Powerful states are trying to sabotage decarbonisation of shipping
The global fallout of the closure of the Strait of Hormuz may create the impression that the world cannot function without fossil fuels. Nothing could be further from the truth. Every single industry can and must decarbonise. For global shipping, this process would be relatively easy because technological solutions exist and a single United Nations agency can set legally binding rules for all ships. The first steps have already been made. In 2025, member states of the International Maritime Organization (IMO) agreed on a policy mechanism to cut shipping emissions: the Net-Zero Framework (NZF). But they opted to postpone a decision on formal adoption of this landmark agreement. This delay is emblematic of obstructive tactics used by countries opposing climate action. The IMO Framework – the world’s first global carbon price on any international polluter – took years of compromises and watering-down. As it stands, it is the lowest possible bar Pacific Island states like the one I represent can accept. We cannot give in another inch. While I join the First Conference on Transitioning Away from Fossil Fuels in Santa Marta, Colombia, next week, delegates will gather again at the IMO in London to decide whether to uphold their unanimous commitment to phase out fossil fuels in a just and equitable way. The delegates of Vanuatu who travel to London have a mandate to push for the adoption of the NZF this year. Should anyone reopen the framework to water it down, our position is clear: We will revert to our original Pacific demand for a universal levy on emissions of $150 per tonne of carbon dioxide. Advertisement Last year my country abstained from the vote on the NZF agreement. We reached that decision because the mechanism is not nearly ambitious enough. Even so, it is a starting point we can work with. But since then, the tide has shifted dramatically. After the delay in adoption, a small group of countries is now suggesting further weakening the ambition in the framework to meet the demands of particularly influential states whose current policy positions are not aligned with climate ambition. This strategy is problematic as reducing our collective actions to align with those that want no climate action at all is incompatible with our people’s continued survival. The world’s poorest countries, and the planet, simply cannot afford anything less than what is already on the table. The framework, as it is, gives the world and the industry some chance of meeting the climate obligations that IMO countries committed to in 2023, namely reaching net-zero emissions by 2050 in a just and equitable way. The NZF introduces penalty fees – eg emission pricing for noncompliance with the regulation. This provides the regulation with a “stick” to ensure ships comply or else they must pay. The penalties also represent revenues, up to $10bn to $12bn a year, to both incentivise industry transition and enable a fair transition for all. This fund is a lifeline for developing – and especially least developed – states to be able to afford clean maritime energy upgrades and compensate for the rising trade costs because of this transition. Some claim that revenues raised by the NZF will blow out transport costs. This is preposterous. The penalties charged through this framework come down to less than $1.50 per year for every living human being – although the biggest polluters should pay this cost. If the richest 10 percent of the world’s population foots this bill, it adds up to less than $15 per person. That’s a few coffees a year, which the world’s richest can easily spare. Losing both financial penalties for noncompliance and financial support for countries like mine in the name of a political compromise with rich oil-producing states is a bad deal. Not just for all climate-vulnerable states but also for the industry that demands and deserves clarity. If anything, we need more action and more ambition in the framework. For years, Pacific states have pushed for the IMO regulation to be in the form of a universal levy on emissions, by pricing all emissions. We managed to get the majority of IMO member states on board, including the European Union, South Korea and Japan, as well as important Global South states, such as Panama and Liberia. However, the US has been very effective in exerting its influence in this area, which is resulting in shifts to some positions to the detriment of us all. Advertisement Our position was always backed by the best available scientific evidence. A levy on all shipping emissions is the best way to send an unambiguous signal to the industry: Invest in the future now! The revenues, up to 10 times more than those from the NZF, serve as both a bigger stick for polluters and a bigger carrot for first movers and cash-poor countries. This is not a handout: Hitting net zero by 2050 is not possible if our countries cannot invest in clean ships. The bridge we have built in the form of the NZF through years of compromise and evidence is still standing. Let us cross it together by adopting it as agreed without any further dilution. Pacific states stand ready to fight for what science and justice demand, and we call on our partners to stand with us. The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial stance. Adblock test (Why?)
Cloud over US-Iran talks: What are the key sticking points?
United States President Donald Trump has claimed a second round of negotiations with Iran will take place in Pakistan on Tuesday as mediators try to revive negotiations before the end of an ongoing yet fragile two-week ceasefire. The announcement on Sunday came alongside a sharp escalation in rhetoric. Trump warned that Iran must agree to a deal “one way or another – the nice way or the hard way” and threatened to target key infrastructure if negotiations fail. He also renewed his threat of striking “bridges and power plants”, which experts said could amount to war crimes under international law. Recommended Stories list of 3 itemsend of list Iran, however, has so far denied it will participate in the talks, accusing the US of “armed piracy” after US forces struck and seized an Iran-linked tanker on Sunday, further heightening tensions between the longtime adversaries. What has the US said? On Sunday, Trump announced that US negotiators would travel to the Pakistani capital, Islamabad, on Monday for talks aimed at ending the US-Israel war on Iran. In a social media post, the president did not say which officials would be sent to the talks. Last weekend’s first round of talks, at which Vice President JD Vance led the US delegation, ended without a deal. Trump accused Iran of violating their two-week ceasefire, which is due to expire on Wednesday, by opening fire on Saturday in the Strait of Hormuz. The US president threatened to destroy civilian infrastructure in Iran if it doesn’t accept the terms of the deal being offered by the US. Advertisement “We’re offering a very fair and reasonable deal, and I hope they take it because, if they don’t, the United States is going to knock out every single power plant, and every single bridge, in Iran,” Trump wrote on his Truth Social platform. In a further escalation, Trump said an Iranian-flagged ship called the Touska was “stopped” by US forces in the Gulf of Oman “by blowing a hole in the engine room”. He said it was trying to get past the US naval blockade of Iranian ports. US forces boarded the ship and took physical control of the vessel. How has Iran responded? Iran’s Khatam al-Anbiya military headquarters confirmed the US attack on the Iranian-flagged tanker and said it would “respond soon”. Then, Iran’s Tasnim News Agency reported that Iranian forces had sent drones in the direction of US military ships. Ebrahim Azizi, the head of the Iranian parliament’s National Security Committee, told Al Jazeera that Iran’s actions during talks with the US are strictly guided by national interests and security. When asked if Tehran intends to participate in the talks in Islamabad, he said, “Iran acts based on national interests.” “We see the current negotiations as a continuation of the battlefield, and we see nothing other than the battlefield in this,” he said. “If it yields achievements that sustain those of the battlefield, then the negotiation arena is also an opportunity for us … but not if the Americans intend to turn this into a field of excessive demands based on their bullying approach.” What are the key points of friction now? Since the start of the war on February 28, a number of new sticking points have emerged – alongside old challenges: Strait of Hormuz A central dispute is over the Strait of Hormuz, a critical global shipping route linking the Gulf to the Arabian Sea. One-fifth of the world’s oil and liquefied natural gas (LNG) supplies were shipped through the strait before the war began. Iran insists on sovereignty over the waterway, which lies within the territorial waters of Iran and Oman and does not fall into international waters, and stated that only “nonhostile” ships could pass. It has also floated the idea of levying tolls while Washington demands full freedom of navigation. After the war began, Iran in effect closed the strait by forbidding transits, attacking ships and reportedly laying sea mines. Shipping traffic has since dropped by 95 percent. A week ago, the US implemented a blockade of its own. Its Navy has been blocking Iranian ports to pressure Tehran to reopen the vital waterway, adding another obstacle to the talks. Advertisement According to Rob Geist Pinfold, a lecturer in international security at King’s College London, Trump’s stance on the strait has shifted during the conflict and remains unclear. “We’ve had Trump say that he would be open to jointly controlling the Strait of Hormuz with Iran, where both sides collect a toll for shipping,” Geist Pinfold noted, calling this “completely different to the demands of the US on paper but also the demands of the US’s regional allies like the Gulf states and Israel, … who would regard any deal that entrenches Iranian control of the Strait of Hormuz … as a stab in the back”. “This isn’t just between the US and Iran. It’s about the US having to keep its regional allies on side,” Geist Pinfold told Al Jazeera. Enriched uranium Another core issue is Iran’s nuclear programme, particularly its stock of enriched uranium. The US and Israel are pushing for zero uranium enrichment and have accused Iran of working towards building a nuclear weapon while providing no evidence for their claims. Iran has insisted its enrichment effort is for civilian purposes only. It is a signatory to the 1970 Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT). In 2015, the US was a signatory to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) under then-US President Barack Obama. In that agreement, Iran pledged to limit its uranium enrichment to 3.67 per cent, which is substantially below weapons grade, and to comply with inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to insure it wasn’t developing nuclear weapons. In return, international sanctions on Iran were lifted. However, in 2018, during his first term, Trump withdrew the US from the JCPOA despite the IAEA saying Iran had complied with the agreement up to that point. In March 2025, Tulsi Gabbard,
Displaced Lebanese woman returns to find home destroyed after ceasefire
NewsFeed A displaced woman returned to southern Lebanon after a ceasefire to find her house reduced to rubble by Israeli attacks. Zahra Eid had fled Tayr Debba with her daughters at the start of the war. Published On 19 Apr 202619 Apr 2026 Click here to share on social media share-nodes Share googleAdd Al Jazeera on Googleinfo Adblock test (Why?)
DRC government, M23 rebels commit to protect civilians, aid deliveries
After talks in Switzerland, the two sides also made progress on a protocol for ceasefire oversight. Published On 19 Apr 202619 Apr 2026 The government of the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) and rival M23 rebels have agreed to ease aid deliveries and release prisoners, as mediators push to resolve a years-long conflict that has persisted despite multiple peace deals. The two sides announced the measures in a joint statement shared by the US Department of State on Saturday, following five days of talks in Switzerland. Recommended Stories list of 3 itemsend of list “The parties agreed to refrain from any action that would undermine the principled delivery of humanitarian assistance within the territories impacted by the conflict,” said the statement. Both sides also pledged not to target civilians and to facilitate medical care for the wounded and sick as they noted progress on a protocol for humanitarian access and judicial protections. They agreed to release prisoners within 10 days as part of efforts “to continue building confidence”. In addition, the parties signed a memorandum of understanding for a ceasefire monitoring mechanism that will “begin conducting surveillance, monitoring, verification, and reporting on the implementation of the permanent ceasefire between the parties”. Since 2021, the M23, backed by Rwanda, has seized territory in eastern DRC, a region ravaged by more than 30 years of conflict. While the two sides signed a United States-brokered peace agreement in December, fighting has continued, most recently reaching the highland areas of South Kivu, according to media reports. In a statement last week, Human Rights Watch accused the parties of blocking aid deliveries and stopping civilians from fleeing the South Kivu highlands. Advertisement “Civilians in South Kivu’s highlands are facing a dire humanitarian crisis and live in fear of abuses by all parties,” said Clementine de Montjoye, senior Great Lakes researcher at Human Rights Watch. The latest round of talks, held in the Swiss Riviera town of Montreux, included representatives from Qatar, the US, Switzerland, the African Union (AU) Commission, and Togo serving as the AU mediator. Adblock test (Why?)
What to know about US-Iran standoff over the Strait of Hormuz
The Strait of Hormuz, a chokepoint for about a fifth of the world’s oil, has again become the chaotic centre of the United States-Israel war on Iran, as a standoff between Washington and Tehran is complicating efforts to end the war. Iran on Saturday reversed its decision on reopening the strait, and its military opened fire at a ship trying to pass through the waterway after US President Donald Trump said Washington will continue its blockade on Iranian ports. Recommended Stories list of 3 itemsend of list Trump has refused to end the blockade until a deal is finalised. On Saturday, he said that there have been “very good” discussions, but Washington won’t be “blackmailed”. After a short-lived rise in transit attempts on Saturday, ships in the Persian Gulf once again stayed put, after reports of vessels coming under fire mid-passage and being forced to withdraw. Their pullback restored the strait to its pre-ceasefire status, raising the risk of a worsening global energy crunch and increasing the likelihood of renewed fighting. Here is what you need to know: What has Iran said? Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi on Friday said the strait would be open for commercial vessels during the truce, which ends on April 22, in “line with the ceasefire in Lebanon”. However, Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) announced a clear reversal in Iran’s position, saying the Strait of Hormuz would not return to its “previous state”, amid the blockade of Iranian ports. The IRGC’s joint military command said the US has “continued acts of piracy and maritime theft under the guise of a so-called blockade”. (Al Jazeera) “For this reason, control of the Strait of Hormuz has returned to its previous state, and this strategic waterway is now under strict management and control by the armed forces,” said the statement, cited by Iranian broadcaster IRIB. Advertisement “Until the United States restores full freedom of navigation for vessels travelling from Iran to their destinations and back, the status of the Strait of Hormuz will remain tightly controlled and in its previous condition,” it added. Iran’s Speaker of Parliament Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, who is Iran’s chief negotiator in talks with the US, said it was “impossible for others to pass” the strategic strait without Iran’s consent. He called Washington’s blockade “ignorant” and “foolish”, saying Tehran would not allow others to transit the strait if its own ships were blocked. On Saturday, he said that major differences remain, despite some progress towards a deal. What has the US said? In a Truth Social post on Sunday, the US president accused Iran of violating the ceasefire agreement, but added that US negotiators will be heading to Islamabad, Pakistan on Monday to strike a deal. “We’re offering a very fair and reasonable deal, and I hope they take it because, if they don’t, the United States is going to knock out every single power plant, and every single bridge, in Iran,” he said in the post. Iran on Sunday said that it was tightening its control over the waterway once again in response to the US blockade of Iranian ports, which began on April 14. Tehran says the blockade violates the terms of the ceasefire. Trump on Saturday said that the US was having “very good conversations” with Iran, but he noted that Tehran wanted to close the important oil corridor again and that it could not blackmail the US with such a move. What is happening in the strait right now? Lloyd’s List, a maritime firm, said traffic in the Straight of Hormuz had come to a halt after Iranian forces fired on several ships on Saturday. The United Kingdom Maritime Trade Operations agency said it received a report of a tanker being fired upon by what it said were two gunboats linked to the IRGC. Meanwhile, India summoned the Iranian ambassador in New Delhi and expressed deep concern that two Indian-flagged ships had come under fire in the strait, the government said. Abas Aslani, a senior fellow at the Centre for Middle East Strategic Studies in Tehran, said the two sides are “engaging in war rhetoric ahead of any possible escalation and military conflict”. “It seems that they are pressuring each other to win concessions – and we are not there yet,” Aslani told Al Jazeera. “There are speculations that maybe the US is possibly planning to engage in limited strikes against Iran, but Iran has been saying that it will retaliate strongly,” he said. “This might end again in a wider conflict.” What are other sticking points between the US and Iran? Advertisement Nuclear enrichment The biggest contention is over hardening positions on Iran’s nuclear programme, chief among them being Tehran’s nuclear enrichment capability. On Friday, Trump said Washington would obtain Iran’s enriched uranium, calling it “nuclear dust” and referring to the 440kg (970lbs) believed to be buried at sites hit by US strikes last year. He repeated on Truth Social that “the USA will get all Nuclear ‘Dust’”. Speaking to Reuters news agency, Trump said the US would work with Iran “at a nice leisurely pace” and “start excavating with big machinery” to recover the material. In a rebuke to Trump, Iran’s President Masoud Pezeshkian said Washington had no justification for depriving Iran of its nuclear rights. “Trump says Iran cannot make use of its nuclear rights, but doesn’t say for what crime. Who is he to deprive a nation of its rights?” Pezeshkian asked, according to the Iranian Students’ News Agency. Israel and the US have repeatedly accused Iran of enriching uranium to develop nuclear weapons. But Iran says its nuclear programme is for civilian purposes and that it has honoured its commitments under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Tulsi Gabbard, the director of US National Intelligence, testified to Congress in March 2025 that the US “continues to assess that Iran is not building a nuclear weapon and Supreme Leader [Ayatollah Ali] Khamenei has not authorised the nuclear weapons programme he suspended in 2003.” Khamenei was killed
UNICEF ‘outraged’ after Israeli forces kill water truck drivers in Gaza
UN Children’s Fund calls on Israeli authorities to investigate and ‘ensure full accountability’. Published On 18 Apr 202618 Apr 2026 The United Nations Children’s Fund says it is “outraged” after Israel killed two drivers it had contracted to deliver clean water to families in Gaza. UNICEF said in a statement the incident occurred during routine water trucking on Friday morning at the Mansoura water filling point in northern Gaza, which supplies Gaza City. Two other people were wounded in the attack. Recommended Stories list of 3 itemsend of list The agency said it had suspended activities at the site and called on Israeli authorities to investigate and “ensure full accountability”. “Humanitarian workers, essential service providers, and civilian infrastructure, including critical water facilities, must never be targeted,” it said. It said that “the protection of civilians and those delivering life-saving assistance is an obligation under international humanitarian law”. More than 750 Palestinians have been killed by Israeli forces since the US- and Qatar-brokered “ceasefire” in Gaza took effect last October, according to Palestinian health authorities. More than 72,000 people have been killed since Israel launched its genocidal war against Palestinians in Gaza on October 7, 2023, following a Hamas-led attack on southern Israel. Meanwhile, in the occupied West Bank, a Palestinian man was shot and killed by Israeli forces in Khirbet Salama, the official Palestinian news agency WAFA reported. Muhammad Ahmad Suwaiti, 25, was pronounced dead at the scene, WAFA said. Israel’s military said a person carrying a knife in the illegal settlement of Negohot was killed. It did not say who was responsible. Advertisement Using the biblical term for the West Bank, the Israeli military said in a statement that “a terrorist who infiltrated the community of Negohot in Judea and Samaria was identified and eliminated in a rapid response”. Israeli forces and settlers have killed more than 1,060 Palestinians in the occupied West Bank since the start of the Gaza war in October 2023, according to the Palestinian Ministry of Health. Adblock test (Why?)
As fentanyl crisis evolves, experts say US is still ‘behind the eight ball’
Dallas, United States – Michael Watkins wipes sweat from his brow as he steps up to a stranger’s door. It’s a scorching day in Dallas, Texas; the sun has been hammering the pavement for hours. Watkins, a 50-year-old man with glasses, a goatee and a gauge in both earlobes, doesn’t know what to expect beyond the door of the single-storey house. He doesn’t even know if the person on the other side will answer. But these door knocks are a critical part of his job. Within 72 hours of a reported overdose from the dangerous opioid fentanyl, Watkins shows up on a stranger’s doorstep with a brochure full of substance abuse resources and some of the life-saving medication known as Narcan. Recommended Stories list of 4 itemsend of list He works for the Recovery Resource Council, an addiction treatment nonprofit that’s been tackling the fentanyl crisis in North Texas since it began more than 10 years ago. Their grassroots approach has yielded great results: In 2023, Dallas County — the largest county in North Texas — recorded 280 deaths from fentanyl. Last year, that number was 203. This is in line with a nationwide decrease in fentanyl overdoses that began several years ago, after the rate of overdose deaths in the United States doubled between 2015 and 2023. However, some show the number of overall overdose deaths once again climbing, as experts warn a disruption in the fentanyl market has been repaired. Dallas, like all major US cities, has been ravaged by fentanyl overdoses. Because of its relative proximity to the US-Mexico border, and its extensive highway infrastructure, Dallas also has the unfortunate distinction of being a major hub in the drug smuggling routes stretching from Mexico to other major US cities. Advertisement Becky Devine, the director of Recovery Resource Council, says her team calls these door-knocks “uninvited interventions”. “We show up wanting to bridge the gap between where they are in this moment of desperation and isolation to all of the services that are available in our community,” she said. “The majority of the people we encounter are receptive to us showing up, but they just don’t know what they want yet. We get phone calls weeks, months down the road that say, ‘Hey, I met you on my doorstep six, seven, 10 months ago, and I wasn’t ready then, but I’m ready now.’” Recently, their work, like the work of similar nonprofits across the country, has been hindered by the administration of US President Donald Trump, just as the country was making consistent progress in the fight against fentanyl. Despite declaring fentanyl a “weapon of mass destruction”, the Trump administration has slashed hundreds of millions of dollars in addiction services and drug-related research across multiple federal agencies. Elon Musk’s DOGE team fired a team that rigorously tracked Americans’ drug use for decades, and in January, officials abruptly cancelled roughly $2bn in grants through the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), only to reverse course within days. The whiplash left providers scrambling and deepened uncertainty across the treatment system. What’s more, in the past year, the Trump administration has reduced SAMHSA’s staff by half. Estimates vary as to how much money in total has been cut from essential treatment programmes, but in late 2025, the health news website STAT reported that at least $1.7bn in block grants for state health departments had been cut, as had about $350m in addiction and overdose prevention funding. All this comes at a time when the fentanyl threat is evolving, with the market for the chemicals used to manufacture fentanyl largely shifting from China to India. Chrissie Julianno is the executive director of the Big Cities Health Coalition, which represents health departments in major cities across the US. According to her, the Trump administration has created rampant chaos with far-reaching consequences. “I think one piece that people don’t necessarily think about is, particularly in large jurisdictions, large counties and large cities, a lot of the dollars that they get from the federal government are then contracted out to community partners,” she said. “It’s not just the health department that can’t do something. It’s not just the health department that’s forced to lay off staff. It’s all of the other pieces that come together in these jurisdictions where there’s partnerships.” Weapon of mass destruction Last year, Watkins’s organisation tried to establish an addiction resource team devoted to Plano, one of the largest suburbs in Dallas. The team was put on hold because of a spate of federal funding cuts, including the elimination of $345m in addiction and overdose prevention. Advertisement Watkins, for his part, is trying to be the kind of person he needed when he was at the lowest point of his own addiction journey. He once called the police on himself because, in his words, “If I go to jail, maybe I won’t drink any more.” Instead of lock-up, he wound up in a hospital, where he received an offer for a state-funded treatment programme. He took the rep’s business card, went home, and drank for four days straight. “But after those four days, all of a sudden it just dawned on me, ‘Yes, I’m going to die, and I really don’t know what to do,’” he said. He called the number on that business card and entered the treatment programme. Now, 13 years later, he’s the one handing out cards and offers of help. “I just want to be there for people,” he said. “I want to be there to help them connect the dots.” Experts say initiatives like this are critical to the US continuing a trend that began in 2023, when fentanyl overdoses started falling nationwide for the first time in a decade. Instead, the Trump administration has focused on a militaristic approach that’s frustrated healthcare professionals and policy experts. Trump and his cabinet members claim recent military actions against Venezuela, including the boat strikes that have drawn war crime accusations, are part of the fight against
French soldier serving with UNIFIL killed in Lebanon attack
The deadly incident comes just days after Israel and Lebanon announced a 10-day ceasefire. Published On 18 Apr 202618 Apr 2026 A French soldier serving with the United Nations peacekeeping mission in Lebanon has been killed, and three others were wounded in an attack that UNIFIL and French officials said was likely carried out by Hezbollah. Three other members of the peacekeeping mission were wounded in the attack in the village of Ghandouriyeh in southern Lebanon, UNIFIL said on Saturday, two of them seriously. Recommended Stories list of 3 itemsend of list UNIFIL noted that initial assessments indicated they came from non-state actors, allegedly Hezbollah, and that an investigation had been launched into what it called “a deliberate attack”. In calls with Lebanese President Joseph Aoun and Prime Minister Nawaf Salam, French President Emmanuel Macron condemned the “unacceptable attack”, his office said in a statement on Saturday. Macron also said the evidence so far pointed to the Lebanese armed group and urged the Lebanese government to act against those responsible. The Iran-aligned armed group rejected the allegations, calling for “exercising caution in issuing judgements regarding the incident”. “We deny any connection to us with the incident that occurred with UNIFIL forces in the Ghandouriyeh area in Bint Jbeil,” Hezbollah said in a statement. French Armed Forces Minister Catherine Vautrin said the patrol was ambushed while on a mission to open a route to a UNIFIL post that had been isolated by fighting in the area. The soldier was killed by direct small-arms fire, she said. Lebanon’s army condemned the shooting and said it had opened an investigation. Advertisement President Aoun has also offered condolences and ordered an immediate probe, while Prime Minister Salam condemned the attack. Fragile ceasefire The deadly incidents come just days after an Israel-Lebanon 10-day ceasefire took effect and days before a truce in the United States-Israel war on Iran was set to expire. Lebanon was drawn into the war in early March after Hezbollah fired rockets towards Israel in response to the US-Israeli killing of Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei on February 28. Israel responded with a devastating bombing campaign and a ground invasion that killed more than 2,000 people and forced more than 1.2 million others from their homes. The declaration of a ceasefire in Lebanon was seen as a boost to efforts for an agreement to end the US-Israel war on Iran. Pakistani Foreign Minister Ishaq Dar said fighting between Israel and Hezbollah had been a key sticking point in US-Iran talks last weekend in Islamabad. It was not clear whether Hezbollah would abide by a truce it did not play a role in negotiating, especially when it leaves Israeli troops occupying a stretch of southern Lebanon. Attacks on peacekeepers UNIFIL, the UN Interim Force in Lebanon, was first deployed in 1978 along the border between Israel and Lebanon and has remained through successive conflicts, including a 2024 war during which its positions came under repeated fire. Last month, two UN peacekeepers were killed in southern Lebanon amid Israel’s ground invasion of the country. UNFIL said they were killed when an explosion of unknown origin destroyed their vehicle. World leaders have condemned the escalating violence and attacks on peacekeepers. Last month, in a post on X, UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres called on all parties to the war to abide by international law and ensure the security of all UN personnel. “This is just one of a number of recent incidents that have jeopardized the safety & security of peacekeepers,” Guterres had said. Adblock test (Why?)
UN aid chief warns of possible ‘full-scale famine’ in South Sudan
NewsFeed Emergency Relief Coordinator Tom Fletcher told the UN Security Council that South Sudan is at risk of slipping into ‘full-scale famine and collapse’ as fighting intensifies and the UN peacekeeping mission is cut back. Published On 18 Apr 202618 Apr 2026 Click here to share on social media share-nodes Share googleAdd Al Jazeera on Googleinfo Adblock test (Why?)
Lebanese man removes Israeli flag from castle in southern Lebanon
NewsFeed A Lebanese man who returned to his village in southern Lebanon after the temporary ceasefire was announced removes the Israeli flag from Beaufort Castle (Qalaat al-Shaqif). The castle which dates back to the 12th century is in the Nabatiyeh Governorate. Published On 18 Apr 202618 Apr 2026 Click here to share on social media share-nodes Share googleAdd Al Jazeera on Googleinfo Adblock test (Why?)