I've noticed that pro-Palestine protests focus almost entirely on Israel's government and military, and I rarely see signs or chants criticizing Hamas, even though Hamas governs Gaza and is also partly responsible for the suffering of people there.

Gaza hasn't had an election since 2006, and Freedom House describes Hamas as governing in an authoritarian manner and suppressing criticism of its rule. When Gazans protested high taxes and living costs in 2019, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch documented Hamas beating, arresting, and torturing protesters and journalists. In 2025, Amnesty again reported that Hamas threatened and beat Gazans who protested against its rule and the war. Meanwhile, Hamas has heavily taxed Gazans and spent huge resources on tunnels and weapons, while its top leaders lived comfortably abroad in Qatar.

I understand the usual argument: Western protesters target Israel because their own governments support Israel, not Hamas. But if the goal is a better life for Palestinians, then the group that rules them, suppresses their dissent, and tortures their protesters can't be left out of the picture. Gazans themselves have protested against Hamas at real personal risk. Western protesters face no such risk, yet they stay silent about it.

That silence sends a message, whether intended or not: that Hamas's role in Palestinian suffering doesn't matter, or that criticizing it is off limits. It also makes it easier for critics to dismiss the whole movement as being against Israel rather than for Palestinians. Adding even basic criticism of Hamas would make the protests more consistent, more credible, and closer to what many Gazans themselves have been saying.

  By Arthur Solomon

 In an effort to be remembered, Donald J. Trump wants his name to be put on every building in America. While that will not happen, I’m willing to bet 1,000 acres of my 1,001-acre farm that he’ll be remembered by historians as the most unprincipled, dishonest, honest president in the history of the United States.

 Dishonest because he has enriched himself, family members, and close associates with many millions of dollars. Honest because he doesn’t attempt to conceal it.

 On July 1, 2026, the New York Times reported, “President Trump returned to the White House with an epiphany about mixing business and politics during his first term in office. 'I found out that nobody cared,' said Mr. Trump, revealing a remarkable indifference to potential conflicts of interest.”

 But in the closing days of the 2026 midterm election campaign, President Trump has reached a new low, in my opinion. He’s openly attempting to buy people’s votes. Here’s how:

 ·       He promised a $5,000 cash payment to every American adult if Republicans maintain control of the House and Senate.

·       His administration distributed $500 checks to nearly 1 million Obamacare recipients.

·        His administration provided $90 in Medicare Part B premium assistance funds to 20 million seniors.

In 1850, Elizabeth Barrett Browning, the famous Victorian poet, wrote, "How do I love thee? Let me count the ways." Change the word “love” to “bribe” and you would have the hallmark of President Trump’s days as president.

 Actually, what President Trump is doing by trying to bribe people to vote Republican is similar to a flimflam game. The money he has returned and is promising to return comes out of your own pocket, from taxes that have been paid. Money from his own pocket remains in his own piggy bank.

 I’m not saying that President Trump is the only president that had conflicts of interest while in office. Every president who came from the business world had potential conflicts of interest. But if past president had conflicts of interest they did their best to hide them from the public. President Trump does no such thing. That’s why he’s The Most Dishonest Honest President We’ve Ever Had.

 There are several days remaining before Election Day 2026, and it’s likely that President Trump will come up with some other gimmicks to buy your vote. He might also come up with an October Surprise. But one thing I’m certain of: “It won’t cost him a penny.”

 Arthur Solomon, a former journalist, was a senior VP/senior counselor at Burson-Marsteller during the days it was the leading international public relations agency. He was on the Seoul Peace Prize nominating committee and also was an advisor to Olympic organizations and sponsors. During his political agency days, he worked on local, statewide, and presidential campaigns.

The scenario in the Brazilian capital market following the outcome of the presidential election reflects a continuous and dynamic adjustment in the country's perception of institutional and fiscal risk, where investor reactions constantly fluctuate between the search for stability and concern over public accounts.

On the one hand, democratic signaling and political predictability tend to reduce risk premiums associated with institutional shocks; on the other hand, the risk appetite of both local and foreign investors undergoes a rigorous recalibration.

The attention of financial agents is primarily directed toward the government's ability to demonstrate fiscal discipline, control the expansion of public debt, and provide clear guidance on anchoring economic targets, given that the absence of a solid fiscal commitment demands higher risk premiums and leads long-term productive capital to adopt a cautious stance before committing new investments.

This dynamics of fiscal and political uncertainty directly impacts the behavior of different equity groups and businesses on the B3 exchange, driving a clear sectoral rotation.

Exporting companies and commodity producers, whose revenues are linked to the US dollar, are typically used as a hedge against currency depreciation and domestic fiscal risk.

Conversely, consumer, retail, and homebuilding sectors face greater pressure due to their direct sensitivity to domestic income and high interest rates.

In the infrastructure, public utilities, and concessions segments, although cash flow predictability remains an attractive feature, the market closely monitors potential changes in regulatory frameworks or shifts in state involvement in public-private partnerships.

Meanwhile, state-owned enterprises remain under direct scrutiny regarding corporate governance preservation, fuel pricing policies, and dividend distribution.

The trajectory of inflation and the baseline interest rate (Selic) of the Banco Central do Brasil remain intrinsically linked to this fiscal management.

Signals of expanded public spending raise inflation expectations, compelling the monetary authority to maintain interest rates at restrictive levels for extended periods to curb pressure on the exchange rate and aggregate demand.

Higher long-term interest rates significantly increase both the cost of equity and debt, making corporate debt issuances such as debentures more expensive and discouraging new expansion projects, while simultaneously reducing the present value of discounted cash flows in the equity market.

Concurrently, the judicial outlook and legal certainty emerge as decisive vectors in asset pricing and investment decision-making. The profitability of listed companies continues to confront the historical challenge of the 'Brazil Cost', which encompasses deficient logistical infrastructure, extreme tax complexity, and bureaucratic bottlenecks.

As Washington doubles down on its "economic D-Day" blockade against Iran, administration hawks have turned to louder threats of direct military action—a classic posture masking the lack of a clear exit strategy or definition of victory.

This disconnect exposes a fundamental flaw in strategic thinking: confusing economic or military disruption of a rival with a true strategic win.

Here’s why Washington’s logic fails, regardless of how this conflict plays out:

1. Economic determinism doesn't apply to ideological regimes

Western technocrats constantly assume material collapse automatically triggers regime change or surrender. History refutes this (the Taliban, North Korea, Cuba). Ideological regimes use economic distress to decimate independent private enterprise, weaponize state rationing, and force a destitute populace to become entirely dependent on the regime for basic survival. A ruined economy ≠ a collapsed security core.

2. Escalating military threats signal strategic fatigue, not strength

Relying on escalated military threats when economic containment stalls reveals an inherent lack of an exit strategy. As Tehran clings to power through asymmetric friction and maritime disruption in Hormuz, mere shows of force cannot resolve energy price shocks or supply-chain fatigue. Without a clear path to "victory," sustained containment eventually forces a U.S. compromise under domestic economic pressure.

3. If the regime DOES collapse, Pandora’s box opens

Suppose the regime disintegrates under pressure. You don't get a friendly, stable democracy in an 85-million-person regional anchor. You get a massive power vacuum, localized warlords, and armed factions controlling legacy missile stockpiles. Once maritime control in the Persian Gulf becomes decentralized, global trade security becomes an unpredictable nightmare.

4. Isolationism is a delusion in globalized energy markets

Proponents argue U.S. domestic energy insulates America from Middle East chaos. But oil is a globally fungible commodity. Disrupt transit in Hormuz, and global prices spike instantly. American consumers face inflation at the pump, secondary inflation ripples through supply chains, and the Fed is forced to keep interest rates high. Net-exporter status cannot shield Wall Street or Main Street from stagflation.

TL;DR:

The pivot toward louder military threats without defining "victory" proves Washington's strategic bind. If Iran survives the blockade, asymmetric drag eventually forces a U.S. retreat. If Iran falls, a giant power vacuum wrecks energy markets and fuels U.S. domestic inflation. Opening Pandora's box in Tehran backfires on Washington either way.

What do you think? Has Western policy traded a strategic long-term vision for short-term military posture?