Military

On Wednesday, Israel and Lebanon announced yet another ceasefire – after they had seemingly already agreed to a truce on April 16.

Iran and the United States have formally had a ceasefire in place since April 8. And Israel and Hamas, the Palestinian group, have had a ceasefire in Gaza since October 10, 2025.

Yet Israel’s attacks on Lebanon continue unchecked, with strikes on the Naqoura and Nabatieh districts of southern Lebanon on Friday, resulting in at least one death. Iran and the US have continued to trade periodic attacks that have picked up in intensity in recent days. The Iranian military has also fired missiles and drones at Gulf nations such as the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait and Bahrain, which it accuses of enabling US attacks on Iran during the ceasefire.

And in Gaza, Israel continues to carry out bombings, including one that killed nine people in a residential building this week, despite a supposed truce aimed at ending its genocidal war on the Palestinian territory.

So what does it mean for a ceasefire to be in place when fighting continues? What does international law say? And why do violations so rarely lead to consequences?

We speak to legal experts to understand:

What is a ceasefire?

Simply put, it’s a pause in fighting designed to create space for negotiations, explained Mark Kersten, assistant professor of criminal justice and criminology at the University of the Fraser Valley.

“A ceasefire is effectively a cessation of hostilities, but typically not understood to be a permanent one,” he told Al Jazeera.

It is also often fundamentally a political agreement rather than a strongly enforceable legal instrument, said Michael Lynk, an emeritus professor at Western University in Canada.

Unlike peace treaties, which often have guarantors responsible for oversight and enforcement, ceasefires can be breached with few immediate legal consequences, Lynk told Al Jazeera.

This is especially true in Gaza and Lebanon, where the United States has acted as the principal broker and overseer. While some countries have criticised Israeli strikes in Lebanon, Lynk says there has been little pressure on Washington for allowing repeated violations.

“A number of Global North countries have criticised the continuing Israeli attacks on Lebanon despite the ceasefire, but they have not called out the US for allowing Israel to repeatedly breach the ceasefires in Gaza and Lebanon.”

So are ceasefires legally binding – or not?

Yes, they are, argues Toby Cadman, a British international human rights lawyer and cofounder of Guernica 37 Chambers.

But, like Kersten and Lynk, Cadman said that ceasefires – which he described as the “temporary, military and diplomatic suspension of military operations” – are inherently fragile. Unlike peace treaties, ceasefires do not resolve the underlying conflict or end the legal state of war.

“It suspends the fighting; it does not end the state of armed conflict,” he said.

Where there is a broader peace agreement, such as in Gaza, the ceasefire too stands – at least in theory – on a stronger footing, said Lynk. The Gaza peace plan that accompanied the ceasefire was endorsed by the UN Security Council through Resolution 2803, which calls for the agreement to be implemented “in its entirety, in good faith and without delay”.

In theory, states could ask the Security Council to sanction parties violating the Gaza agreement. In practice, Lynk explained, the US veto on the body means that neither Israel, nor the US itself, can realistically be censured.

“This is why ceasefires and peace treaties are ultimately political documents because it requires political will to enforce them,” Lynk said.

Who decides when a ceasefire has been violated?

Palestinians have repeatedly pointed to the violation of the Gaza ceasefire by Israel. The US and Iran routinely accuse each other of breaching their truce. And Israel and Lebanon do the same when it comes to their ceasefire.

So who decides whether a ceasefire has been violated – and by whom?

The answer, according to Cadman, is that “there is no neutral arbiter empowered to determine, with binding effect, who has breached.”

Monitoring mechanisms do exist, but they are largely political bodies overseen by the same states that brokered and guaranteed the agreements. In the case of Gaza and Lebanon, that is the United States. But Washington occupies the unusual position of mediator, guarantor and Israel’s closest military and diplomatic ally.

That means allegations of violations are often filtered through political calculations rather than assessed by an independent legal authority, say experts.

What about international law?

For Kersten, Gaza and Lebanon expose a fundamental contradiction within the international legal system. On paper, international law has succeeded in establishing a broad consensus about the legality of what is taking place.

“The vast majority of the world recognises that what is happening in both contexts is not just wrong, but illegal – thanks to international law.”

Yet recognition has done little to halt the violence. “Little is being done to save lives and stop the carnage,” he said.

The result is a widening gap between legal findings and political action. Courts can investigate, collect evidence and issue rulings as the International Criminal Court and the International Court of Justice have both done against Israel, but that does not stop bombs from falling or guarantee compliance on the ground.

For Kersten and Lynk, the problem is not a lack of legal standards; it is the persistent failure of states to enforce them, particularly when powerful actors are involved.

“The lack of effective accountability is the hole in the heart of international law and our modern international political system,” Lynk said.

But Kersten said what was clear was that international humanitarian law, human rights law and international criminal law remain fully applicable during a ceasefire.

“Ceasefire provides no legal cover to commit atrocities against civilians.”

That means allegations of war crimes can still be investigated and prosecuted even while a ceasefire is in effect.

Is ‘self-defence’ a justification for attacks during a ceasefire?

Cadman highlights the legal argument most frequently used to justify continued strikes by Israel on Gaza and Lebanon, and by the US against Iran: self-defence.

These arguments rest on Article 51 of the UN Charter, which carves out the right for states to launch unilateral military action against other nations if they are acting in self-defence.

But Cadman said the interpretation of that clause is heavily contested.

“Article 51 answers an armed attack that has happened or is genuinely imminent; it is not a standing licence for preventive strikes.”

So why do countries feel they can get away with attacks during a ceasefire?

Asked by reporters on Wednesday how he defined a ceasefire, given the continuing – though sporadic – attacks that the US and Iran have exchanged in recent weeks, US President Donald Trump said: “It’s a different part of the world, you know. I’d say in that part of a ceasefire is when you’re shooting in a more moderate manner.”

Trump’s comments underscore what legal experts say is at the heart of the persisting violence in Gaza, Lebanon and the Gulf: The lack of any meaningful enforcement mechanism.

The Security Council is constrained by veto powers. The ICJ can issue binding orders but cannot enforce them. The ICC can issue arrest warrants, but depends on states to carry them out.

“The unifying theme is an enforcement deficit,” Cadman said.

Cadman argued that the problem is not that international law lacks rules. Rather, those rules are often applied selectively. “The law is not formally different for Israel or the US; its application is selective.”

June 4 (UPI) — The United States on Thursday leveled sanctions against Cuban Miguel Díaz-Canel, members of former President Raul Castro‘s family, the Cuban military and other organizations as it continued a crackdown on the country’s communist government.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced the measures against Diaz-Canel the others in a statement, asserting they are being targeted because they “fund the [Cuban] regime and its efforts to mobilize its radical revolutionary movements in the United States and around the world.”

The Cuban president, Rubio said, poses a threat to U.S. national security, while the Ministry of the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Cuba, with its “many majority holdings and subsidiaries,” is also now “considered blocked.”

Other organizations newly added to the sanctions list are the Cuban Institute of Friendship with the Peoples, or ICAP, Amistur Cuba S.A., Committees for the Defense of the Revolution and Minera La Victoria S.A.

The individuals sanctioned include Alejandro Castro Espin, the former head of the Cuban intelligence services and the son of Raul Castro, and Raul Alejandro Castro Calis, Castro Espin’s son.

“For decades, Cuba has been the world capital for radical left-wing terrorism,” Rubio asserted. “The regime in Havana has recruited, trained and backed violent Marxist and ‘third-worldist’ movements across our hemisphere and beyond.

“Today, we are targeting the network that enables and funds Cuba’s subversive and radical operations.”

In a stated response, Diaz-Canel said the latest sanctions are “illegitimate” and are “aimed at reinforcing the blockade measures and the scenario of conflict between Cuba and the United States.

“This political blindness is added to the coercive measures applied in recent weeks against our country, designed to harm the Cuban people,” he added. “The aggressiveness and perversity of the Yankee government will clash with our determination to confront the worst scenarios and resist the imperialist onslaught.”

The newly issued sanctions are the latest in a series of moves designed to ratchet up pressure on the Cuban government.

The Trump administration has set a Friday deadline for foreign companies to sever ties with GAESA, the business conglomerate run by Cuba’s Armed Forces, sparking a mass exodus of tourism-related businesses from the island nation.

Meanwhile, Cuba is struggling with the effects of a January 2026 executive order issued by U.S. President Donald Trump imposing a fuel blockade against the nation on national security grounds.

The move has resulted in shortages of electricity, fuel, medicine and medical supplies across Cuba, according to the U.N. Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs and the World Health Organization, which says emergency care, blood banks, laboratories, immunization programs and maternal and child health services have all been “severely disrupted.”

A congressional panel in the United States has rejected an effort to revoke a provision from the defence budget that would further integrate the US and Israeli militaries.

An amendment to sink the pro-Israel measure, introduced by Democratic Congressman Ro Khanna, failed in a voice call on Thursday in the House Armed Services Committee.

That defeat paves the way for the proposal to advance to the floor of the House of Representatives.

Khanna had argued that the provision in the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), formally called Section 224, rewards Benjamin Netanyahu at a time when the Israeli prime minister is trying to dictate US policy in the Middle East.

The progressive Democrat cited recent reports that President Donald Trump is angry at Netanyahu over Israel’s escalation in Lebanon.

“Everyone in America — whether you’re a Republican, an independent or a Democrat — says that we need to tell Netanyahu that America calls the shots, not the prime minister of any other country,” Khanna said.

“They want less cooperation and blank checks to Israel, not more. Only the United States Congress would dream up at this moment, ‘Let’s actually do more for Israel.’”

The vote on the amendment was taken by calling on committee members to say aloud either “yes” and “no”, and the “nays” clearly were more numerous. It was not recorded as a roll-call vote, which would require each member’s preference to be logged.

Section 224 would require the Pentagon chief “to designate an executive agent responsible for synchronising cooperative efforts between the United States and Israel”.

That official would be in charge of overseeing several joint initiatives, “including bilateral defence technology research, development, testing, evaluation, integration, and industrial cooperation”, the NDAA reads.

Netanyahu’s endorsement

Critics have raised concern that Section 224 may make US military aid to Israel more opaque, concealing the assistance as cooperation rather than a separate expense.

The measure also risks tethering the US military to its Israeli counterpart technologically at a time when the American public is rapidly turning against Israel, according to recent public opinion polls.

“As political pressure builds to reduce US military assistance to Israel, Section 224 provides the framework for continuing — and expanding — US-Israel military ties by entrenching Israeli technology within the US defense supply chain in a way that would shield it from the annual appropriations process,” the nonprofit lobbying group A New Policy said in a brief last week.

“The use of must-pass legislation as the NDAA as a mechanism of integration speaks to the plummeting popularity of continuing unconditional support to Israel.”

The measure comes as Netanyahu pushes to transform US aid to Israel from direct assistance to military “cooperation”.

The Israeli prime minister wrote a letter to Republican Congressman Marlin Stutzman endorsing a bill facilitating that transition.

In the letter, Netanyahu said, “The time has now arrived for us to move from aid recipient to partner.”

He added he supported Stutzman’s plan for a “new framework of joint defense cooperation, codevelopment, coproduction and mutual investment in areas including advanced missile defense, artificial intelligence … and next generation military platforms”.

Referencing the letter on Thursday, Khanna argued that Section 224 “directly” follows Netanyahu’s language.

“I am for Team America. I am for the interests of this country, and I believe that when Donald Trump ran, he ran ‘America First’,” the Democrat said.

“That includes American interests against any foreign country. We should have American sovereignty and make it clear that we strike 224. If we want to give aid to Israel, if we want to sell them weapons, that should be a vote for the entire Congress.”

But both Democrats and Republicans pushed back against his argument, saying that the provision aims to streamline existing cooperative programmes that benefit the US.

Key Democrat backs Section 224

Congressman Adam Smith, the top Democrat on the panel, said he was “very sympathetic” to Khanna’s frustration with Netanyahu.

“Mr Netanyahu insisted on this war with Iran that has strengthened Iran and weakened our position. I do not like his leadership of Israel or where he is going,” Smith said.

But he added that it is in the US’s interests to have deep military ties with Israel, a country accused by leading rights groups and United Nations investigators of committing genocide in Gaza.

“The reason that we have these partnerships with Israel, where we may not have as many developed partnerships with other NATO countries, is because Israel has actually been having to fight,” Smith said.

“They have faced drone attacks and missile attacks. They have had to develop new technologies, technologies that we’ve benefitted from.”

Rights advocates often decry the promotion of Israel’s weapons as “battle-tested” — because they have been tested on the Palestinian and Lebanese communities that they devastated, killing tens of thousands of people along the way.

Earlier on Thursday, Palestinian rights advocates warned against approving Section 224 during a news conference on Capitol Hill.

“It is unfathomable that this is the American response to a country that has, over the past two and a half years, carried out a genocide against Palestinians and started wars in both Iran and Lebanon,” said Margaret DeReus, the executive director at the Institute for Middle East Understanding (IMEU).

Republican Congressman Thomas Massie has promised to introduce an amendment to revoke Section 224 when the NDAA goes to a full House vote.

While it might be true that the cases are progressing, families of the missing argue they are moving at a snail’s pace.

Since early December, Fault Lines has spent time with families who are pushing for accountability and pleading with the government to learn what happened to their loved ones.

In some cases, they have spent years without receiving any direct response.

“It gets harder every time my nephew asks when his father will come home and I don’t have any answers,” said Rosario Villon, whose brother, Jonathan Villon, has been missing for almost a year and a half.

The 31-year-old father of three was last seen on December 9, 2024, when he left to pick up groceries in his hometown of Guayaquil.

Addressing a vigil for Jonathan last December, Rosario explained the toll his disappearance has taken on her family.

“Seeing my mother cry for her son, not knowing what to do next to bring him home — it isn’t easy,” she said.

Fault Lines has reviewed footage of the day Jonathan was detained. Security cameras show soldiers patrolling Jonathan’s neighbourhood, Nueva Prosperina.

A neighbour’s mobile phone video also captures the moments after Jonathan was forced into the truck’s bed, under a wooden bench. The truck then drives off, and he has not been seen since.

The family recorded the licence plate numbers of the municipal vehicle the soldiers were using, but the military has refused to respond to requests about Jonathan’s case.

“We have the evidence, we have videos, we have the licence plates of the truck, and they won’t give us a concrete and exact answer. What happened to my husband?” asked Jonathan’s partner, Yadira Bohorquez.

Lawyers representing the family say the military simply declared that it had no operations in that area on that date, despite the video evidence.

“The case of Jonathan Villon is completely paralysed by the refusal of the Ministry of Defence to cooperate in handing over information that the Prosecutor’s Office has already requested,” said Fernando Bastias, a lawyer with CDH Guayaquil, a human rights nonprofit representing the family.

Israel and the Lebanese government have agreed to implement a new US-mediated ceasefire, the Trump administration has said, despite Israel’s defence minister insisting the military will continue operations in Lebanon.

Furthermore, while Lebanese President Joseph Aoun said on Thursday that the ceasefire would come into force within 24 hours of approval by all concerned parties, Hezbollah leader Naim Qassem has dismissed the deal, labelling it a “surrender and defeat”.

The Trump administration announcement comes just weeks after a previous agreement to cease hostilities was supposedly reached on April 16. Since then, however, more than 600 people have been killed in Israeli strikes across Lebanon while Israel has expanded its military presence in the south of the country, now occupying about one-fifth of the country.

The renewed diplomatic push also comes as Washington pursues parallel shuttle negotiations with Iran. Tehran, a close ally of Hezbollah, has made a ceasefire in Lebanon a condition for any broader agreement to end the war with the US and has repeatedly called for Israel to withdraw from southern Lebanon.

Iran’s position was underlined when Quds Force commander Esmail Qaani said the baseline demand in Lebanon is for Israeli forces to withdraw to the positions they held before the start of the US-Israel war on Iran at the end of February – a demand that is not explicitly reflected in the agreement.

Iran and Hezbollah’s responses to the US announcement, coupled with Israel’s insistence that military operations will continue, have cast serious doubt on its viability. Critics of Israel’s war on Lebanon also point to the April truce, which they say has completely failed to halt Israeli attacks or Israel’s occupation of the south of the country.

What has been announced?

According to the Trump administration, Israel and Lebanon have agreed to implement a ceasefire contingent on a “complete cessation” of Hezbollah fire and the evacuation of its fighters from the area south of the Litani River.

The agreement also calls for the creation of “pilot zones” where Lebanese Armed Forces would take exclusive control “to the exclusion of all non-state actors”. The stated aim is to move towards a wider political and security agreement, including the dismantling of non-state armed groups and preventing their re-emergence.

But Hezbollah was not party to the talks and has already rejected the agreement. Lebanon was represented by government diplomats, even though the Lebanese army is not a party to this conflict.

According to the wording of the agreement, the parties are due to reconvene during the week of June 22 to continue diplomatic and security talks, with the US facilitating communications in the meantime. It remains unclear if that stage of the agreement will ever be reached.

What was agreed in April?

The April agreement used different language, saying Israel and Lebanon would implement a “cessation of hostilities” from April 16, and never actually used the word ceasefire.

It also included a clause allowing Israel to “take all necessary measures in self-defence, at any time, against planned, imminent or ongoing attacks”.

That clause does not appear in the new text, which could be interpreted as a small concession. That was until Israel Katz said Israel would continue its military operations in Lebanon regardless.

The latest agreement also repeats Israel’s longstanding demand that Hezbollah withdraw from south of the Litani River.

Meanwhile, there is one major glaring omission. While the text focuses heavily on Hezbollah’s withdrawal from parts of southern Lebanon, it does not mention Israel’s withdrawal from southern Lebanon.

Lebanese journalist and analyst Souhayb Jawhar told Al Jazeera the agreement is defined as much by what it leaves out as by what it includes.

The text, he said, focuses on Hezbollah’s obligations and those of the Lebanese state: removing armed elements from south of the Litani and creating zones where the Lebanese army holds exclusive control.

“This point alone explains much of the scepticism within Hezbollah and its political environment,” Jawhar told Al Jazeera. “From the party’s perspective, any agreement should include a clear ceasefire, an Israeli withdrawal, and a framework for addressing outstanding issues, rather than becoming a document focused primarily on restructuring Lebanon’s internal security landscape.”

What else is different this time?

Other points of contention regarding the new agreement are the “pilot zones”, which appear to go beyond stopping the fighting and instead test a new security model in southern Lebanon – one that could eventually be expanded elsewhere, analysts say.

“This is why many observers see these zones as the beginning of a gradual transition from a security environment in which Hezbollah played the dominant role to one in which the Lebanese state and its armed forces become the sole security authority,” Jawhar said.

He added that the fate of the agreement may depend less on Lebanon-Israel talks than on the US-Iran track. If Washington and Tehran reach a wider understanding, the ceasefire in Lebanon will have a stronger chance of holding because both sides will have an interest in stabilising the Lebanese front.

“If those negotiations stall or collapse, Lebanon could quickly return to being one of the main arenas of pressure and confrontation between the two sides,” Jawhar added.

What is the situation in Lebanon now?

Southern Lebanon remained under heavy military pressure on Thursday, with Israeli strikes on Kafra and al-Mansouri in the southwest of the country. In the Bekaa Valley, one person was killed and four others wounded in an Israeli strike on Sohmor, according to Lebanon’s state-run National News Agency (NNA).

A separate strike hit Tell al-Aqareb, while further raids targeted Haddatha, Tibnin, Haris, and Harin. The NNA also reported more Israeli strikes across southern Lebanon as drones flew at low altitude over Beirut. In Maaroub, one person was killed and another wounded when Israeli forces targeted a motorcycle.

Israeli warplanes also struck towns and villages across the south, including Zawtar al-Sharqiya, Zawtar al-Gharbiya, Shoukin, Barachit, Srifa, Zibdin, Haris and Deir Zahrani. Jets and drones have also been flying over the south for much of the morning, including a drone seen at extremely low altitude over Tyre.

Lebanon’s Civil Defence authorities have warned people not to return south, citing the continued danger to civilian life in towns and villages across southern Lebanon.

More than 3,000 people have been killed, and more than one million have been forced from their homes since Israel renewed its assault on Lebanon in early March.

This is the moment the Republican-led US House of Representatives passed a resolution to reign in President Donald Trump’s ability to keep attacking Iran, unless Congress declares war or approves the use of military force. But it’s unlikely to become law as Trump can veto it even if it passes the Senate.

WASHINGTON — The House approved a war powers resolution Wednesday that would halt the U.S. military action against Iran, defying President Trump as a handful of Republicans joined with Democrats to end the three-month-long war that has reordered politics at home and abroad.

House Speaker Mike Johnson had tried to prevent an outcome that would show the mounting opposition to the war, abruptly shutting down floor action two weeks ago when the war powers resolution was on the verge of approval. But displeasure has only grown as the conflict drags on and as Trump struggles to negotiate a quick resolution.

The roll call Wednesday was 215-208, and cheers erupted in the House chamber.

“This reckless and costly war of choice needs to end today,” House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries of New York said earlier in the week.

“All we need are a handful of Republicans to join us and we can end this reckless and costly war of choice — a war that has cost the American taxpayer over $100 billion — that’s extraordinary — and left our country in a weaker position relative to Iran.”

Opposition to war grows

It’s the fourth time the House has tried to curb the U.S. war against Iran, and the first time the House was able to pass the measure. The Senate advanced its own war powers resolution last month when a handful of GOP senators broke ranks with the Republican president in a rare show of political pushback from his party.

Each time Democrats have pushed forward the war powers resolution, the vote tallies have inched higher as political unease with the U.S. war swells. Trump had campaigned for the White House on a promise to end U.S. entanglements abroad and focus more on domestic issues, but the war has shifted attention back to the Middle East.

Johnson insisted Trump is “laser focused” on the domestic front, particularly ahead of the midterm elections that will determine control of Congress.

The speaker said he spent three hours at the White House with the president this week as Trump is calling on allies to help reopen the Strait of Hormuz for commerce, especially the flow of oil.

Since the U.S. joined Israel in launching the Feb. 28 strikes on Iran, Americans have seen gas prices spike at the pumps, adding to inflationary pressure on consumer spending.

Iran has been able to interrupt shipping through the Strait of Hormuz, a vital channel for a large segment of the world’s oil, natural gas and related products such as fertilizer.

“We’re working on that final piece,” said Johnson, R-La. “The entire world has an interest in the Strait of Hormuz being reopen for commerce. That what he’s working on.”

While a ceasefire in the conflict was declared in April, it remains uneasy and uncertain. Talks for a more durable end to the fighting have dragged, increasingly complicated by Israel’s broadening war with Iran-backed Hezbollah militants in Lebanon. Meanwhile, military strikes between the U.S and Iran continue to flare.

Congress exerts its war powers authority

The war powers resolution from the House would not immediately stop the war, but it would provide a symbolic if not legal step against further military action.

If approved, it would then go to the Senate, where four Republican senators last month joined Democrats in advancing a similar measure to curtail the U.S. campaign against Iran. The Senate has yet to take a final vote to approve or reject its own war powers resolution.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio warned Wednesday testifying at a House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing that the Iranians would think that the administration’s “hands are going to be tied” if Congress approved a war powers resolution. He said they would think ”we won’t be able to do anything to them, so why make a deal?”

It’s not the only action Congress is taking in the national security arena as Democrats, in the minority, work to peel off Republican support for measures beyond the war against Iran.

The House is also voting Wednesday on another Democratic-led effort that would authorize U.S. support for Ukraine’s military operations as it battles Russia and to help reconstruct the war-torn country. The House this week is also expected to consider a war powers resolution to block U.S. action in Lebanon.

While Congress has the authority under the Constitution to declare war, the president also has power as the commander in chief to engage in military action, creating a legal dispute over which branch of government has ultimate say in matters of war and peace.

Under the war powers act, the White House has a 60-day window to seek approval from Congress for military action. The administration, however, has indicated that because a ceasefire has been declared in the current conflict in Iran, the hostilities have ceased.

Mascaro writes for the Associated Press.

Kuwait’s defence ministry has labelled an attack on the country’s international airport as ‘heinous Iranian aggression’. One person was killed and dozens were injured after Iranian drones struck a terminal on Wednesday, causing ‘significant material damage’.

Rebecca Bennett has won a high-stakes Democratic Party primary in the US state of New Jersey, setting up a contest against Republican Tom Kean Jr, backed by President Donald Trump, for one of the most competitive seats in the upcoming midterm elections.

Bennett, a former US Navy helicopter pilot, defeated three Democratic rivals in New Jersey’s 7th Congressional District, securing about 47.2 percent of the vote, according to projected results on Tuesday.

Her nearest competitor, Tina Shah, received 20.2 percent.

Kean and Bennett will now square off in November for a seat that has changed party hands twice within the past eight years and ranks as a key target for Democrats hoping to capture the House of Representatives.

Independent analysts rate the contest as a toss-up.

The race has attracted heightened attention because of Kean’s prolonged absence from Congress.

The Republican incumbent has missed more than 100 House votes since early March due to an undisclosed illness.

Despite his absence, Kean ran unopposed in the Republican primary with Trump’s backing.

Kean said on Tuesday that he remained focused on his recovery and expected to return to in-person work within weeks.

Hours before polls closed, Kean released a statement promising greater transparency about his health while suggesting his return to in-person work could take longer than previously anticipated.

On May 21, he said he expected to be back within “a couple of weeks”.

“Right now, I am focused on my recovery and, under the advice of healthcare professionals, I will transition from virtual to in-person work within a matter of weeks,” Kean had said.

Bennett targets cost of living, Kean’s absence

At an election night gathering in Somerville, New Jersey, Bennett sharply criticised Kean’s record and absence from Washington.

“You are failing us, and you do not deserve to represent us in Washington,” she told supporters, calling the congressman a “coward”.

Bennett built her campaign around her military service and economic issues, arguing that higher grocery and gasoline prices during the US-Israel war on Iran, combined with Trump’s tariffs, were squeezing working families.

Democrats have increasingly focused on the conflict’s economic impact, with higher energy costs contributing to inflation and broader cost-of-living pressures across the country.

The 7th Congressional District, which includes suburban communities, farm towns and Trump’s golf club in Bedminster, has emerged as one of New Jersey’s key battlegrounds.

The seat has changed hands repeatedly in recent election cycles, with Democrat Tom Malinowski defeating Republican Leonard Lance in 2018 before Kean unseated Malinowski in 2022.

Bennett’s victory over Tina Shah, Brian Varela and Michael Roth now sets up a high-stakes general election contest in a district both parties consider crucial to their House ambitions.

Kean, 57, is the scion of a storied New Jersey political family.

His father, Thomas Kean, served two terms as governor and later chaired the 9/11 Commission, a panel set up in 2002 to investigate the circumstances surrounding the September 11, 2001, attacks in the US. He is also a descendant of William Livingston, New Jersey’s first governor.

The Republican congressman will also enter the race with the backing of Trump, who reiterated his support on the eve of the primary, despite Kean’s prolonged absence from Washington.

“Tom Kean has my Complete and Total Endorsement for Re-Election,” Trump wrote on social media, adding: “HE WILL NEVER LET YOU DOWN!”

Voters in the district have ousted incumbents in recent midterm elections, making the race one of the most competitive House contests in New Jersey.

Elsewhere in New Jersey, Analilia Mejia won the Democratic nomination in the 11th Congressional District, while LaMonica McIver secured the Democratic nomination in the 10th Congressional District.

A Gaza-bound ship carrying aid has begun its voyage from Sweden, weeks after Israeli forces abducted activists on a similar mission in international waters. The ‘Handala II’ vessel says it is carrying humanitarian supplies for Palestinians to break the Israeli blockade on the enclave.

WASHINGTON — A Trump administration policy illegally banned transgender troops from military service, a divided panel of federal appeal court judges ruled on Monday.

The majority opinion by a three-judge panel from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia circuit largely upholds a March 2025 ruling by U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes in Washington, D.C. Reyes concluded that President Trump’s executive order to exclude transgender troops from military service likely violates their constitutional rights.

The administration appealed after Reyes issued a preliminary injunction requested by attorneys for six transgender people who are active-duty service members and two others seeking to join the military. The appeal court’s majority decided that the injunction should be narrowed to the plaintiffs currently serving in the military but not those seeking to join.

The ruling won’t immediately go into effect, allowing the administration time to ask the full appeals court to hear the case.

The U.S. Supreme Court allowed the transgender military ban to go into effect last year, as litigation continues to play out. Another lawsuit challenging the ban was filed in Washington state and led to a ruling in favor of the plaintiffs challenging the policy in that case.

In January 2025, Trump signed an executive order that claims the sexual identity of transgender service members “conflicts with a soldier’s commitment to an honorable, truthful, and disciplined lifestyle, even in one’s personal life” and is harmful to military readiness.

In response to the order, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth issued a policy that presumptively disqualifies people with gender dysphoria from military service. Gender dysphoria is the distress that a person feels because their assigned gender and gender identity don’t match. The medical condition has been linked to depression and suicidal thoughts.

The policy “appears to be driven by the bare desire to harm a politically unpopular group: persons who identify as transgender,” Judge Robert Wilkins wrote for the majority. Wilkins was nominated to the court by Democratic President Obama.

In a dissenting opinion, Judge Justin Walker said judges lack the power to second-guess the decision to exclude transgender troops.

“We have neither the expertise nor the authority to decide whether the military can exclude the plaintiffs from its ranks. The Constitution assigns that authority to Congress and the Commander in Chief,” wrote Walker, who was nominated by Trump, a Republican.

Judge Judith Rogers, who was nominated by Democratic President Clinton, joined Wilkins’ opinion but also partially dissented.

Kunzelman and Whitehurst write for the Associated Press.

India says it will continue engaging with Myanmar after Prime Minister Narendra Modi spoke with Min Aung Hlaing, the leader of the country’s military government, in New Delhi.

Indian Foreign Secretary Vikram Misri told reporters on Monday that India’s policy is “not intended to be a commentary on the internal political arrangements” in Myanmar and that New Delhi believes engagement is the best way forward.

Western nations have sought to isolate Myanmar’s military rulers since they overthrew the elected government of Aung San Suu Kyi in a 2021 coup that triggered a crackdown on opponents and a brutal civil war.

The conflict began when the country’s army leader, Min Aung Hlaing, ousted the government and detained civilian leaders, including Nobel Peace Prize laureate Aung San Suu Kyi.

Some critics and human rights groups have said Min Aung Hlaing’s visit to India risks lending legitimacy to the military-backed government.

“We have always proceeded on the principle that sustained dialogue is what is important,” Misri said, adding that isolating Myanmar would be counterproductive.

“History has shown that disengagement doesn’t give us any results that are better than engagement.”

The visit is Min Aung Hlaing’s first to India since he was sworn in as president in April following an election that critics say was designed to cement his hold on power. His last visit to India was in 2019, when he served as Myanmar’s military chief.

He arrived in India on Saturday, first in the eastern state of Bihar, with a visit to the Buddhist pilgrimage site of Bodh Gaya, where believers say that the Buddha attained enlightenment.

India shares a 1,643-kilometre (1,020-mile) border with Myanmar and a maritime boundary in the Bay of Bengal.

Strategic partnership

Myanmar is also strategically important to India’s security interests. The two countries have cooperated on border security and intelligence sharing to combat armed rebel groups.

Modi and Min Aung Hlaing did not address the media after their meeting, as usually occurs after most bilateral talks involving visiting heads of state or government in New Delhi.

But Misri said the two leaders discussed trade, defence and security cooperation, border management, and regional issues, with talks also focusing on expanding economic and technology ties. He said both sides agreed to deepen collaboration across sectors, including trade, energy and critical minerals, and to accelerate major connectivity projects.

Min Aung Hlaing is expected to hold talks with business representatives during his five-day visit, and will travel to the financial hub, Mumbai.

Bilateral trade was $1.95bn in 2025-2026, according to New Delhi.

The leaders also discussed cooperation against cybercrime and human trafficking, issues that have affected thousands of Indians lured to scam centres in the region.

Misri said India and Myanmar have worked together to rescue more than 2,400 Indian nationals over the past 18 months.

Resistance groups formed after the 2021 coup have captured swaths of Myanmar. Others sought out and fought under the leadership of ethnic armies in exchange for training and weapons with which to fight the military.

These resistance groups, known as the People’s Defence Force (PDF), nominally operate under the leadership of the National Unity Government (NUG), a shadow government formed by Myanmar lawmakers removed by the military coup.

Zin Mar Aung, the foreign minister of the NUG, wrote a letter to Subrahmanyam Jaishankar, the minister of external affairs for India, on May 28, expressing concern about the visit.

“Since the military coup of 2021, which overturned the democratic will of the people, Myanmar has endured prolonged conflict, instability, and immense humanitarian suffering,” she said.

“India has long championed democratic governance, the rule of law, and regional stability. We therefore urge the Government of India to weigh carefully the broader implications of formal engagement that may normalise or legitimise military rule in Myanmar.”

Kuwait activated its air defences after what its foreign ministry later described as a ‘heinous Iranian attack’. Iran says it targeted a US base in retaliation for being used, according to Tehran, to launch recent attacks on Iran.

Published on 01/06/2026 – 7:06 GMT+2•Updated
7:10

Crude prices climbed in early Asian trading on Monday after Israeli troops pushed further into Lebanon over the weekend, fuelling investor fears that the broader Middle East conflict could escalate rather than move towards a peace deal.

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

At the time of writing, West Texas Intermediate (WTI) crude was up 2.88% at $89.88 per barrel, while Brent crude rose 2.43% to $93.33 per barrel.

The Israeli advance has taken place despite a nominal ceasefire in place since 17 April and just days before the next round of direct talks between Lebanon and Israel, scheduled at the State Department on 2 and 3 June.

Asia-Pacific markets mixed

In other early trade dealings on Monday morning, Asia-Pacific markets were mixed with South Korea’s Kospi climbing 1.31%, while Japan’s Nikkei 225 edged up 0.17%. The broader Topix index, however, slipped 0.3%.

Australia’s S&P/ASX 200 fell 0.21%, while Hong Kong’s Hang Seng Index gained 0.73%. Mainland China’s CSI 300 dipped 0.32%.

Tokyo-listed shares in SoftBank Group, meanwhile, surged 5% after the Japanese conglomerate unveiled plans to invest €45 billion over the next five years to develop artificial intelligence infrastructure in France.

Wall Street pushes into record books

In the US, stock futures were flat after Wall Street pushed further into the record books on Friday. The major indexes extended the market’s recent winning streak and closed out a solid month of gains.

The S&P 500 rose 0.2%, notching its seventh consecutive gain and ninth straight winning week — the longest such streak since 2023. The benchmark index set an all-time high for the fourth day in a row.

The Dow Jones Industrial Average gained 0.7% and the Nasdaq composite added 0.2%. The Dow and Nasdaq also reached new heights after posting record highs earlier last week.

Big technology stocks have been behind much of the market’s record-breaking streak. Their pricey stock values give them more influence in directing the market higher or lower. In May alone, technology stocks within the S&P 500 rose more than 15%, while most of the sectors in the benchmark index actually lost ground.

“The rally has been largely tech-led and supported by resilient earnings, but the key question is whether it can be sustained,” wrote Angelo Kourkafas, senior global strategist at Edward Jones, in a research note.

Tech stocks also powered the market higher Friday. Microsoft rose 5.4% and Broadcom gained 4.7%.

Additional sources • AP

Lawmakers in the United States are quietly advancing a proposal that could deepen military ties between the US and Israel in unprecedented ways, at a time when public support for Israel among Americans is increasingly fractured.

Among the provisions included in the 2027 National Defence Authorisation Act (NDAA) released this week is Section 224, the “United States-Israel Defence Technology Cooperation Initiative”.

The NDAA, which Congress passes annually to set military policy and authorise defence spending, will undergo further debate and amendments before becoming law. Some legislators have already signalled opposition, with Representative Thomas Massie saying he would seek to remove the provision if it reaches the House floor.

The measure remains at an early stage, but analysts say if passed, it would limit political oversight over the defence relationship.

Analysts added that it could mark a significant shift in the US-Israel relationship, moving beyond a model centred on American military aid towards deeper institutional integration between the two countries’ defence industries and militaries.

Critics argue that such a move would make support for Israel less a matter of political choice and more a structural feature of US national security policy, embedding the relationship within joint military and industrial programmes that would be difficult to unwind.

What does the proposal include?

Section 224 incorporates elements of the US-Israel Future of Warfare Act legislation introduced by Representative Ronny Jackson, according to Track AIPAC. While the legislation did not advance as a standalone bill, key elements of it were instead folded into the NDAA.

The provision would require the US defence secretary to designate an official responsible for coordinating military cooperation between the two countries. According to the text, that official would be tasked with “synchronising cooperative efforts between the United States and Israel”, including “bilateral defence technology research, development, testing, evaluation, integration and industrial cooperation”.

The legislation envisages cooperation across a wide range of military technologies. It specifically identifies as priority areas; “counter-unmanned systems including aerial, maritime and ground platforms”, “anti-tunnelling and subterranean threats”, and “missile and air defence technologies”.

The proposal also seeks to deepen collaboration on emerging technologies, including “artificial intelligence, quantum machine learning and autonomous systems”, as well as “directed energy and advanced sensing”, “cyber defence, electronic warfare and digital resilience”, and “biotechnology, biomanufacturing, and medical defence”.

The inclusion of “network integration” and “data fusion” has drawn particular attention because it suggests significantly closer integration of military information systems between the two countries.

The United States and Israel already cooperate on defence projects, including missile defence systems such as Iron Dome. However, analysts say that Section 224 would expand cooperation into nearly every major area of emerging military technology, and could create a “lock-in” between the two countries military infrastructure.

Mark Hilborne, a senior lecturer, the School of Security Studies at King’s College London, told Al Jazeera the proposal goes well beyond the traditional foundations of the US-Israel defence relationship.

“While historically, the US-Israel defence relationship has included US military aid and weapons transfers, joint missile defence programmes such as Iron Dome, David’s Sling and Arrow, and intelligence and operational cooperation, the proposed agreement increases cooperation to include a wider set of emerging technologies,” he said.

“So this all suggests a much tighter integration – less about provision and perhaps sharing technologies and capabilities, and more about jointly developing these.

“It would point to a more institutionalised relationship, and perhaps one that might survive changing administrations in the US, as some of the development cycles could be very long and would become entrenched,” he said.

Why is it controversial?

The proposal comes amid growing debate in the US over military support for Israel, particularly as Israel’s genocidal war on Gaza continues, and concerns mount over the use of US-made weapons.

Human rights organisations and United Nations experts have repeatedly raised concerns about Israeli military actions in Gaza, where despite a so-called ceasefire in place since last October, at least 850 Palestinians have been killed. Israel is also advancing into southern Lebanon, where it has killed more than 3,000 people since the beginning of March.

These wars have led to increasing scepticism among Americans towards unconditional support for Israel, recent opinion polls suggest.

A New York Times poll in May found that only 30 percent of respondents believed Donald Trump made the right decision in ordering military strikes against Iran, while 64 percent said it was the wrong decision.

An Institute for Global Affairs poll released last week found that only 16 percent of Americans support continuing weapons transfers to Israel without additional restrictions. Thirty-eight percent said the US should stop supplying weapons entirely, while 24 percent said military aid should be conditioned on how the weapons are used.

Opposition has also emerged from parts of the Republican Party, which traditionally has always been aligned with Israel.

Former Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene criticised the proposal on social media, writing: “This is what complete capture to a foreign government looks like, and there hasn’t been a single shot fired.”

Massie, who has opposed military aid to Israel, likewise pledged to introduce an amendment removing the provision from the NDAA. The Republican senator was defeated in the primary elections last month, highlighting the financial and political influence of pro-Israel lobby groups in the US.

Influential conservative commentator, Tucker Carlson, has increasingly criticised US support for Israel, reflecting divisions within the broader MAGA movement. Criticism has also intensified among left-wing Democrats, with many calling for restrictions on military aid to Israel.

What could it mean in practice?

Critics of the measures warn that the proposal could create a form of institutional “lock-in” that makes both countries simultaneously reliant on each other for military development and procurement.

Some analysts say such integration would move key aspects of the US-Israel relationship away from highly visible aid votes or commercial contracting, and into the less transparent world of defence procurement and industrial partnerships at a state-to-state level.

Hilborne from the King’s College said the initiative could also have direct implications for Palestinians. “If joint R&D produces more effective technology, then systems related to surveillance, autonomous vehicles, AI and targeting, and various counter-drone or counter-missile technology would be improved, providing a capability boost to Israeli forces operating in Gaza or the West Bank,” he said.

“This enhanced integration would further embed US technology into Israeli forces. These would all be concerns from a Palestinian perspective.”

Critics also point to the economic implications, where expanded co-production agreements could lead to new manufacturing facilities and defence jobs in the United States, creating a further reliance on Israel.

Hilborne also argued that deeper integration could reduce Washington’s leverage over Israel. “The deeper integration may also mean that the US loses some degree of leverage over Israel, as it would be less able to withhold certain capabilities from Israel,” he said.

“As a consequence, Israel might be emboldened in its policies.”

The proposal could also have implications beyond the US-Israel relationship, according to Imad Salamey, an international relations professor at the Lebanese American University. “The proposed US-Israeli defence integration can be seen as the next phase of the Abraham Accords: moving from normalisation toward a US-backed regional security regime centred on Israel as the dominant military and technological hub,” he told Al Jazeera.

Such a framework would strengthen efforts to contain Iran, limit Turkiye’s independent regional influence and deepen security cooperation with Arab partners, he said.

“For Lebanon and Gaza, it may translate into greater pressure to accommodate Israeli-led security arrangements as part of a broader emerging Middle Eastern order.”

Whether Section 224 survives the legislative process is uncertain.

But its inclusion in the NDAA shows how some politicians, many backed by the pro-Israel lobby group AIPAC, are attempting to bind the two countries’ militaries closer together, creating long-term industrial links that future administrations may find difficult to reverse.

A provision in a bill before the United States Congress could tie the American and Israeli militaries far more closely together, deepening their cooperation on weapons research, production and technology.

The proposal, titled the “United States-Israel Defense Technology Cooperation Initiative,” appears as Section 224 of the House Armed Services Committee’s version of the fiscal year 2027 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), the annual US defence policy bill.

The measure is still at an early stage. The NDAA is passed by Congress each year to set US military policy and authorise defence programmes and spending levels.

If enacted, the provision could mark a major change in one of the world’s closest military relationships, shifting the two countries from a partnership centred largely on American military aid towards one in which their defence industries are more deeply intertwined.

Section 224 would require the US defence secretary to appoint an “executive agent”: a single official to coordinate military cooperation between the US and Israel.

That work would cover joint research and development, the shared production of weapons, and the linking of military systems and data.

“What Congress is trying to do now is find different ways of entrenching the relationship so deep in America’s own defence industrial base that it’s impossible to root it out,” Josh Paul, a former US State Department official and founder of the advocacy group A New Policy, said about the controversial provision.

“A new section of law in the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) would give Israel unprecedented access to American technology and would force the United States military to integrate Israeli defence technologies into our own critical military supply chain, giving Israel incredible leverage over America’s own defence priorities,” he added in a video posted on social media on Friday.

The two countries already build missile defence systems together, such as the Iron Dome.

The bill would extend their joint work into many more areas of modern warfare, from artificial intelligence (AI) to drones and cyber operations.

The provision comes amid turmoil in the Middle East following the joint US-Israeli attack on Iran earlier this year.

In February, US and Israeli forces attacked Iran together, triggering five weeks of war; Iran struck back at Israel and at US bases in the Gulf before a ceasefire took hold in April.

Israel is also facing genocide allegations in a case brought by South Africa at the International Court of Justice, the UN’s top court, over its war on Gaza.

Decades of support

The bill must first clear the House Armed Services Committee, which is due to take it up in early June, and then pass the full House and the Senate.

It was proposed by the committee’s Republican chairman, Mike Rogers, and its most senior Democrat, Adam Smith, giving it support from both main parties, even as opinion polls suggest growing opposition among American Democrats and some Republicans to further military support for Israel.

The US has supported Israel’s military for decades.

Since 2008, US law has required Washington to protect Israel’s “qualitative military edge”, keeping its forces stronger and more advanced than those of any rival in the region, on the grounds that a small country must rely on better weapons rather than greater numbers.

Under the current aid deal signed during the administration of former President Barack Obama, Washington provides Israel with about $3.8bn a year in military assistance. The 10-year agreement runs through 2028.

Israel is the largest recipient of US foreign aid since 1948, almost all of it now military and worth well over $300bn when adjusted for inflation. 

The nature of that support may now be changing. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said recently that he wants to end Israel’s reliance on US military aid within 10 years, saying his country had “come of age”.

Closer cooperation between the two defence industries, rather than cash, would likely fit that goal.

Iran has reasserted its control over the Strait of Hormuz, warning that foreign commercial and military vessels will be targeted, if they do not comply with regulations governing passage through the strategic waterway.

The announcement on Saturday came after the United States signalled that President Donald Trump was close to a decision on a potential deal with Iran, but Tehran denied an agreement had been reached.

“The management of the Strait of Hormuz is exercised with full authority by the Armed Forces of the Islamic Republic of Iran,” the operational headquarters of Iran’s armed forces, Khatam al-Anbiya Central Headquarters, said in a statement reported by Iranian media on Saturday.

“All ships, commercial vessels, and tankers are only required to travel through the designated routes and obtain permission from the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps [IRGC] Navy. Any violation of these regulations will seriously jeopardise the security of their traffic,” it added.

Iran also issued a warning to foreign military forces operating in the area, saying any attempt to interfere with maritime management or shipping movements would trigger a response.

On Friday, Trump met with advisers in the White House Situation Room and said a “final determination” on a possible deal with Iran would soon be made. But no statement followed the meeting.

US sources had told the AFP news agency the deal was waiting on Trump’s sign-off, but he made no decision after Friday’s meeting.

Iran’s Foreign Ministry spokesperson, Esmaeil Baghaei, said on Friday that while messages continue to be exchanged “no final agreement has been reached” on a deal with the US.

US ‘more than capable’ of restarting war

While attending a defence summit in Singapore on Saturday, Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth said that Washington was “more than capable” of restarting the war if a satisfactory deal is not reached.

US Central Command (CENTCOM) posted on social media that American forces “remain present and vigilant across the region”.

The efforts to reach a deal were thrown into question this week by US strikes on the Iranian port of Bandar Abbas, countered by retaliatory Iranian fire.

Iran’s IRNA state news agency said air defences shot down a drone “belonging to the US-Zionist aggressor enemy” on Saturday, citing a statement from the army.

Trump said his priorities in any deal include Iran agreeing to never develop nuclear weapons, and the reopening of the blockaded Strait of Hormuz.

“President Trump will only make a deal that is good for America and satisfies his red lines,” a White House official told AFP, adding: “Iran can never possess a nuclear weapon.”

Trump ‘betraying diplomacy’

Also on Saturday, Mohsen Rezaei, an adviser ⁠to Iran’s Supreme ⁠Leader, Mojtaba Khamenei, said in a social media post that Trump was “betraying diplomacy for ⁠the third time” by ⁠continuing the US naval blockade in the strait, and making what he described ‌as “excessive demands ‌in ‌negotiations”.

In a social media post on Friday, Trump said Tehran would remove mines from the strait and end its closure of the waterway with “no tolls”, while the US would lift its blockade.

Both countries would coordinate on removing and destroying Iran’s enriched uranium, he said, adding that “no money will be exchanged, until further notice”.

Iran’s Fars news agency, however, cited sources as saying Tehran was demanding “the immediate release of $12bn” in frozen assets before moving to the next phase of negotiations.

On the toll-free reopening of Hormuz, the sources said “no such clause appears in the text of the agreement”, while Trump’s comment on destroying Iran’s nuclear material “is fundamentally baseless”.

Iran’s ISNA news agency cited legislator Alireza Salimi as saying a plan “to implement Iran’s management and sovereignty over the Strait of Hormuz will soon be approved by parliament”.

Iran’s Tasnim news agency said the US blockade remains in place, and its ships “are receiving warnings from CENTCOM to stop and not cross the blockade line”.

Israel’s military has advanced beyond Lebanon’s Litani River for the first time since 2006.

Israel’s military has advanced beyond the Litani River in southern Lebanon for the first time since 2006 and appear poised to encircle the major city of Nabatieh.

Senior Lebanese military sources on Saturday told the Turkish state news agency Anadolu that Israeli forces had crossed the Litani River, which Israel has declared the perimeter of its unofficial buffer zone.

Israeli forces are now on the outskirts of Nabatieh, a city that is key to southern Lebanon’s economy and a cultural hub for the region. If the Shia-majority city were to fall, it would mark a significant development in the war on Lebanon, which began in October 2023 and subsequent official ceasefire.

Nabatieh is viewed by many Lebanese as a symbol of resistance due to its historic role on the frontline of Israeli assaults.

Reporting from the southern city of Tyre, Al Jazeera’s Obaida Hitto said Israel was expanding its air campaign in southern Lebanon and encircling Nabatieh in preparation for a potential assault on the city.

“It looks like Israel is trying to make this final push to encircle Nabatieh, breaking through the second and third lines of defence of Hezbollah and isolating the western Bekaa Valley from the south of the country,” Hitto said.

Israel has issued evacuation orders for at least 10 villages in southern Lebanon, as it expands its invasion, despite being engaged in ongoing peace talks with Lebanese officials.

The Israeli army’s Arabic spokesperson, Avichay Adraee, instructed residents in several Lebanese villages to evacuate immediately, warning they could be killed if they remained.

The order came the day after officials from both countries met in Washington to discuss a permanent end to the war. It began in early March when Iran-backed Hezbollah began attacking Israel following the assassination of Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ali Khamenei.

Hitto said people fleeing their homes have few options, with more than 20 percent of the population — around 1.2 million people — displaced by fighting.

“Those options are turning into basically people living with relatives if they have that option, or people living in makeshift camps in public parks and public spaces. I’ve seen many families living in their vehicles for long periods of time,” Hitto said.

“Some of these families have been continuously displaced since 2023,” Hitto added.

The latest forced displacement orders are a further test to the nominal “ceasefire” in place since mid-April and repeatedly violated by Israel. It justifies its actions by saying it is targeting Hezbollah as part of efforts to disarm the group.

On Friday, at least 14 people were killed in Israeli air raids in southern Lebanon.

Lebanese officials are working to disarm Hezbollah, but the task has proved extremely difficult.

Lebanese and Israeli officials are currently engaged in negotiations to end the war, marking the first time the two sides have spoken directly in decades.

The talks are being facilitated by the United States, and a new round is expected in Washington next week.

Lebanon’s President, Joseph Aoun, held talks with Prime Minister Nawaf Salam on Saturday to discuss the security situation and  ongoing negotiations with Israel. According to the state-run National News Agency, they agreed to intensify efforts to end the war, which has triggered a humanitarian crisis.

Aoun also spoke by phone with US Secretary of State Marco Rubio and stressed the importance of Israel respecting the current ceasefire.

The president of Brazil, left-wing leader Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, has denounced a decision by the United States to designate two of the South American country’s criminal networks as “terrorists”, warning that the label could be a “setback” for local law enforcement efforts.

The condemnation came in a 435-word message posted to Lula’s social media platforms on Friday.

In it, Lula drew a line between criminal activities and international terrorism, which is often understood to use violence for political or social aims.

“The terror inflicted by these organisations upon communities seeks to generate profit through crime — specifically through drug and arms trafficking,” Lula wrote.

Those activities, however violent, “must not be conflated with the ideologically, politically, or religiously motivated actions characteristic of international terrorism”, he added.

Lula’s statements came in response to an announcement a day earlier from the administration of US President Donald Trump.

Pushback against ‘terrorist’ label

On Thursday, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio revealed that he had designated Brazil’s two largest criminal groups — the Primeiro Comando da Capital (PCC) and the Comando Vermelho (CV) — “specially designated global terrorists”.

He also outlined plans to add the two groups to the list of “foreign terrorist organisations”, effective June 5.

Rumours had swirled for months that the Trump administration would apply the “terrorist” label to the two groups. But Lula and his ministers had pushed back, calling on Trump to hold off.

“Terrorist” designations freeze all US-based assets connected to the targeted groups, but they can also be used to penalise anyone who offers “material support or resources” to them.

Experts warn that such restrictions could potentially affect financial institutions and even the victims of such groups, including businesses and individuals who might be forced to pay extortion.

Lula has also expressed concern that the “terrorist” label could pave the way for US military intervention, a fear he reiterated in Friday’s statement, though he never named Trump outright.

“We remain fully prepared to develop joint solutions that yield mutual benefits for all nations involved,” Lula wrote.

“However, we will not tolerate the imposition of arbitrary measures from abroad, nor will we accept their use as a pretext to undermine our sovereignty or our economy. Unilateral, non-negotiated measures can undermine the fight against criminals and trigger actions that endanger the lives of people who have absolutely no connection to crime.”

A tight election in Brazil

A prominent left-wing leader in Latin America, Lula is in the midst of a heated election season, as he seeks a fourth nonconsecutive term as Brazil’s president.

Previously, he served as president from 2003 to 2011, before being re-elected to a third term in 2022.

In that race, he defeated the right-wing incumbent, Jair Bolsonaro, who would later be convicted of attempting to overturn the results of the race. Bolsonaro is currently serving a 27-year prison sentence.

His eldest son, Senator Flavio Bolsonaro, is thought to have been instrumental in Trump’s decision to issue the “terrorist” designations. The senator is currently running against Lula in the 2026 presidential election, and the two have been locked in a tight race.

This week, as he visited the White House, Senator Bolsonaro confirmed to reporters that he intended to seek “terrorist” designations for both the Primeiro Comando da Capital and the Comando Vermelho.

Trump has close ties to the Bolsonaro family, and he has previously intervened in elections around the world on behalf of right-wing candidates.

In Friday’s post, Lula accused Senator Bolsonaro of leveraging his family connections to “petition foreign authorities” for favour.

“It is deplorable that, once again, members of the Bolsonaro family have travelled to the United States to advocate for foreign intervention in Brazil,” Lula wrote.

He pointed to alleged efforts to stop the criminal prosecution of Jair Bolsonaro. Currently, one of the ex-president’s sons, Eduardo Bolsonaro, is facing obstruction charges related to efforts to lobby Trump to intervene in the case.

Trump ultimately did impose steep sanctions against Brazilian products in August 2025, citing the Bolsonaro trial as a reason.

Concerns about sovereignty

Under Trump, the US has taken an increasingly expansionist view towards the Western Hemisphere, reviving the 19th-century Monroe Doctrine, which described the Americas as Washington’s sphere of influence.

Trump himself has used crime as justification for taking unilateral military action in the region. Since September, his administration has conducted 59 strikes against alleged drug-trafficking boats in the Caribbean Sea and eastern Pacific Ocean, killing at least 196 people.

And on January 3, he launched an early-morning military operation against Venezuela, culminating in the abduction and imprisonment of then-President Nicolas Maduro on drug-trafficking charges.

While the Bolsonaro family has courted Trump in recent months, Lula has criticised those military-led actions as unjustified.

But security is expected to be a dominant issue in October’s presidential race. This week’s “terrorist” designations are likely to put Lula in an awkward position, forcing him to condemn the label without downplaying the extent of the violence.

Lula has attempted to brush off right-wing criticism that he has been lax on crime, pointing to his government’s recent $11bn investment in the “Brazil Against Organized Crime” programme.

That follows a separate $2bn programme in March to bolster the country’s prisons, improve homicide investigations and disrupt arms trafficking and other financial transactions carried out by criminal groups.

Still, Lula and Bolsonaro remain neck and neck in the lead-up to October’s election.

On May 16, the polling firm Datafolha found that both candidates would receive 45 percent of voter support in a one-on-one race, with 9 percent of voters indicating they would cast a null vote.

Another 1 percent identified as undecided.

US President Donald Trump posted online that he’s heading into the Situation Room at the White House to make a “final determination” on potentially finalising a peace deal with Iran. Al Jazeera’s Patty Culhane reports from the White House.

Romania and its NATO allies have reacted angrily after a Russian drone crashed into an apartment building in eastern Romania, injuring two people.

The foreign ministry in Bucharest on Friday labelled the crash of the drone, part of an overnight attack aimed at Ukraine, a serious violation of international law and called on NATO to accelerate the transfer of anti-drone capabilities. The incident is just the latest incursion along the alliance’s eastern flank, raising concern that the risk of an open confrontation between Russia and NATO states is rising.

Romania said the overnight drone was tracked by radar in its airspace before crashing onto the roof of a residential building in the city of Galati.

Two F-16 fighter jets and a helicopter were scrambled, as authorities issued emergency alerts to residents. Two people suffered minor injuries and several residents were evacuated after a fire was triggered by the crash.

‘Consequences’

The incident is just the latest of several, as the war in Ukraine has spilled over into neighbouring NATO countries, raising fears of potential escalation.

Estonia, Lithuania and Latvia, as well as Finland have all reported repeated incursions into their airspace in recent months. Drone incursions sparked a government collapse in Latvia earlier this month.

Shortly after the crash, Bucharest called for NATO to speed up the transfer of anti-drone capabilities. Outgoing Prime Minister Ilie Bolojan also said that Romania would, within hours, sign ⁠a contract which ⁠will give it anti-drone defences ‌under the EU’S SAFE programme.

On Friday morning, Romania summoned the Russia ambassador.

“We will officially communicate the consequences that this lack of responsibility on the part of the Russian Federation will have for the diplomatic relations between our countries, as well as the next steps at the European level regarding sanctions packages,” Foreign Minister Oana Toiu wrote on social media.

President Nicusor Dan stated that Romania ⁠will ⁠not accept that the war of aggression ⁠waged by Russia against ⁠Ukraine be transferred to its citizens, and added that he had asked the foreign ministry ⁠to present without delay ⁠a series ⁠of measures regarding the country’s relationship with Russia, “proportionate to ‌this very serious situation”.

NATO allies and others joined the chorus of anger.

French Minister for European Affairs Benjamin Haddad said the incident highlighted the threat Russia poses to European security, noting that French troops are stationed in Romania.

“Regardless of ⁠whether it was on purpose ⁠or the ⁠result ⁠of ineptitude, Russia is still dangerous and ‌we must defend ourselves against ‌it,” ‌Polish ⁠Foreign Minister Radoslaw Sikorski told ⁠the Reuters news agency.

European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said the incident showed that “Russia’s war of aggression has crossed yet another line”.

A NATO spokesperson also condemned “Russia’s recklessness” on social media.

Ukraine’s Foreign Minister Andrii Sybiha, whose country is pressing the United States to help boost its air defences, pledged “Ukraine stands firmly by Romania” as he branded Russia a threat to the Black Sea region and the wider ‌European continent.

“We are ready ⁠to work closely together ⁠to strengthen protection from such threats,” he wrote on social media, adding that the bid to ⁠strengthen Ukraine’s ⁠air defence is a “strategic task” to protect not only ‌Ukraine but also to reduce risks for ‌neighbouring ‌countries.

United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres warned that the escalating attacks risk spiralling “out of control”, with “unknown and unintended consequences”.

He said more civilians had been killed in the first four months of this year than during the same period in the previous three years, and called for diplomacy, immediate de-escalation and “a full and unconditional ceasefire”.

Rising risk

Concern that the war is threatening to spillover is building as Russia escalates hostilities in a bid to ward off rising political and economic pressure at home.

Ukrainian forces reported that they shot down 217 drones overnight on Friday. Russia attacked with 232 drones and one ballistic missile. Hits were recorded in 14 areas, the air force said.

Moscow has said it plans “systematic strikes” on Kyiv and has issued a barrage of threats at Ukraine’s European allies, listing facilities in Europe that it said are involved in manufacturing drones and components for Ukraine.

Moscow’s Foreign Intelligence Service recently warned the Baltic nations that their NATO membership won’t protect them from retaliation should they allow Ukraine to launch attacks from their territory, with analysts warning that the risk of an open confrontation between Russia and NATO states is rising.

That heightens concern regarding NATO’s Article 5 collective defence clause, which President Donald Trump has hinted the United States may not honour in some cases.

However, the alliance’s Secretary General Mark Rutte insisted on Friday that NATO will defend all of its territory.

“Russia’s reckless behaviour is a danger to us all,” he wrote on social media. “Last ⁠night showed yet again ⁠that the implications of their illegal war of aggression don’t ⁠stop at the border.”

“We will ⁠continue to strengthen ⁠our deterrence and defence at home and continue our support for ‌Ukraine as they defend against Russia’s aggression,” he ‌added.