlers on camera. Israeli army commanders and officials have been publicly questioned about settler violence. All of it has unfolded to the sound of an alarm so old it has become part of the furniture: the two-state solution is under threat.
In much of Western politics and media, criticising “extreme settlers” is the cheapest form of criticism there is. One can condemn settler violence, denounce Itamar Ben-Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich, and perhaps blame Benjamin Netanyahu for wrecking the prospects of peace, all without asking more difficult questions about the Israeli state or the support that sustains it.
This kind of criticism leaves room for a comforting assumption: the problem is this government. Remove it and another Israeli partner, ready for peace, may yet appear. With Israelis voting on 27 October, where is that partner?
The leading alternatives to Netanyahu do not fundamentally disagree over settlement or control of the West Bank. Gadi Eisenkot, the former army chief often cast as the man who could lead Israel out of the Netanyahu impasse, has pledged that no Palestinian state will be established under any government he forms.
Naftali Bennett, who now leads Yachad, his joint list with Yair Lapid, once served as director-general of the Yesha Council, the settlers’ umbrella body. He has also proposed annexing Area C, which covers more than 60% of the West Bank. Even Yair Golan, leader of the Democrats and, by Israeli standards, a dove, called talk of a Palestinian state destructive.
Since the Oslo Accords were signed in 1993, the settler population has grown from about 250,000 to more than 750,000. Much of this growth occurred during the peace process itself, under governments the world regarded as moderate.
One of the busiest years for settlement construction was 2000, under Ehud Barak. In 2008, while Ehud Olmert was negotiating with Mahmoud Abbas after Annapolis, Israel began building more settlement homes in the West Bank than in any year under his predecessor, Ariel Sharon. Olmert has since found a second career on Western television warning about the consequences of the first.
Most Palestinians stopped waiting for that partner long ago. Experience has taught us that settlement is not a policy of the Israeli system. It is the system. That doesn’t make Israeli politicians the same; they don't all treat every form of violence against Palestinians the same way. But the real disagreements are about how to manage, regulate, and institutionalise that violence, and how much violence can be used before the political and diplomatic bill becomes too high.
In August, when the Housing Ministry opened bidding on some 1,200 homes in E1, the corridor east of Jerusalem that would cut the West Bank in two, Eisenkot objected only to the timing, while calling a Palestinian state a “grave mistake”. He had no quarrel with the map, only the calendar.
When settler violence is presented as the exception, and reduced to the extremism of Netanyahu and his allies, it becomes possible to maintain the image of another Israel, one that is moderate, merely waiting for its turn to govern and resume the peace process.
That is how the promise of two states outlives every fact on the ground. Its political power never rested on its feasibility. It has always lain in the capacity to sustain a particular political fantasy about Israel. That fantasy separates Israel as a political system, to be allied with, from the ‘incidental’ excesses of that state.
Decades of ‘peacemaking’ and billions in funding have entrenched it so deeply that questioning it now seems harder than questioning Israel’s violations themselves.
This fantasy survives through fragmentation. In Gaza, the genocide is treated as an excessive use of otherwise legitimate force. In the West Bank, the violence is treated as an extremist deviation from Israel’s political order, one that an election result could end at any moment.
And inside Israel, abuses against Palestinian citizens are framed as threats to an established democracy. Read the mainstream Western press on each, or listen to European and even American officials, and you could be forgiven for thinking they were describing three different countries.
Perhaps these are the new eggs in Lustick’s joke. The West can go on condemning what it sees, so long as it keeps waiting for an Israel that does not exist. On 27 October, Israelis will vote, and the wait will be renewed, as it has after every election before. Its arrival was never the point. The longer the West keeps waiting for the Israel it imagines, the less it has to deal with the one that is already here.
Izzeddin Araj is a Palestinian journalist and researcher. He is the Executive Director of Al-Araby Al-Jadeed and the former Editor-in-Chief of the Arabic network Ultra Sawt. He holds a PhD in Anthropology from The Graduate Institute, Geneva (IHEID).
Follow Izzeddin on X: @ArajIzzeddin
Have questions or comments? Email us at: editorial-english@alaraby.co.uk
Opinions expressed in this article remain those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The New Arab, its editorial board or staff.
The agreement was signed in Brussels on Monday, 19 October, by representatives of the European Commission and the two governments, marking the conclusion of negotiations that began more than a decade ago.
The arrangement covers trade, investment and regulatory cooperation, alongside provisions concerning financial services, education, environmental protection, consumer rights and other areas normally governed by EU legislation.
However, the agreement has not yet entered into force. It requires further approval procedures, including consent from the European Parliament and ratification by the participating countries. Andorra intends to submit the agreement to a binding national referendum.
According to the European Commission’s announcement, the agreement will provide Andorra and San Marino with access to the single market under shared regulatory requirements and conditions intended to ensure fair competition.
The principal objective is to remove barriers that continue to restrict economic activity between the two countries and the EU’s 27 member states.
For businesses, the arrangements should provide greater predictability concerning the rules governing cross-border trade, investment and commercial operations.
Participation will nevertheless require both countries to implement relevant EU legislation and maintain systems capable of enforcing the applicable standards.
In practice, access to the European market will carry obligations comparable to those imposed on companies established inside the Union, particularly concerning product standards, competition, environmental rules and consumer protection.
The agreement also establishes institutional arrangements for managing cooperation and dealing with future regulatory developments.
For two countries whose economies are closely connected to neighbouring EU members, greater regulatory consistency could reduce administrative barriers and facilitate commercial expansion.
Financial services represent one of the more sensitive elements of the agreement.
Andorra has a banking and financial sector with substantial links to Spain and France, while San Marino’s economy is closely integrated with Italy.
Both countries already use the euro under separate monetary arrangements with the European Union, although neither is a member of the eurozone or the EU.
The new association framework would provide a route towards broader participation in the EU financial services market, but integration will be gradual and subject to specific conditions.
The Commission has made clear that the process will involve assessments of the regulatory and supervisory arrangements operating in both countries.
This means the signature does not provide their financial institutions with immediate, unrestricted access to all services available within the EU.
Brussels has also signed updated monetary agreements designed to remove overlapping requirements between existing arrangements and the new association framework.
Financial supervision, the prevention of money laundering and compliance with European regulatory standards will be central to the implementation process.
The agreement illustrates how the Union can extend significant elements of its economic framework to neighbouring countries without admitting them as members.
Andorra and San Marino will not acquire voting rights in EU institutions or the political representation enjoyed by member states.
Their participation will instead depend on accepting relevant common rules and complying with the institutional provisions established under the association agreement.
The EU already operates differentiated arrangements with several non-member European countries, including Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein through the European Economic Area.
Earlier European Council conclusions on relations with non-EU Western European countries identified Andorra and San Marino among the states with which Brussels sought closer economic and institutional cooperation.
The newly signed agreement does not replicate every aspect of existing arrangements, but it follows the broader principle that access to the single market can be negotiated separately from EU membership.
That principle is also relevant to discussions about how candidate countries might receive selected economic benefits before completing the full accession process.
Brussels has been considering wider market participation for countries such as Ukraine and Moldova ahead of possible membership.
The immediate political challenge now moves from negotiation to approval.
Following the signature, the Council will seek the European Parliament’s consent before the agreement can be formally concluded. Its application will also depend on the completion of the necessary national procedures.
In Andorra, Prime Minister Xavier Espot’s government has committed to a binding referendum, although no voting date has yet been fixed.
The referendum will determine whether Andorran voters accept the economic opportunities and regulatory commitments established by the agreement.
San Marino must also complete the procedures required under its constitutional system.
Until those requirements have been satisfied, the agreement remains a signed framework rather than an operational extension of the EU single market.
For both countries, the eventual implementation will determine how far their economies can integrate with the Union while retaining their existing status as independent non-member states.
Donald Trump loves to put his name on things, and when it comes to the recent burst of inflation, it’s totally deserved. Trump and Republican politicians are doing their best to try to make a simple story complicated. But there is no doubt that Trump is the lead and almost sole author of the inflation […]
The post Trumpflation is here and it’s all Trump’s doing appeared first on Asia Times.
Donald Trump has cancelled the Pentagon’s plan to livestream Nidal Hasan’s execution after an outcry from Republicans and Democrats alike. Yet the former US Army psychiatrist, convicted of murdering 12 soldiers and a civilian at Fort Hood in 2009, is still scheduled to face a firing squad on 3 December. If it goes ahead, it will be the US military’s first execution since 1961.
The prospect of broadcasting the killing provoked a political backlash. The decision to kill him remains intact.
Under the current Trump administration, one might think we have seen it all, that hardly anything can shock us. Yet almost every day, the US rulers seem to raise the threshold of what the ‘civilised world’ can tolerate, commit to and advocate.
I did not see the proposed return to public executions coming. Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth wanted an audience for the military’s next killing; Trump has decided that the public will not be allowed to watch.
As an opponent of capital punishment, I see no crime that requires transforming an execution into entertainment potentially available to millions, including children. But the removal of a camera should not be mistaken for a retreat from state violence.
While the military is preparing to resume executions after a 65-year hiatus, we must remember that the wider American killing machine never went away in the first place.
Individual jurisdictions have abolished capital punishment or suspended its use, but the machinery remains operational. In 2024, 25 people were executed and 47 in 2025, according to the Death Penalty Information Centre.
Beyond execution chambers, the toll is far greater. According to Campaign Zero’s Mapping Police Violence project, US police killed at least 1,314 people in 2025, an average of 3.6 every day. Even that horrifying toll represented a 5% decline from 2024, the first annual decrease in six years.
Black people were still 2.6 times as likely as white people to be killed. These figures cover police killings in many different circumstances, rather than judicial executions. But they demolish any suggestion that lethal state violence had taken a holiday.
Then there are the deaths without execution warrants or guns. A 2023 study published in JAMA Internal Medicine associated poverty with approximately 183,000 US deaths in 2019. Another study, following people identified as homeless in the 2010 census, found that those under 65 faced 3.5 times the mortality risk of housed people after accounting for demographic and geographical differences. Researchers also estimated that more than two million deaths during the 2020 and 2021 pandemic years could have been avoided if US mortality rates had matched those in 21 other wealthy countries.
Poverty, inadequate housing and denial of healthcare are silent mass killers whose victims are unlikely to make headlines or front-page news. This is structural violence, with political responsibility resting on US elites, which is otherwise conveniently obscured.
Political choices shape access to treatment, decent housing, safe work, and adequate food. The ruling US elites have repeatedly subordinated those needs to profit. By all accounts, today’s America is a social Darwinist experiment on steroids. The poor are poor because they deserve it. The sick die because they cannot afford treatment, so what?
The state must not intervene to provide protection because, God forbid, that would be socialism. The cruelty is routinely dressed up as individual responsibility and economic common sense.
Trump’s administration brings a more openly vindictive politics to this inheritance. Racism, misogyny, and xenophobia feed its vocabulary of hierarchy. Take, for example, Trump’s language about immigrants “poisoning the blood” of the country. Once people are represented as contamination, cruelty toward them becomes easier to sell as national renewal. Across the country, masked ICE agents are snatching foreigners, breaking up families, and shooting protesters in the name of the law.
Abroad, the same entitlement assumes imperial proportions. US forces seized Venezuela’s president, Nicolás Maduro, in January. Trump entertained taking Greenland by force before ruling out military action at Davos. The US and Israel launched another war against Iran in February. Kidnapping a foreign president, treating another people’s territory as an acquisition, and promising salvation through bombardment revive the prerogatives of nineteenth-century colonialism.
Hegseth, who proposed the latest live-streamed execution, gives this politics a crusading aesthetic. The civilian Pentagon chief bears a Jerusalem Cross and “Deus Vult” tattoos, and has promoted conservative Christianity inside the military. His church network is associated with a patriarchal Christian nationalism. Its prominent pastor, Doug Wilson, advocates postmillennialism, envisioning Christian rule before Christ’s return. This combination of religious supremacy and military power gives the execution proposal a particularly ominous setting.
Michel Foucault helps us understand the relationship between public punishment and less visible forms of coercion. In Discipline and Punish, he argues that public execution was a ritual through which the ruling authority reasserted itself. But the retreat of the scaffold did not make punishment humane.
Power changed its methods, working through prisons, institutions and everyday routines. Live-streaming Hasan’s execution would have created a power spectacle. Does the cancellation mean a return to rationality? Not necessarily. It leaves the coercive institutions and their authority in place.
Hegseth’s supporters have presented the execution as a warning to would-be killers. The argument for deterrence, however, lacks empirical support. Existing research cannot provide any conclusions on whether capital punishment increased, decreased, or had no effect on homicide.
American rulers preside over death through several different mechanisms: execution orders, armed policing, policies that leave millions vulnerable to preventable illness and poverty, and wars waged abroad. A society cannot claim to respect human life while treating so much death as acceptable, unavoidable or even exemplary.
The self-proclaimed enlightened world should be judged by the lives it protects and the power it restrains. Trump can cancel the livestream. The machinery behind it remains.
Hossam el-Hamalawy is an Egyptian scholar-activist in Germany, focusing on the military, policing, and labour.
Follow Hossam on X: @3arabawy
Have questions or comments? Email us at editorial-english@newarab.com
Opinions expressed in this article remain those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The New Arab.
Login