Author: Admin

VIENNA (AP) — Eurovision’s final competition roster has been set after Thursday’s second semifinal eliminated five additional nations from the international singing competition.

Thursday’s semifinal featured 15 nations competing for the remaining 10 spots in Saturday’s grand finale of the continent-wide music contest, with winners determined through combined voting from national panels and global television audiences.

Advancing to the final round are Denmark’s Søren Torpegaard Lund performing the sultry “Før Vi Går Hjem” (“Before We Go Home”), Australia’s Delta Goodrem with her power ballad “Eclipse,” and Bulgaria’s Dara singing the infectious “Bangaranga.”

Additional qualifiers include Daniel Žižka representing Czechia, Ukraine’s Leléka, Albania’s Alis, Malta’s Aidan, Cyprus performer Antigoni, Romania’s Alexandra Căpitănescu, and Norway’s Jonas Lovv. Countries from Azerbaijan, Luxembourg, Armenia, Switzerland and Latvia failed to advance.

Tuesday’s earlier semifinal had already secured spots for 10 other performers, including Finland’s Pete Parkkonen and Linda Lampenius, Greece’s rapper Akylas, Serbia’s goth metal group Lavina, Moldova’s folk-rapper Satoshi, and Israel’s Noam Bettan.

The United Kingdom, France, Germany and Italy receive automatic final placement as the competition’s primary financial supporters. Austria earns direct entry as the host nation following last year’s victory.

While Eurovision promotes “United by Music” as its guiding principle and attempts to avoid political controversy, it frequently struggles with such issues. Russia faced expulsion in 2022 following its comprehensive attack on Ukraine.

Both the 2024 competition in Malmo, Sweden, and the previous year’s event in Basel, Switzerland, witnessed pro-Palestinian demonstrations demanding Israel’s removal due to its military actions against Hamas in Gaza. Another protest targeting Israel’s involvement is scheduled before Saturday’s Vienna finale.

Spain, Ireland, the Netherlands, Slovenia and Iceland have withdrawn from this year’s Eurovision in protest of Israel’s continued participation.

Israel has additionally faced accusations of conducting an unauthorized promotional campaign to secure contestant votes. The European Broadcasting Union, Eurovision’s organizing body, has strengthened voting regulations in response, reducing individual voting limits from 20 to 10 and implementing stricter protections against “suspicious or coordinated voting activity.”

Bettan encountered some protest chanting during his Tuesday semifinal performance. Departing from previous policies, Palestinian flags are now permitted within the venue, and Austrian broadcaster ORF announced it will not silence audience disapproval.

The five-nation withdrawal represents a significant financial and audience setback for an event that organizers report drew 166 million global viewers last year. While Bulgaria, Moldova and Romania have rejoined after recent absences due to artistic or budgetary concerns, total participation remains at its lowest point since 2003.

Nevertheless, Eurovision continues exploring growth opportunities, with a new Eurovision Song Contest Asia scheduled for Bangkok this November.

Contest director Martin Green expressed optimism Thursday that Hungary might rejoin Eurovision for the first time since 2019, now that Prime Minister Péter Magyar has succeeded nationalist-populist leader Viktor Orbán.

Green also indicated that the boycotting nations remain welcome to return.

“We’ve made it very clear to them we can’t wait for them to come back,” Green said.

CIA Director John Ratcliffe conducted a significant diplomatic visit to Cuba on Thursday, holding talks with high-ranking Cuban officials including Raulito Rodriguez Castro, the grandson of former leader Raul Castro, according to sources from both governments.

During the meetings, Ratcliffe sat down with Rodriguez Castro, Ministry of Interior Lazaro Alvarez Casas, and Cuba’s intelligence chief to discuss cooperation on intelligence matters, economic stability, and security concerns. A CIA representative verified these discussions to the Associated Press.

The CIA director traveled to the island “to personally deliver President Donald Trump’s message that the United States is prepared to seriously engage on economic and security issues, but only if Cuba makes fundamental changes. According to official reports, the meeting served as a platform for Cuba to present evidence asserting that the nation poses no threat to U.S. national security,” the CIA official said.

Cuba’s government released a statement acknowledging the discussions “took place Thursday, May 14, against a backdrop of complex bilateral relations.”

American representatives emphasized that Cuba must not remain a “safe haven for adversaries in the Western Hemisphere,” while Cuban negotiators maintained their nation does not threaten U.S. security. The Cuban side also challenged their country’s placement on America’s list of state sponsors of terrorism.

This diplomatic encounter occurred several weeks following Cuba’s acknowledgment of recent discussions with American officials on the island, as relations remain strained due to the U.S. energy blockade affecting the Caribbean nation. Cuba’s electrical infrastructure has suffered major failures, leaving eastern regions without power. The American fuel embargo has worsened the island’s economic crisis, leading to shortened work schedules and food spoilage as refrigeration systems fail.

Just days before the meeting, the U.S. State Department restated its offer to provide Cuba with $100 in humanitarian aid and satellite internet access “if the Cuban regime will permit it.”

In late January, President Donald Trump issued warnings of tariffs against nations that sell or provide oil to Cuba. While Trump has also suggested potential intervention in the country, and Cuban President Miguel Díaz-Canel recently stated his nation would defend itself if necessary, sources informed the AP this month that military action is not expected in the near term.

An Iranian-American artist revealed a memorial artwork Thursday morning in Webster, Texas, paying tribute to young victims of violence perpetrated by Iran’s Islamic regime and allied groups.

The large memorial piece, called “WOMAN. LIFE. FREEDOM.,” was displayed between 10:00 and 11:00 a.m. at 425 Henrietta in Webster, located outside Houston. Artist Hooman Khalili created the work to bring global awareness to the victims as the world prepares for the FIFA World Cup.

The memorial artwork shows children assembled on a soccer field and weaves together stories of young victims from both Israel and Iran. Featured prominently are the 12 Druze children who died on July 27, 2024, after a Hezbollah rocket hit a soccer field in Majdal Shams near Mount Hermon in northern Israel.

The piece also pays tribute to Iranian children who perished during civil unrest and government crackdowns by the Islamic regime beginning in 2022, including Kian Pirfalak, Sarina Esmailzadeh, and Nika Shakarami.

“This mural is ultimately about children,” Khalili said. “Different backgrounds, different countries, different languages—but the same stolen innocence. These children share a common enemy in the ideology and violence exported by the Islamic regime and its proxies.”

According to Khalili, the memorial’s timing was planned to align with increased global focus on North America as the FIFA World Cup approaches, with games scheduled across the United States, Canada, and Mexico.

“The roots of this project are in Israel,” he said. “But my hope is that the tree blossoms in the United States. As the world gathers around soccer, I want the eyes of the world to also see the humanity of these children and the brutality that took their lives.”

The memorial features visual elements representing both Druze and Persian heritage, incorporating symbols from Nabi Shu’ayb (also called Jethro’s Tomb), Tehran’s Azadi Tower, and Persia’s Lion and Sun emblem.

Prior to creating the memorial, Khalili visited Majdal Shams, where he spoke with Naila Fakhr al-Din, whose daughter Alma Fakhr al-Din was among the victims, and met with Druze spiritual leader Sheikh Rafa Halabi. The artwork additionally honors Iranian footballer Zahra Azadpour, who was killed during civil unrest in Iran in January 2026.

Russian President Vladimir Putin’s recent hints that the Ukraine conflict might be approaching its conclusion has sparked fresh debate in Kyiv and among its allies: Is Moscow genuinely preparing for diplomatic engagement, or is it employing peace rhetoric to pressure Ukraine and fracture Western unity while warfare persists?

The disconnect is stark. Putin and other Kremlin officials have recently discussed potential progress toward ending hostilities while simultaneously insisting that Ukraine must retreat from territories Russia claims to have incorporated, including areas where Russian forces lack complete control. Reuters reported this week that the Kremlin reiterated Putin’s June 2024 stipulations, which would allow ceasefire talks and negotiations only if Ukraine pulled back from the four Ukrainian regions Russia says it has incorporated. Kyiv has dismissed these terms as unworkable.

Russia’s military actions tell a different story. On May 13 and 14, Russia conducted what Reuters characterized as its most extensive two-day air campaign since the full-scale invasion began, deploying 1,567 drones and 56 missiles, according to Zelenskyy. The bombardment targeted Kyiv and other areas, damaging residential buildings and infrastructure, cutting power in multiple locations, and killing at least 15 civilians. These attacks occurred while Moscow continued presenting itself as receptive to negotiations.

From Kyiv’s perspective, Russia’s stipulations appear less like compromise and more like demands for surrender. Moscow declared brief truces around Easter and Victory Day, but both sides alleged violations. Kremlin foreign policy aide Yuri Ushakov recently informed the Russian news agency Interfax that Russia saw no value in additional peace discussions until Ukraine withdrew its forces from the Donbas, strengthening Ukraine’s belief that Moscow’s proposal amounts to an ultimatum disguised as diplomacy.

More than four years after Russia’s full-scale invasion began, Russia continues occupying roughly one-fifth of Ukrainian land and maintains significant advantages in personnel, missile capabilities, artillery manufacturing, and strategic resources. However, Moscow failed to capture Kyiv, failed to destroy the Ukrainian government, and has failed to completely control the four Ukrainian regions it claims as Russian territory. Russia announced the incorporation of Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson, and Zaporizhzhia in September 2022 following widely condemned referendums, but it lacked complete control over all four regions then and has never achieved it since.

David Satter, an American journalist, historian, and former Moscow correspondent, said Putin’s recent statements should be considered potentially significant because they are uncommon, not because they necessarily signal a genuine change in Moscow’s objectives.

“It is serious because it is unusual, and it could be a signal to the Russian public that there may be some concessions Russia will have to make,” Satter told The Media Line. “But at this stage, I would not attach too much importance to it, because Russia also has a desire to appear reasonable.”

Satter suggested Moscow’s strategy may focus less on convincing Kyiv than on swaying Europe. In his assessment, Russia seeks to create the appearance of willingness to compromise to undermine European determination and isolate Ukraine from its supporters. “They want to separate Ukraine from its European supporters,” he said. “It is in their interest to give the impression that they are willing to compromise.”

Jason Jay Smart, an adviser on national security and geopolitics based between Kyiv and Washington, and an expert on Russia and Ukraine, provided a more pointed evaluation from the Ukrainian viewpoint. “Inside Ukraine, Putin’s statements are not taken as a serious offer,” Smart told The Media Line. “They are heard as messaging aimed at Washington and Europe, while Russia keeps attacking on the ground.”

Smart referenced recent ceasefire declarations as one reason Ukrainians evaluate Moscow based on actions rather than Kremlin rhetoric. “Moscow announced Easter and May 9 ‘Victory Day’ ceasefires, then violated them hundreds of times,” he said, “which is why Ukrainians judge the conduct, not the Kremlin wording.”

He also cited Ushakov’s statement on Donbas as proof that Moscow’s diplomatic language still depends on demands Ukraine cannot accept. “That is not negotiation,” Smart said. “It is surrender language packaged as diplomacy.”

Russia has captured territory, but it has not secured the political triumph it pursued. Satter characterized Ukraine’s accomplishment as “enormous” because, in his opinion, it prevented the country’s destruction. Ukraine, he said, blocked Russia from achieving its initial invasion objectives, maintained control of many major cities, and forced Russia to pay “a terrible price” for whatever advances it has made.

Russia’s successes, in contrast, are more difficult to characterize politically, Satter said. Moscow incorporated four Ukrainian oblasts—Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson, and Zaporizhzhia—into the Russian constitution, but it has not completely conquered the territory it claims. “In terms of their objectives, they have not been successful,” he said. Russia declared the regions part of the Russian Federation, but “they have not conquered those territories.”

He said Luhansk is the only one of the four under near-complete Russian control, while Donetsk remains only partially occupied, and Russia still lacks full authority over Zaporizhzhia and Kherson. For this reason, he argued, Moscow’s battlefield advances have not delivered the political victory the Kremlin proclaimed when it announced the incorporations.

Smart characterized Ukraine’s current situation as both weary and resolute. Years of missile attacks, funerals, mobilization, and occupation have placed tremendous strain on Ukrainian society, he said, but have not created acceptance of Russian authority. “Ukrainians are exhausted,” he said, “but they are not confused about what surrender would bring.”

Ukraine’s political stance, Smart argued, depends on a fundamental principle: an aggressor cannot invade another nation and then demand to retain the territory it managed to capture. “You cannot break into someone’s house and then demand to keep the rooms you managed to occupy,” he said. “The invader has to leave.”

He described Ukraine’s primary achievement as survival that has imposed genuine costs on Russia. “Ukraine preserved the state, defended Kyiv, kept democratic politics alive, reopened trade routes, struck Russian military infrastructure, and showed the limits of Russian power,” Smart said. “Its central achievement is survival with consequences.”

Ukraine’s endurance has relied on external assistance, but Smart warned against reducing the conflict to Western weapons alone. External aid mattered because Ukraine first made the national choice to resist. “Without that national decision,” he said, “no shipment of weapons would have saved the country.”

One of Ukraine’s most evident military achievements has been its employment of aerial drones, unmanned naval systems, electronic warfare, battlefield software, and locally modified technologies. These instruments have helped Ukraine partially counter Russia’s advantages in armor, artillery, and personnel by enabling Ukrainian forces to damage or destroy more expensive Russian equipment with cheaper, more adaptable systems.

“Drones and electronic warfare changed the economics of the battlefield,” Smart said. Unable to match Russia “tank for tank or shell for shell,” Ukraine used drones, sensors, and battlefield software to make Russian troops, armor, artillery, and supply lines easier to locate and attack. Innovation has not replaced artillery, air defense, or Western support, he said, but it has made Ukraine “more dangerous, more adaptable, and much harder for Russia to overwhelm.”

The conflict has also compelled Europe to examine its reliance on the US for security. With long-term American support for Ukraine uncertain, European governments and defense analysts are discussing whether the continent can keep Ukraine equipped while rebuilding its own depleted stockpiles, expanding defense production, and preparing to deter Russia with reduced dependence on Washington. The discussion is no longer theoretical; it involves shells, air-defense interceptors, production lines, and defense budgets.

Satter said Ukraine is already protecting the rest of Europe. If Ukraine were to collapse, he argued, much of the country’s mobilized capacity could be absorbed into or redirected by Russia, creating a far greater threat to NATO’s more vulnerable members.

For Satter, Europe has the capability to resist Russia alongside Ukraine, but only if it has the political determination. “The key question is whether Europe can now rearm and defend itself without the US,” he said. “Europe, together with Ukraine, can definitely resist Russia.”

Smart also said uncertainty over US support has made Ukrainians more urgent and realistic. Europe can do more, and Ukraine is expanding its own defense production, but American support remains crucial in specific areas, including air defense, intelligence, long-range capabilities, and advanced systems. “For Ukrainians, delays are measured in lives, not press statements,” Smart said.

Economic pressure on Russia is genuine, but whether it is adequate to alter Moscow’s behavior remains unclear. Sanctions, war expenditures, labor shortages, inflationary pressure, and long-term isolation from Europe all impose costs. Satter cautioned against expecting an immediate Russian collapse. “It is not at a breaking point,” he said, “but it is under pressure.”

Russia’s size and resources mean it can persist for some time, Satter said. That pressure matters, but, in his view, Russia is more likely to be stopped by military defeat than by economic collapse alone.

Conflicts beyond Ukraine also influence Russia’s ability to sustain the war, especially those that affect energy prices or strain Moscow’s partnerships. Higher oil prices linked to conflict involving Iran can benefit Russia financially, but Satter said the broader picture does not necessarily strengthen Russian influence. Russia may gain from rising prices, he argued, while still appearing less capable as a protector of its partners and clients. “As for their influence, I do not think it helps them,” he said. “They were not able to defend Assad in Syria.”

Asked about speculation that Iran could transfer enriched uranium to Russia, Satter was cautious. Russia already has its own uranium resources and nuclear weapons, he noted, and he said there is no clear indication Iran would send enriched uranium to Moscow. “This is all very hypothetical,” Satter said.

A possible ceasefire remains one of the war’s most politically sensitive questions. A ceasefire along the current line of contact would halt the fighting, at least temporarily, but it would not require Ukraine to formally recognize Russian sovereignty over occupied territory. That distinction is central to Kyiv’s position: Zelenskyy has said Ukraine will not recognize occupied territory as Russian.

Satter said Ukraine might accept a ceasefire based on the existing line of contact, but not a settlement that gives Russia legal recognition over conquered territory or territory it does not fully occupy.

Smart was even more categorical about Ukraine’s red lines. Formal recognition of Russian territorial conquest, imposed neutrality, or Moscow-dictated limits on Ukraine’s future alliances would be unacceptable, he said. “Anyone arguing for territorial concessions should ask how rewarding mass violence is supposed to deter the next invasion.”

“Ukraine is not asking for a special rule,” he said. “The normal rule is enough: the invader leaves, the victim survives, and aggression is punished rather than rewarded.”

Many Ukrainians are suspicious of a ceasefire that freezes Russian occupation without making Ukraine more secure. The memory of 2014 and the Minsk process remains central: for many in Ukraine, a frozen conflict can become the preparation period for a larger war.

“A ceasefire that leaves Ukrainians under Russian occupation is not peace for the people still trapped there,” Smart said. “Everyone wants the missiles, drones, artillery, and funerals to stop,” he added, “but stopping the shooting is not enough if Russia gets time to reload.”

He said the real test of any ceasefire would be whether Ukraine becomes safer. If a ceasefire freezes Russian occupation, abandons occupied communities, leaves abducted children in Russian hands, and gives Moscow time to rebuild, many Ukrainians will see it as “a pause before the next attack.”

This also limits Zelenskyy’s room for maneuver. Smart said the Ukrainian president can negotiate sequencing, guarantees, monitoring, sanctions, prisoner exchanges, and the mechanics of stopping the shooting, but cannot sell Ukrainians a deal that makes Russia’s invasion appear successful. “Ukrainians understand painful choices,” Smart said. “They will not accept being told that Russia gets rewarded because it was brutal enough.”

For Europe, such a settlement would shape future defense spending, sanctions policy, energy relations, and the credibility of deterrence. For Russia, it would determine whether the Kremlin emerges from the war isolated and constrained or partially normalized despite the invasion. For other powers, the outcome would send a message about whether territorial conquest can be rewarded if the aggressor can absorb enough costs.

Satter warned that Western governments should not rush to normalize ties with Moscow simply because the fighting stops. “I think the relationship with the West is going to be ruined for a long time,” he said. He argued that easing sanctions without clear signs of changed Russian behavior would be unwise if the same government remains in power.

Smart framed the question in global terms. “A just end strengthens deterrence,” he said, because it shows that “borders cannot be erased by force, civilians cannot be bombed into submission, and nuclear threats do not grant the right to steal land.”

“A weak pause teaches the opposite lesson,” he warned. “Every dictatorship is watching whether Russia is punished for conquest or paid for it. If Moscow is rewarded, this war becomes a precedent. If Moscow is punished, it becomes a warning.”

For now, Putin’s language has changed more than Russia’s demands. Moscow says it is open to talks while insisting that Ukraine withdraw from territories Russia claims but does not fully control. Ukraine remains under severe pressure, but it is not defeated. The question facing Kyiv and its partners is not only whether the war can be stopped, but whether any ceasefire would make Ukraine safer—or merely give Russia time to prepare for the next phase.

Violence erupted Thursday in Bolivia’s capital city as law enforcement officers deployed tear gas against a group of miners who detonated small explosive charges while attempting to storm the presidential palace during the second week of countrywide protests.

The confrontation marks another escalation in mounting civil disorder that has challenged President Rodrigo Paz’s government since he took office late last year, beginning a new chapter for the South American country following almost two decades under single-party control.

Large numbers of miners flooded downtown La Paz demanding workplace reforms and fuel supplies, but as time went on, they started shouting demands for the president to step down.

Road blockades and protest marches have brought Bolivia’s capital to a standstill over recent days. Earlier Thursday, teachers from rural areas marched through the city’s center demanding increased pay, adding to the pressure on the capital.

The current protest movement began when agricultural workers called for the elimination of legislation allowing farmland to be used as mortgage collateral. Despite the president issuing an order Wednesday evening to cancel the law and appealing for calm, the demonstrations have kept expanding.

Officials in Egypt have put on display a remarkable plaster wall from King Tutankhamun’s burial chamber and opened two newly restored ancient tombs in Luxor that showcase scenes from daily life and burial customs from the New Kingdom era.

The plaster wall, which sealed the famous pharaoh’s tomb, represents an extraordinary piece of history that cannot be found anywhere else, according to Abdelghaffar Wagdy, director-general of Luxor Antiquities. He explained that this uniqueness stems from the fact that nearly all pharaonic burial sites were robbed throughout history.

“Therefore, it is a one-of-a-kind artifact — the only one currently on display more than 100 years after the discovery of Tutankhamun’s Tomb,” Wagdy stated during the Luxor exhibition. “It is the only surviving artifact of Tutankhamun that the world had never seen before. Recently, an Egyptian team reconstructed it.”

The Egyptian Ministry of Tourism and Antiquities describes the original plaster barrier as one of the most significant elements connected to the sealing of the tomb that British archaeologist Howard Carter uncovered in 1922.

Making its public debut at the Luxor Museum, the wall served to protect the burial chamber entrances and featured official markings that represented funeral ceremonies and governmental authority related to the monarch’s interment, the ministry noted.

According to Wagdy, the barrier displays seals from Tutankhamun along with markings from cemetery guardians who were responsible for safeguarding the tombs and preventing robbery.

The western side of the Nile River at Luxor houses the Valley of the Kings, where rulers and aristocrats from the New Kingdom period were laid to rest in chambers carved from stone.

Tutankhamun, commonly called King Tut, was among the numerous New Kingdom pharaohs interred in this location. His 14th-century B.C. burial site and complete contents were discovered in 1922.

The newly opened burial chambers belong to Rabuya and his son Samut from the 18th Dynasty, which marked the beginning of the New Kingdom dynasties. Both men worked as doorkeepers for the deity Amun, the ministry reported.

“Today we are inaugurating two very important tombs that were discovered by chance in 2015,” announced Hisham El-Leithy, secretary-general of Egypt’s Supreme Council of Antiquities.

The burial chambers feature depictions of various activities such as farming, harvesting, craftsmanship, bread making, pottery creation, and wine production.

An explosive drone attack injured four Israeli civilians Thursday in a parking lot in the Rosh Hanikra region, coinciding with the start of fresh US-facilitated peace discussions between Israeli and Lebanese officials in Washington as hostilities persist in southern Lebanon.

Medical officials at Galilee Medical Center in Nahariya reported treating one victim in critical condition and another with moderate injuries from the drone attack. The facility also received two additional injured civilians in good condition, with one already discharged and the other expected to leave the hospital shortly.

Meanwhile, Israeli and Lebanese delegates launched new discussions at State Department facilities in Washington with American mediators. An Israeli official confirmed the negotiations had begun earlier and were scheduled to continue Friday.

Combat operations along the northern border persisted as the Israel Defense Forces documented further Hezbollah assaults on Israeli military personnel deployed in southern Lebanon. The IDF Spokesperson reported that Hezbollah fired surface-to-air missiles Thursday morning at Israeli Air Force planes conducting operations over southern Lebanon. Military officials stated the missile launches were unsuccessful.

The IDF Spokesperson additionally announced that Israeli troops eliminated 20 Hezbollah fighters in southern Lebanon over the past day and attacked roughly 65 Hezbollah infrastructure locations through air and ground campaigns.

Strike targets encompassed weapons storage sites, surveillance positions, command facilities, and other infrastructure that officials said Hezbollah operatives had utilized to develop terror operations.

Officials from both Lebanon and Syria are working together regarding approximately 100 former Syrian military and intelligence personnel connected to the fallen government of Bashar Assad who are currently in Lebanon, as Damascus pursues legal channels to go after individuals who escaped across the border when the previous regime crumbled.

According to a senior Syrian security source who spoke with The Media Line, these former officers crossed into Lebanon using unofficial border points in the Bekaa Valley and northern Lebanon, then established themselves primarily in regions with political, sectarian, or security connections to Assad’s previous supporters. The source stated that Lebanese agencies are tracking their activities, while Beirut and Damascus explore potential extradition processes and broader judicial collaboration.

This matter has emerged as one of the most delicate topics in renewed Lebanese-Syrian communications. The situation involves border security, wartime responsibility, the position of Hezbollah in eastern Lebanon, and Lebanon’s extensive history of participation in Syria’s domestic matters. This development occurs as Syria’s new leadership works to strengthen control following Assad’s downfall, while Lebanon’s administration attempts to prevent becoming a support base for former regime networks.

The Syrian source indicated that some of these former officers are thought to be residing in Jabal Mohsen, a mainly Alawite neighborhood in Tripoli historically connected with pro-Assad attitudes. Additional individuals are reportedly staying in villages in the Akkar plain near the Syrian border, including locations close to the Nahr al-Kabir River. Another group is believed to be in the Baalbek-Hermel area, where Hezbollah maintains significant political and military control.

The source explained their locations were not coincidental, characterizing the arrangement as connected to local networks favorable to the former Syrian government. Lebanese security services, according to the source, have put the group under careful surveillance as authorities evaluate whether any of the former officers represent an operational danger.

The matter of handling wanted former Syrian officials came up during recent communications between Lebanese and Syrian officials, the source reported. Both nations are exploring a combined legal structure that would establish guidelines for extradition, information exchange, and judicial-security collaboration. The justice and interior ministries in both countries are anticipated to have key roles in developing this framework.

The source noted that Lebanon does not want its land used for hostile actions against Syria or any other Arab nation. Beirut, according to the source, is attempting to handle the situation through legal processes that safeguard Lebanon’s domestic stability while preventing actions that would violate international law.

Legal expert Fadi al-Hawari explained to The Media Line that the most feasible approach would be to implement the 1951 Lebanese-Syrian judicial agreement, which governs extradition and legal cooperation between the two neighboring nations.

Al-Hawari stated that Damascus would need to submit official requests through the justice ministries, identify the people being sought, and supply evidence connecting them to criminal cases already proceeding through the Syrian courts. He noted that Lebanese law prohibits extradition in matters that are political in character, requiring Syria to demonstrate that any accusations involve criminal behavior rather than political association, speech, or service in the previous government.

This distinction may prove crucial. Numerous former Syrian officers face accusations from rights organizations of participation in repression, torture, forced disappearances, and wartime violations. However, Lebanese courts would still require clear documentation, ongoing proceedings, and charges that satisfy extradition criteria. Without these elements, Beirut might encounter legal challenges or claims of handing over opponents of Syria’s new leadership for political motives.

This situation follows previous reports that Syrian authorities provided Lebanon with a list of approximately 200 former military and security personnel who escaped after Assad’s fall. The worry in Damascus is that former regime supporters might reorganize in Lebanon, particularly in border areas where Hezbollah and other pro-Assad groups have historically maintained power.

Lebanon and Syria have a permeable border, strong family and business connections, and a past influenced by Syrian military control in Lebanon from the civil war period until Syrian forces withdrew in 2005. Throughout Syria’s civil war, Lebanon took in large numbers of refugees and became a logistical, political, and military battleground for competing Syrian-aligned forces. Hezbollah participated openly on Assad’s behalf, while numerous Lebanese communities became involved in the conflict through sectarian, political, or security connections.

The present disagreement puts Lebanon’s leadership in a challenging situation. Working with Damascus might enhance border security and decrease the possibility of armed actions by former regime members. Simultaneously, extradition proceedings involving Syrians accused of political or military connections to the Assad administration could worsen domestic tensions and attract examination from human rights organizations.

The matter received additional focus after Lebanese Prime Minister Nawaf Salam traveled to Damascus on May 9 with a ministerial delegation. The trip was viewed as an attempt to restart Lebanese-Syrian relations after years of tension and to address unresolved security issues between the two nations.

During the visit, Salam stated that “senior figures of the Assad regime are not in Lebanon,” noting that many are thought to be in Russia and other nations, while only a small number stay inside Lebanon. He also mentioned that Beirut is working to stop Lebanese territory from being used for political or military actions against Syria’s new leadership.

The Syrian Network for Human Rights recently cautioned that dozens of former Syrian military and intelligence officials accused of war crimes and crimes against humanity continue to be in Lebanon. The organization stated that Lebanon should enhance judicial cooperation with Damascus and international organizations to prevent impunity, while ensuring that any action follows legal requirements.

Currently, the future of the former officers seems connected to whether Beirut and Damascus can convert their initial agreements into a working legal procedure. If the matter is managed quietly through courts and ministries, it might become part of broader normalization of relations between the two governments. If it becomes politicized, it could reopen previous Lebanese divisions regarding Syria, Hezbollah, accountability, and sovereignty.

President Trump’s diplomatic trip to China has resulted in a managed improvement in relations between the two nations, with both countries announcing intentions for enhanced trade cooperation, potential significant Chinese acquisitions of Boeing planes, and an invitation for Chinese President Xi Jinping to visit the White House, though major disagreements concerning Taiwan, trade duties, cutting-edge technology, rare earth materials, and Iran remain unaddressed.

The American president and Xi conducted meetings Thursday at Beijing’s Great Hall of the People during President Trump’s initial China visit since 2017. These discussions occurred after President Trump’s Wednesday arrival in Beijing and took place as both administrations attempted to steady their relationship following extended periods of commercial tensions and strategic competition.

Chinese leadership characterized the session as an attempt to establish a more steady partnership in the coming years. According to official summaries of the discussions, Xi informed President Trump that China and the US ought to function as ‘partners, rather than rivals.’ Simultaneously, the Chinese leader cautioned Washington to approach Taiwan with ‘utmost caution,’ stating the matter could create an ‘extremely dangerous situation’ if handled improperly.

Taiwan continues to represent the most delicate political disagreement between both nations. Beijing considers the independently governed island territory as Chinese property and has not eliminated the possibility of military action to bring it under Chinese authority. Taiwan’s leadership disputes China’s assertion and maintains that only the island’s residents can determine their destiny. Washington keeps informal ties with Taipei and provides Taiwan with military equipment, while officially acknowledging Beijing as China’s legitimate government.

The commercial aspects of the trip seemed to generate the most apparent progress. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent indicated he anticipated a substantial Chinese purchase order for Boeing aircraft to be revealed during the journey. He additionally mentioned that both nations were exploring Chinese acquisitions of US energy and farming goods, along with potential Chinese investments in non-critical areas of the American economy.

According to Bessent, Washington and Beijing were considering establishing a joint ‘Board of Trade’ and ‘Board of Investment’ to coordinate future economic cooperation. He also dismissed reports suggesting the administration was pursuing $1 trillion in Chinese investment, clarifying that such figures were not part of the negotiations.

Technology continued to be among the most scrutinized topics. The US has allegedly authorized sales of Nvidia H200 artificial intelligence processors to multiple prominent Chinese corporations, including Alibaba, Tencent, ByteDance, and JD.com, although shipments have not yet commenced. Nvidia Chief Executive Jensen Huang accompanied President Trump’s group in Beijing, demonstrating the crucial role of semiconductors and artificial intelligence in bilateral relations.

For Washington, semiconductor exports present concerns regarding profits, technological supremacy, and national security. For Beijing, this matter connects to China’s attempts to decrease reliance on US technology while preserving access to advanced equipment required for artificial intelligence advancement.

The trip also conveyed a significant business signal. Top executives from leading American corporations, including Nvidia, Tesla, and Apple, attended the Beijing meetings as Xi attempted to convince international investors that China remained welcoming to foreign business. This message arrives when international companies are evaluating Chinese market opportunities against regulatory risks, sluggish domestic consumption, and increasing geopolitical tensions.

President Trump also extended an invitation to Xi and his spouse, Peng Liyuan, to visit the White House on Sept. 24. Officials have indicated the two leaders might convene multiple times this year, including during the Group of 20 summit in Miami and the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation gathering in Guangzhou.

Iran-related conflicts also featured in the discussions. Available public information suggests diplomatic positioning rather than significant Chinese commitments. Both sides addressed Middle East tensions, energy transportation through the Strait of Hormuz, China’s position in international oil markets, and US concerns regarding sanctions implementation. China continues as a principal purchaser of Iranian petroleum, while the US seeks Beijing’s cooperation in avoiding actions that undermine pressure on Tehran.

From a ceremonial perspective, the journey appears to have proceeded without incident, featuring an official reception, a Temple of Heaven tour, a state dinner, and high-level meetings intended to demonstrate stability. In terms of substance, the visit resembles a temporary halt in ongoing competition rather than a major breakthrough. Both administrations secured valuable public relations benefits and possible business agreements, but fundamental disagreements persist.

President Trump is scheduled to depart China on Friday, May 15.

A national public radio broadcast recently explored questions surrounding the adequacy of America’s military weapons supply during the current conflict with Iran.

The radio program featured host Ailsa Chang conducting an interview with Barbara Starr, who previously served as a Pentagon correspondent for CNN, discussing the current state of the nation’s weapons inventory.

The conversation centered on whether the United States maintains sufficient military equipment and armaments to sustain operations during the ongoing war with Iran.

HAVANA, May 14 – An aircraft belonging to the American government was observed taking off from Cuba’s main airport on Thursday afternoon, a Reuters reporter witnessed firsthand, occurring several days after President Donald Trump indicated that the two long-standing rival nations were “going to talk.”

When friends tried to predict where Golda Katz would settle after moving to Israel, Jerusalem wasn’t their first guess. Most people suggested Tel Aviv would be a better fit. They had their reasons. The 25-year-old from Monsey, New York, doesn’t match what many consider the typical Jerusalem newcomer profile.

“I have a lot of tattoos and piercings, and I’m kind of alternative looking,” Katz explained. Her background includes growing up in an ultra-Orthodox household, later attending public school, studying abroad in Taiwan, and spending years involved in progressive political movements in the United States.

Her perspective shifted during a trip to Israel following the October 7 attacks. While in Jerusalem on Independence Day, Katz encountered another young woman from Monsey who had also experienced the loss of friendships and political communities after the Hamas assault. The encounter resonated deeply because it marked the first time she met someone whose experience mirrored her own.

“I never met someone who looked like me, who was proud of being Jewish and a proud Zionist and who had the same experience,” Katz shared.

The conversation that followed included words that continue to stay with her. “Goldie, you need to make Aliyah,” the woman advised. “You will find your people here.” That statement transformed the concept of relocating to Israel from abstract to concrete for Katz. “If I met her after just one day in Israel, I’ll definitely meet more people like her,” she reasoned.

Katz completed her immigration to Israel in July 2025 and chose Jerusalem as her home. The decision caught some people off guard. “A lot of people told me because of how I look that I would suit Tel Aviv,” she noted. “I look like a very Tel Aviv type.” However, Jerusalem offered something Tel Aviv couldn’t provide. “There’s just something so special about Jerusalem,” Katz observed. “The people there are authentic, and they’re real.”

New statistics from Nefesh B’Nefesh reveal that Jerusalem has maintained its appeal for North American immigrants throughout the war period. The organization reports that more than 1,000 people have relocated to the city since the previous Jerusalem Day, representing a diverse group spanning young singles, families, and retirees. Since 2002, Nefesh B’Nefesh has helped over 100,000 North American Jews immigrate to Israel, with nearly 30,000 selecting Jerusalem as their destination.

The demographic breakdown demonstrates the movement’s breadth: approximately 70 families, around 400 young singles, and roughly 180 retirees. The age range tells its own compelling story, stretching from an 11-month-old infant to a 96-year-old new resident.

Mayor Moshe Lion interpreted these numbers as proof that Jerusalem attracts people not merely as a historical or religious symbol, but as a genuine place to build lives. “Jerusalem is much more than a historic symbol or Israel’s capital city. It is a vibrant, growing city filled with opportunity, a place where people choose to build their future,” Lion stated. He highlighted “strong communities, excellent education, culture, employment opportunities, innovation, and a true sense of belonging unlike anywhere else.”

Lion also emphasized the broader significance of these immigration patterns. “Making Aliyah to Jerusalem is a powerful Zionist statement,” he declared, “and we are proud to open the doors of our city to everyone who chooses to build their lives and future in Israel’s capital.”

Katz’s upbringing was deeply connected to Israel and Judaism. Her ultra-Orthodox family remains close to her, she had Israeli relatives, and she visited for her bat mitzvah. However, as she matured, much of her identity developed within different environments, particularly leftist and progressive circles in America.

“I became very entrenched in that subculture and very passionate about social justice and a lot of progressive causes,” Katz told The Media Line.

The October 7 attacks marked a turning point. Katz anticipated that people within those circles would acknowledge what had happened to Israelis. Instead, she felt immediately rejected. A conversation with a college friend became the moment she realized something fundamental had changed.

The friend shared a video shortly after October 7, claiming that Israelis were taking pleasure in Gaza’s suffering. Katz reached out privately, attempting to explain that Israelis weren’t celebrating violence. She expected a compassionate, perhaps apologetic response.

“I expected a reaction of, ‘Oh, I’m so sorry. I didn’t know that. Please, can you share with me more information or more resources to help me understand what’s actually going on?’” Katz remembered. That wasn’t what occurred.

“Instead, what I got was antisemitism and hatred telling me that I’m wrong, that I’m evil for supporting Israel, that I don’t know what I’m talking about,” she said. Katz described receiving accusations that Israel was stealing organs, attempting to seize Gaza, and that October 7 was fabricated. “It really shocked me how someone who I thought was intelligent and had a nuanced view on the world could be so, so ignorant and so closed-minded and, honestly, so mean when I thought she was my friend.”

The impact extended beyond personal relationships. Watching protests spread across New York and other locations, Katz sensed the change wasn’t temporary. “I realized like this time is different,” she said. “Talking to people on Instagram is not going to change it. And something bad is coming.”

When explaining her choice of Jerusalem over Tel Aviv, Katz repeatedly returned to the concept of authenticity. For her, Jerusalem’s appeal wasn’t its convenience or ease, but the intentionality of people who chose to live there. “There’s an authenticity and a realness to the people who feel drawn to Jerusalem, where they feel it in their heart that that’s where they belong,” she explained. “And I felt the same way, even though I don’t necessarily fit.”

Katz doesn’t claim to represent the typical Jerusalem immigrant. Her decision stands out because she doesn’t match the profile many Israelis might expect, either politically or socially. She isn’t simply a young American continuing a familiar religious path in a more traditional setting. She arrived after discovering that movements she had trusted couldn’t accommodate her Jewish and Zionist identity following the October 7 massacre.

The newcomer demographics prove more diverse than stereotypes suggest. Nefesh B’Nefesh reports that nearly 60% of North American immigrants settling in Jerusalem are women. Many originate from New York, New Jersey, California, and Florida, with Ontario, Canada, also representing a significant source. The professional backgrounds of new immigrants include doctors, educators, lawyers, social workers, business professionals, and engineers. Physicians lead this year’s list, with 35 doctors selecting Jerusalem.

For Tony Gelbart, co-founder and chairman of Nefesh B’Nefesh, this variety reinforces a key point: “Jerusalem is not only central to the Jewish people’s history, but also a vibrant center of life and community today.” Each new immigrant contributes to “the city’s evolving story.” He expressed pride that so many immigrants now consider Jerusalem home.

The organization’s physical presence has become part of Jerusalem’s immigration infrastructure. Its Jerusalem Campus, which opened in 2021 near many national institutions, has welcomed 150,000 visitors since launching. In the past year alone, it hosted over 8,000 visitors and organized more than 100 events, including professional networking programs, educational seminars, and initiatives for lone soldiers and young families.

For Katz, however, Jerusalem’s meaning isn’t primarily found in formal programs. She discusses buses, sidewalks, and the everyday proximity of people who might not encounter each other in the same spaces elsewhere. Even her morning commute, with its crowds and frustrations, has become part of how she understands the city.

“I always come back to the diversity,” she said. “Being able to get on my bus on the way to my office in the morning, and there’s so many different people just sitting on the bus together, just enjoying, well, I don’t know about enjoying their commute, but experiencing their commute, it reminds me of how all of the Jews in Israel are so different, but yet we’re all here.”

This diversity transformed her understanding of Judaism itself. In America, she said, the Jewish communities she knew were primarily those closest to her family and background. “My family is ultra-Orthodox. Half of them are Chabad and half of them are Yeshivish,” she explained. Beyond that, she was familiar with Reform Judaism in America. Jerusalem revealed something broader.

“Honestly, moving to Jerusalem showed me just how much diversity there is amongst the Jewish people,” Katz said. “When I arrived to Jerusalem, I saw the most Orthodox of the most Orthodox, ultra-Orthodox. And then I saw people who looked like me, with tattoos, piercings, and dyed hair. People who were secular, people anywhere along the spectrum in between.”

She laughed slightly at not having understood this earlier, but emphasized the discovery was genuine. “I had no idea there was so much diversity amongst the Jewish people,” she said. “Jerusalem is very alive with all sorts of, I don’t know if contradictions is the right word, but we’re all part of the same people. We’re all Jewish people, but people are still so different from each other and have such different opinions and views.”

This gives the official immigration statistics more personal significance. The city isn’t simply absorbing people; it’s also reshaping what some understand Jewish belonging to mean. Katz said she feels “safe and at home” walking through the city because she’s surrounded by her people, even when those people don’t resemble one another.

“When push comes to shove, Israelis, for the most part, I understand there are certainly a few exceptions, but for the most part, when it comes down to it, Israelis will have your back when you need them,” she said. “Jewish people will have your back when you need them.”

This year’s Jerusalem Day also finds the city again at the center of Israel’s diplomatic efforts. Deputy Prime Minister and Justice Minister Yariv Levin, who also oversees the Jerusalem Affairs portfolio, used an official visit to Romania this week to request that the Romanian Embassy be relocated to Jerusalem. Speaking to a special joint session of the Romanian parliament marking the Day of Solidarity between Romania and Israel, Levin connected the city’s status to international recognition of Israel’s historical rights.

“The heart of the Holy Land is our eternal capital, Jerusalem,” Levin stated. “After many years of denial of our historical rights in our capital, President Trump moved the United States Embassy in Israel to Jerusalem. He was followed by other prominent leaders from a growing number of countries.”

Levin then made a direct request to Romanian leaders. “I believe that the Romanian flag deserves to be raised in the city of the great kings, David and Solomon,” he said. He also characterized Israel as defending democratic values and criticized those he said use international law against Israel while failing to support Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in the fight against terror.

For Israeli officials, Jerusalem remains a diplomatic challenge. For municipal leaders and immigration organizations, it represents a city of growth, services, communities, and future residents. For Katz, the matter is more personal and, in some ways, more historical. She reflects on the generations of Jews who wanted to return to Jerusalem but couldn’t.

“For thousands of years, there were Jewish people around the world in the diaspora who wanted nothing more than to be able to return to Jerusalem safely,” she said. “It’s a privilege that I, from my comfy life in America, I live in a period of time where I can choose to just go to Jerusalem and live in Jerusalem and live in the land of my people.”

That privilege, she said, became impossible to ignore. “Who am I to not take this amazing opportunity?” Katz asked.

When asked why North American immigrants, including young people, would choose Jerusalem over places that might feel more familiar to an American lifestyle, Katz pointed to what she described as a spiritual attraction. “In the diaspora, obviously, we have synagogues, and we have Jewish community centers, but we’re very far removed from the center of Judaism,” she said. “When we have the chance to go to Israel, why not go right to the heart of it?”

Katz understands that Jerusalem is political. She knows it carries the weight of history and conflict. But when asked what the city means to her now, she didn’t start with policy. She began with a feeling of being close to the center of something she had inherited long before she arrived.

“Jerusalem is, I think, the beating heart of Israel,” she said. “You have everyone from everywhere. You’re in the center of it all. I mean, obviously, the political center of Israel, but like the cultural center and the spiritual center and just the authentic, like the center of authenticity, I feel is in Jerusalem.”

She then attempted to describe what it’s like to live near the Old City, in a place where so much of Jewish memory isn’t confined to books or prayers but exists just outside the door. Katz said she knows Israel isn’t literally the cradle of civilization, but Jerusalem feels that way to her.

“It feels like the center of the world to me,” she said.

Israel Aerospace Industries has made history by selecting its current chief executive Boaz Levy to simultaneously serve as board chairman, creating the first dual leadership arrangement of its kind among Israeli government-owned enterprises.

The groundbreaking appointment became official on May 13 when Defense Minister Israel Katz and Minister in charge of the Government Companies Authority Dudi Amsalem executed the formal appointment documentation. Levy’s selection followed board approval and clearance from the Senior Appointments Committee.

This decision establishes Levy in combined leadership positions at Israel Aerospace Industries, recognized as among Israel’s most significant government-controlled defense contractors. Levy has held the chief executive position since 2020.

Katz characterized the decision as an “unprecedented step” that combines “deep managerial, technological and defense experience” during Israel’s current push for enhanced military independence through what he termed a comprehensive strategic initiative.

“Prime Minister Netanyahu and I are leading a broad-based strategic plan, with an investment of hundreds of billions of shekels, to build the military power of the State of Israel and achieve self-reliance in defense,” Katz said. He added that IAI plays “a key role in this national process.”

Amsalem indicated the selection demonstrates trust in Levy’s capabilities and aims to preserve organizational stability while enhancing the company’s global reputation and its contributions to Israel’s economic and security interests.

Levy outlined his intentions to broaden the organization’s defense and commercial operations, promote technological advancement, and expand international market presence.

“IAI is a strategic asset to the State of Israel, combining technological excellence with a national mission,” Levy said. He also thanked the company’s employees and management for what he described as “unprecedented security, technological and business achievements.”

Levy began his career at IAI in 1990 as an engineering professional working on the Arrow program and subsequently managed multiple significant defense initiatives, including the Barak program and the organization’s air-defense systems operations.

Iraq’s legislative body confirmed 14 cabinet members out of 23 proposed positions on Thursday for Prime Minister-designate Ali al-Zaidi’s administration, while encountering obstacles with several key ministerial nominations.

Among the 270 legislators present for the vote, approval was granted for 14 positions in the proposed cabinet. The majority of confirmed ministers are new to government roles, though foreign minister Fuad Hussein kept his current position.

Three candidates for interior minister, higher education minister and planning minister positions were rejected by parliamentary vote. Decisions on additional roles including defense, labor, housing and reconstruction, and education ministers were delayed indefinitely.

Political gridlock frequently characterizes Iraqi governance, often resulting in extended periods without functioning leadership.

A power-sharing system divides ministerial positions among political groups, with the leading parliamentary coalition – the Coordination Framework, consisting of Shiite parties with Iranian ties – selecting 12 ministers. Sunni factions choose six positions, Kurdish groups pick four, and religious minorities select one.

The incoming administration must address political and economic consequences from the U.S.-Israeli conflict with Iran, which affected Iraq while Strait of Hormuz restrictions have interrupted oil shipments that support Iraq’s financial system.

Legislative approval was given to a government agenda focusing on enhanced public services, resolving electricity shortages, and maintaining economic stability, alongside anti-corruption efforts, administrative reform, and judicial system strengthening.

The approved plan contains measures for limiting weapons to state control, though practical implementation may prove challenging.

Several Iran-supported armed groups operate within Iraq, and these organizations repeatedly targeted U.S. military installations and diplomatic compounds during the recent U.S.-Israeli conflict with Iran. Washington has pressured Baghdad to restrain these armed organizations, while Tehran likely opposes their disarmament.

Two Coordination Framework representatives, speaking anonymously due to lack of authorization, revealed that Quds Force commander Esmail Qaani from Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps directed multiple Shiite political and militia leaders to avoid disarmament actions currently, postponing the matter pending clarity on U.S.-Iran diplomatic talks.

These sources indicated Qaani also recommended delaying votes on ministry positions connected to political groups with armed affiliates.

Al-Zaidi, a business leader without political experience, became the agreed-upon prime ministerial choice following extensive discussions within Coordination Framework member parties seeking a compromise leader for the next government. Both U.S. and Iranian officials endorsed his selection. Iraq maintains significant relationships with both competing nations and has historically balanced between their interests.

U.S. envoy to Iraq Tom Barrack congratulated al-Zaidi on government formation through a social media post, stating: “We are encouraged by your fresh leadership and look forward to collaborating on a bold new agenda aligned with our shared interests.”

Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi offered congratulations to al-Zaidi in his own message and also praised Iraqi Foreign Minister Fuad Hussein on his reappointment.

“Expanding friendly and brotherly relations between Tehran and Baghdad remains, at all times, a top priority of our foreign policy,” he stated.

TAPACHULA, Mexico — Desperate family members are combing Mexico’s southern coastline searching for 40 migrants who disappeared while attempting a treacherous sea voyage toward the United States border on Christmas Eve 2024.

Among the missing is Elianis Caridad Morejón Pérez, a young woman from Cuba who made her last phone call to her mother before boarding a vessel in San José El Hueyate, a community in Chiapas state. Her final words indicated she had secured a life jacket and was preparing to depart on what smugglers call one of the most hazardous maritime routes for migrants.

This month, her mother Isis Pérez traveled to the same border village near Guatemala to conduct her own investigation. Joined by other family members of the vanished migrants from Cuba, Honduras and Ecuador, they examined the San José El Hueyate dock, took boats along the Pacific shoreline, and questioned local business owners and residents.

While Pérez gathered no definitive leads, multiple locals remembered that before the second Trump presidency began in January 2025, numerous vehicles regularly brought migrants to the area for ocean transport.

That migration pattern dropped significantly last year as the United States intensified deportation operations, returning migrants to their origin countries or transferring them to third nations that agreed to receive them.

“As family members, we live in constant torment and anguish, longing to find them,” said Óscar Hernández, a Honduran man who traveled to Chiapas in hopes of locating his brother, who is among the disappeared.

The International Organization for Migration’s Missing Migrants Project has documented 11,475 migrant disappearances or deaths along the South America to United States corridor since 2014, with more than half occurring within Mexico.

A recent IOM analysis identifies multiple smuggling harbors operating since 2021. The typical pattern involves migrants boarding small dual-engine vessels in Puerto de Ocós, Guatemala, then making stops for fuel and supplies at Chiapas ports including Puerto Madero, San José, Barra de Zacapulco, and Paredón. The journey concludes with arrivals in Salina Cruz or Huatulco, Oaxaca, where travelers continue northward overland.

Family members of some missing persons say the 40 migrants who vanished in late 2024 were rushing to reach America before U.S. President Donald Trump’s second term began, worried he would eliminate the more lenient immigration approaches of his Democratic predecessor, Joe Biden.

Among the disappeared were Cubans Meiling Álvarez Bravo, 41, and her 15-year-old son, Samei Armando Reyes Álvarez.

“On Dec. 21, 2024, at 8 a.m., she told me they were going to have breakfast because they were about to cross toward Mexico City by boat,” recounted Julia Margarita Bravo Díaz, Meiling’s mother and the boy’s grandmother.

The mother and teenager had flown from Cuba to Nicaragua before making an overland journey through Honduras and Guatemala into Mexico. According to relatives of four missing individuals, the pair initially had no knowledge their route to the U.S. border would involve ocean travel.

Locating missing individuals in Mexico presents enormous challenges on land, but becomes exponentially more complex at sea, explained Ana Enamorado, coordinator of the nonprofit Regional Network of Migrant Families.

From July through November 2025, the Mexican Navy conducted rescue operations for 22 migrants — six from ocean shipwrecks and 16 from coastal areas as they prepared to depart from Chiapas. Responding to these dangers, Mexican officials announced in March they had expanded ocean surveillance operations with Guatemalan authorities to combat both narcotics trafficking and unauthorized migrant movement toward North America.

The mothers and family members of the 40 migrants who disappeared in late December 2024 acknowledge that while they must return to their home nations, their investigation will continue from a distance.

“We are leaving with heavy hearts but with the hope of finding them,” said Pérez. “We ask that you help us search, help us find them.”

BEIRUT (AP) — High-level representatives from Israel and Lebanon began their third round of face-to-face negotiations in Washington on Thursday, racing against time as a temporary ceasefire nears its expiration date while combat between Israeli forces and the Lebanese militant organization Hezbollah persists.

Officials from Lebanon express optimism that these two-day discussions will produce a lasting ceasefire agreement and create a pathway to address complex challenges, such as removing Israeli military units from southern Lebanese territory and dismantling Hezbollah’s arsenal.

The Trump administration has been working to achieve a diplomatic breakthrough between these neighboring nations, which have remained technically at war since Israel’s establishment in 1948.

However, Hezbollah remains excluded from these discussions and has publicly condemned Lebanon’s participation in face-to-face negotiations with Israel.

Despite a U.S.-mediated ceasefire implemented on April 17, Israel and the Iranian-supported militant organization have maintained almost continuous exchanges of fire along their shared border. The initial 10-day pause in hostilities was subsequently extended for an additional three weeks.

U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who participated in the initial Israel-Lebanon meetings in Washington during April, was accompanying President Donald Trump on a diplomatic trip to China and was absent from Thursday’s session.

These current discussions mark progress toward more substantive negotiations, featuring senior-level representatives from both Lebanon and Israel, following earlier preparatory meetings led by each nation’s ambassadors to Washington.

Simon Karam, Lebanon’s lead negotiator for Thursday’s talks, serves as a lawyer and well-connected former Lebanese ambassador to the United States who recently represented Lebanon in indirect discussions with Israel regarding ceasefire implementation that preceded the most recent outbreak of hostilities between Israel and Hezbollah. Israel’s delegation was expected to include Deputy National Security Adviser Yossi Draznin.

Substantial differences persist regarding what each side hopes to achieve through direct negotiations. Israeli representatives have emphasized dismantling Hezbollah and characterized the talks as potentially leading to normalized diplomatic ties. Lebanese representatives have indicated they seek a security arrangement or armistice that would fall short of full normalization.

Trump has publicly advocated for a meeting between Lebanese President Joseph Aoun and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, though Aoun has refused to meet or communicate directly with Netanyahu at this time — a decision that would likely provoke domestic criticism in Lebanon.

A senior Lebanese official with knowledge of the Washington negotiations said Thursday that Lebanon seeks a comprehensive ceasefire initially, followed by negotiations over Israeli force withdrawal. The matter of Hezbollah’s weaponry would be addressed through Lebanon’s political processes afterward, he explained. The official requested anonymity to discuss the talks candidly.

He indicated Lebanon is “relying heavily on the U.S. administration” to provide negotiating leverage against Israel and believes Trump is “sincere” in his commitment to assist Lebanon.

The official reported that during Trump and Aoun’s recent conversation, Trump did not pressure Aoun to meet or speak with Netanyahu and showed understanding when Aoun explained his refusal. According to the official, Aoun informed Trump that meeting and shaking hands with Netanyahu in Washington, only to have talks collapse later, could create domestic consequences in Lebanon and damage Trump’s credibility.

Aoun informed Trump that if both countries successfully negotiate a security agreement, he would visit the White House to “inaugurate” it, to which Trump replied “I like that,” the official stated.

Should Israel agree to a ceasefire and withdraw from occupied southern Lebanese territory, the official believes Hezbollah would accept an arrangement where it transfers its weapons to Lebanon’s army, which could retain some and destroy others. This plan could include allowing individual Hezbollah fighters to enlist in Lebanon’s army if they satisfy eligibility criteria, he explained.

Meanwhile, Israeli Ambassador to the U.S. Yechiel Leiter told Israeli news site Walla News Thursday that Israel seeks “to negotiate for full peace as if Hezbollah does not exist — borders, embassies, visas, tourism, everything.” Despite Lebanese officials’ statements that diplomatic normalization is not currently under consideration, he expressed belief that “it is possible to reach such an agreement within a few months.” However, he noted, “it would be conditioned on the success of the second track — dismantling Hezbollah.”

Thursday’s negotiations began hours after a Hezbollah drone detonated within Israel, wounding three civilians, two critically, according to Israeli military and hospital sources. This marked the first civilian casualties from Hezbollah projectiles since the ceasefire began, based on reports from Israel’s rescue service, Magen David Adom.

Israel has found it challenging to prevent regular Hezbollah drone strikes against Israeli forces in southern Lebanon and across the border in northern Israel.

Israel has maintained its strikes within Lebanon. On Wednesday, Israeli forces hit seven vehicles in Lebanon — three on the primary highway south of Beirut — resulting in 12 deaths including a woman and her two children, Lebanon’s Health Ministry reported. Subsequent strikes in southern Lebanon killed an additional 10 people, including six children, the ministry stated.

Lebanon’s Health Ministry reports that since fighting began on March 2, 2,896 people have died — approximately 400 since the nominal ceasefire took effect — with 8,824 injured. On the Israeli side, 18 Israeli soldiers, two Israeli civilians within Israel, and one defense contractor working in southern Lebanon have been killed.

U.N. peacekeeping forces in southern Lebanon have also suffered casualties, with six deaths reported.

DAKAR, Senegal (AP) — New research published Thursday reveals that violence has escalated markedly across multiple African nations following former President Donald Trump’s abrupt elimination of the U.S. Agency for International Development last year, which had served as a major international aid provider.

The study authors stopped short of directly attributing the violence surge to the USAID termination, but emphasized their findings illustrate how “large-scale, sudden aid cuts can destabilize fragile settings.” The researchers clarified this doesn’t prove increased aid prevents conflict, but rather highlights “the effect of a sudden and unexpected disruption.”

USAID had delivered essential assistance to African nations devastated by conflict and violence for decades. The Trump administration’s elimination of over 90% of foreign aid agreements effectively slashed approximately $60 billion in assistance.

European and American university researchers conducting the study noted that the sudden termination of USAID resources also disrupted existing agreements, personnel arrangements, and aid distribution networks.

“The abrupt withdrawal of USAID led to a significant and sustained increase in conflict across Africa’s most USAID-dependent regions,” the researchers wrote in their findings published in the Science journal.

The investigation analyzed whether USAID’s immediate shutdown correlated with increased violence in African areas that had historically received substantial support, discovering a clear connection.

Conflict specialists indicate Africa currently faces greater jihadi threats than any other global region. The Armed Conflict Location & Event Data, or ACLED, reported Wednesday that regional jihadis have escalated their involvement in widespread violence and increasingly targeted civilians over the past four years.

For years, USAID served as the primary funding source for numerous African countries, delivering resources that enabled governments and humanitarian organizations to address various crises across multiple sectors.

Nigeria exemplifies this relationship, where USAID assistance supported victims of the militant Boko Haram organization, active since 2002. In Ethiopia’s unstable Tigray region, local officials depended extensively on U.S. funding while comprehensive recovery initiatives remained stalled following warfare that claimed hundreds of thousands of lives.

Additionally, in northern Ivory Coast, positioned at the forefront of global anti-extremism efforts, USAID had committed substantial financial resources to combat the expansion of al-Qaida and the Islamic State group.

Nathaniel Raymond, executive director of the Humanitarian Research Lab at the Yale School of Public Health, who wasn’t involved in the research, emphasized the study’s findings highlight the enduring consequences of funding reductions.

“The lasting problem with the shuttering of USAID is likely going to be that for much of its conflict prevention work, even if you put back all the money … the experience is gone,” Raymond said.

Furthermore, certain USAID initiatives may have prevented conflict expansion beyond affected zones, according to Ladd Serwat, senior Africa analyst at ACLED.

“We now see increasing insurgency and spillover, so some of those programs may have supported these communities from insurgent threats, and now they are no longer active,” said Serwat.

UNITED NATIONS — On Thursday, the Trump administration revealed plans to provide an additional $1.8 billion in humanitarian funding to the United Nations, with officials stating the resources will support disaster relief efforts, combat famine, and assist “people who are truly in critical need.”

This funding will be distributed throughout the next year and supplements the $2 billion commitment made by the Trump administration in December. During a press conference, Mike Waltz, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, described this new funding as just “the latest step.”

While the contribution represents less than historical U.S. funding levels, President Donald Trump’s administration views it as a substantial commitment that preserves America’s position as the world’s leading humanitarian contributor.

The Trump administration has reduced billions in U.S. foreign assistance, forcing U.N. agencies to cut expenditures, terminate aid programs and eliminate thousands of positions. Additional traditional U.N. contributors including Britain, France, Germany and Japan have similarly decreased their aid commitments.

U.N. humanitarian chief Tom Fletcher described his agency as “overstretched, underresourced and literally under attack” and emphasized its 2026 goal to assist 87 million of the world’s most vulnerable people with $23 billion in funding — despite 300 million people requiring humanitarian assistance.

Prior to Waltz’s announcement, he noted, the U.N. had secured approximately $7.4 billion. He characterized the United States as “the single largest national donor” to the United Nations.

Waltz criticized what he described as a media narrative suggesting the U.S. has abandoned helping those in need, calling it “absolutely false.”

Under Trump’s leadership, the U.S. has adopted a selective approach to United Nations dues payments, choosing which operations and agencies align with Trump’s priorities while avoiding those that no longer serve U.S. interests. The State Department has stated “individual U.N. agencies will need to adapt, shrink, or die.”

Critics argue the Western aid reductions have been misguided, pushing millions toward starvation, displacement or illness, and weakening U.S. soft power globally.

A catastrophic breakdown of Cuba’s electrical infrastructure occurred Thursday morning, leaving the island’s eastern regions without power as the capital continues to endure extended blackouts, government officials reported.

The Caribbean nation’s deteriorating electrical system has steadily declined over recent years during an extended financial crisis, worsened by a U.S. energy blockade affecting the island where 10 million residents face daily hardships.

Officials from the state-run Electric Union reported that the system failure had cut electricity to all eastern regions spanning from Guantánamo to Ciego de Ávila, with repair teams working to restore service, though no timeline was provided for restoration.

One day earlier, Cuban President Miguel Díaz-Canel had characterized the power situation as “tense” following the depletion of oil supplies that arrived via Russian tanker in late March. The island nation generates only about 40% of the fuel required to operate its economy.

Moscow has announced intentions to dispatch another fuel vessel to Cuba in early April. Russian media outlets report the oil tanker departed from the Russian Baltic port of Vysotsk in January but has remained stationary in Atlantic waters for several weeks.

Electrical outages in Havana, where officials have implemented power rationing, extended to 24 straight hours on Thursday.

Wednesday night, Associated Press reporters witnessed citizens across multiple neighborhoods protesting the blackouts by banging cookware and igniting garbage containers. Subsequently, Energy and Mines Minister Vicente de la O Levy appeared on Cuban television to classify the power situation as “critical.”

While Cuba’s electrical infrastructure is deteriorating, officials have also attributed the outages to U.S. sanctions following President Donald Trump’s January warning of tariffs against nations selling or supplying oil to Cuba. The Trump administration has insisted that Cuba free political prisoners and pursue political and economic reforms in exchange for sanctions relief.

The power failures have resulted in shortened work schedules and food spoilage as refrigeration units fail. Medical facilities have postponed surgical procedures in some instances.

The International Monetary Fund expressed approval Thursday for recent diplomatic engagement between the United States and China, stating that decreased friction between the world’s two economic powerhouses benefits global markets.

During a Washington news briefing, IMF spokesperson Julie Kozack emphasized the significance of high-level communication between the economic superpowers when discussing outcomes from the Trump-Xi summit held in Beijing.

“It’s very important, of course, that the world’s two largest economies are engaging at the highest level,” Kozack stated during the briefing.

“We certainly welcome the fact that there’s a constructive dialogue between the two countries. Anything that is going to help reduce trade tensions and reduce uncertainty is good for both of those large economies, and, of course, good for the global economy as well,” she continued.

The spokesperson noted that ongoing Middle East warfare and Iran’s blockade of the Strait of Hormuz have driven oil prices beyond $100 per barrel, pushing the world economy toward the IMF’s middle-range projection from its April World Economic Outlook report.

Under this “adverse scenario,” worldwide real GDP growth would drop to 2.5% this year, down from the 3.1% predicted in the organization’s more optimistic “reference forecast” that anticipates swift conflict resolution, and below the 3.4% growth projected for 2025.

This unfavorable projection assumes oil remains at $100 per barrel throughout the year while also factoring in tighter financial conditions and increased inflation expectations.

Despite elevated energy costs driving up short-term price increase expectations, Kozack said the IMF considers medium-term inflation expectations to be stable. She added that global financial conditions remain “accommodative.”

The monetary organization continues exploring potential financial support for member nations struggling with increased energy and commodity expenses resulting from Middle East hostilities. However, Kozack provided no specifics about particular countries or responded to reports that Iraq has requested financial aid.

During spring meetings in April, International Monetary Fund Managing Director Kristalina Georgieva indicated that approximately 12 countries would likely require assistance totaling $20 billion to $50 billion from the IMF and World Bank, with both institutions coordinating on optimal support strategies.

Kozack declined to update those estimates.

“Right now, what we’re seeing is that many countries are actually asking us for support in the policy area,” she explained. “They’re asking us for policy advice. How can they best respond to the shock given the individual country circumstances?”

In April, the Fund advised member nations against implementing widespread fuel subsidies that would deplete limited government resources and increase oil demand during supply shortages, further driving up prices.

AMMAN, Jordan — Two opposing factions in Yemen’s ongoing conflict have struck an agreement to exchange more than 1,600 prisoners, marking the most significant detainee swap since the civil war began 11 years ago.

The agreement was finalized in Jordan’s capital following 14 weeks of diplomatic discussions, with United Nations representatives and International Committee of the Red Cross officials serving as witnesses to the process.

According to Abdelkader al-Murtada, who leads the Houthis’ National Committee for Prisoners’ Affairs and participated in the discussions, approximately 1,100 of the nearly 1,700 prisoners are connected to the Houthi movement. The remaining 580 individuals set for release by the opposing faction include seven Saudi nationals and 20 Sudanese citizens.

Government delegation leader Yahya Kazman announced on social media platform X that “a number of politicians and media professionals” currently held by the Houthis would also gain their freedom, though he provided no additional specifics.

U.N. Special Envoy for Yemen Hans Grundberg described the arrangement as covering the most extensive release of “conflict-related detainees.” The International Committee of the Red Cross confirmed in an official statement that both warring parties have reached consensus on which prisoners will be freed and expressed readiness to assist with their return home.

Officials have not yet announced when the prisoner releases will commence.

Grundberg noted that this agreement stems from diplomatic talks conducted in Oman during December 2025, when both sides explored the possibility of releasing 2,900 detainees.

Yemen’s civil conflict erupted in 2014 after the Iran-backed Houthis captured Sanaa, the nation’s capital, along with large portions of northern territory, forcing the recognized government to flee the country. The following year, a coalition led by Saudi Arabia and including the United Arab Emirates launched military intervention aimed at restoring governmental authority.

The prolonged warfare has devastated Yemen’s economic system and created what the World Food Program describes as “severe” food shortages across northern regions.

LONDON (AP) — British Prime Minister Keir Starmer finds himself in political turmoil as his Labour Party faces mounting pressure following devastating losses in recent local elections.

Health Secretary Wes Streeting stepped down from his Cabinet position on Thursday, marking the first senior government official to resign, though he has not yet formally announced his anticipated campaign to challenge Starmer’s leadership.

The electoral losses appear to be the breaking point for a leader already facing criticism over his choice to name Peter Mandelson as Britain’s ambassador to Washington, given the seasoned politician’s connections to Jeffrey Epstein.

Over 90 Labour members of parliament are demanding Starmer resign to allow for a leadership competition to select a new leader who would assume the role of prime minister, with several junior government officials also stepping down.

Despite the pressure, Starmer maintains he will remain in position, and no official leadership challenge has been initiated.

Though no clear favorite has emerged to succeed Starmer, several prominent figures are being considered for the leadership role:

At 43, Wes Streeting is viewed as among the government’s most effective speakers and has spearheaded efforts to reform the struggling National Health Service.

His commitment to healthcare reform stems from personal experience, as the NHS treated him for kidney cancer, leading Streeting to pledge he would help save the health service in return.

First elected to parliament in 2015, Streeting has long been thought to harbor ambitions for the top position, though he previously denied any plans to challenge Starmer.

He documented his journey from London’s working-class East End, where he was raised in public housing, in his book “One Boy, Two Bills and a Fry Up: A Memoir of Growing Up and Getting On.” The title references his two grandfathers named Bill: his mother’s father had criminal associations and was imprisoned for armed robbery, while he credits his father’s father with guiding him toward Cambridge University.

Streeting entered politics early, heading the Cambridge student union and serving as president of the National Union of Students.

He subsequently worked for Stonewall, the LGBT organization, and has discussed his challenges with coming out as gay while maintaining his Anglican faith.

Former Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner has distinguished herself as an unconventional politician with a remarkable background story. Raised in social housing, she left school at 16 after becoming a teenage mother.

The 46-year-old Rayner was involved in trade unions before winning election to parliament in 2015 and represents the party’s left wing. She quickly advanced through Labour’s leadership ranks during their opposition years and won election as deputy leader in 2020.

While Rayner commands substantial party support, she was compelled to leave government last year after acknowledging she underpaid taxes on a property transaction. On Thursday, she announced she had resolved the matter with tax officials in what seems to signal preparation for a potential leadership bid.

Following controversy over the Epstein document revelations regarding Mandelson, Rayner spearheaded a parliamentary rebellion that forced the government to transfer authority to Parliament’s Intelligence and Security Committee for determining which documents should be made public.

Former Cabinet official Andy Burnham, the well-regarded, center-left Greater Manchester mayor, has long been viewed as a possible challenger to Starmer. However, his leadership chances suffered when Labour prevented him from running as the party’s parliamentary candidate in a special February election.

According to established tradition, the prime minister must hold a parliamentary seat. Burnham’s allies prefer postponing any leadership contest to allow him time to return to the House of Commons through a special election.

The 56-year-old Burnham held senior positions in previous Labour administrations, including culture secretary and health secretary.

Energy Secretary Ed Miliband previously led the Labour Party, but his five-year tenure as opposition leader concluded with the party’s 2015 electoral defeat. The 56-year-old Miliband has publicly downplayed interest in returning to the leadership role, though he ranks among the Cabinet’s most seasoned members.

Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood, 45, handles one of government’s most challenging portfolios, managing immigration and law enforcement. She has gained favor among Labour’s right wing through her efforts to strengthen border security and combat illegal immigration.

The former Royal Marine who served honorably in Afghanistan currently serves as armed forces minister in Starmer’s Labour administration and has gained prominence within the party since his initial election to Parliament during Labour’s 2024 electoral triumph.

At 46, Carns possesses a compelling personal narrative that might appeal to various Labour factions. Beyond his distinguished Afghan service, which earned him the Military Cross in 2011, Carns was born to a single mother in a working-class family in the Scottish oil community of Aberdeen.

“We do not need more slogans, strategies, press releases or commissions,” Carns wrote in a Thursday article for The New Statesman magazine, “We need action.”

His limited experience could prove problematic. Replacing a leader criticized for poor political judgment with a political newcomer, despite their compelling background, might pose risks.

International organizations report that Afghanistan’s ruling Taliban have taken at least three journalists into custody in recent days without revealing specific charges against them.

On Thursday, the United Nations mission in Afghanistan voiced “serious concern” about these arrests and “reports of assaults against journalists and confiscation of property during search operations by the de facto authorities.”

Afghanistan has become one of the globe’s most restrictive nations for media freedom since the Taliban returned to power in 2021, with Reporters without Borders placing it at 175th position out of 180 countries in their 2026 rankings.

“A free, independent, and safe press is essential for transparency, accountability, and the well-being of Afghan society,” the U.N. mission stated, calling on authorities “to uphold their obligations under international human rights law and ensure that journalists can do their work without fear of intimidation, harassment, or reprisal.”

On Wednesday, Afghanistan’s Ministry of Information and Culture confirmed that two TOLONews journalists were taken into custody “a few days ago.” Officials provided no explanation for the arrests but noted their situation remains “under investigation. The court has not yet ruled on them.”

TOLONews confirmed through social media that the detained journalists are Imran Danish and Mansoor Niazi, both arrested in Kabul. “Security officials told TOLONews that details will be shared after the relevant legal procedures are completed,” the news outlet reported.

Danish serves as a political editor for the channel while Niazi works as an anchor.

The Committee to Protect Journalists demanded their immediate freedom and reported that authorities conducted “a sweeping raid” on the broadcaster and its parent company, Moby Group, following the arrests.

The arrests and subsequent raid “underscores the climate of fear facing journalists in Afghanistan,” stated Kunal Majumder, the CPJ Asia-Pacific Program Coordinator, in a Tuesday release. “Taliban authorities must immediately and unconditionally release the detained journalists and ensure the press can operate without interference.”

The Afghanistan Journalists Center, which advocates for media freedom, reported that a third journalist, Jawid Niazi, who operates the Paigard private news agency, has also been taken into custody. The organization indicated he was detained on May 6.

The organization demanded immediate and unconditional freedom for all detained journalists. “AFJC urges the Taliban to cease all efforts to suppress media freedom, including threats, arrests, and intimidation tactics that undermine the vital role of journalism in Afghan society,” their statement declared.

Previous journalist arrests by Afghan authorities have involved various accusations. In 2022, three TOLO journalists were detained over coverage reporting that the new government had prohibited all foreign drama series broadcasts. They were subsequently freed. In 2023, the Taliban released a French-Afghan journalist who had been held for more than 280 days after a court dismissed espionage and other allegations against him.

A global hunger monitoring organization announced Thursday that more than four in ten people living in conflict-ravaged Sudan are experiencing severe levels of acute food insecurity, with conditions projected to persist through May as the nation’s war nears its fourth year.

According to the Integrated Food Security Phase Classification, or IPC, nearly 19.5 million individuals are confronting this critical level of food insecurity. Among these, 135,000 people have reached Phase 5 conditions, defined by “extreme food gaps, starvation, very high levels of malnutrition, and death due to disease or acute malnutrition.”

The monitoring group’s assessment warns that circumstances will likely worsen during the coming June through September lean season. “Conditions are expected to deteriorate further in the upcoming June–September lean season,” the IPC assessment statement read. The organization projects that approximately 825,000 children under age 5 will experience severe acute malnutrition in 2026 due to restricted access to medical care, representing a 7% rise from the previous year and a 25% jump from pre-conflict numbers.

Treatment data shows that more than 98,500 children received care for severe acute malnutrition during the January through March period, the IPC reported.

Sudan’s armed conflict began in April 2023 when escalating tensions between military forces and the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces exploded into comprehensive warfare. The violence has claimed at least 59,000 lives, forced 13 million people from their homes, and driven numerous regions into famine conditions. Humanitarian aid is needed by more than 30 million residents.

While Thursday’s IPC report found no current famine conditions, it cautioned that 14 locations across North Darfur, South Darfur, and South Kordofan provinces face famine risk should fighting escalate, food availability decrease, medical and sanitation services deteriorate, or population displacement expand.

Previous assessments confirmed famine conditions in el-Fasher, a significant city in western Darfur, and in Kadugli, located in South Kordofan.

Agricultural producers throughout Sudan are preparing for a costly planting period as expenses for fertilizers, gasoline for farming machinery, and diesel for irrigation equipment rise due to Middle Eastern conflicts.

The Gulf area, where numerous commercial vessels have remained stuck for weeks because of Iran’s control over the Strait of Hormuz, supplies more than half of Sudan’s sea-imported fertilizer. Energy costs have surged approximately 30%.

China intensified its aggressive position regarding Taiwan on Thursday, cautioning the United States that the two superpowers could face “clashes and even conflicts” if Taiwan matters aren’t managed appropriately.

During a summit meeting with U.S. President Donald Trump, China’s President Xi Jinping emphasized that the “Taiwan question” represents the most critical matter affecting relations between the two nations, based on an official statement from China’s foreign ministry.

“‘Taiwan independence’ and cross-Strait peace are as irreconcilable as fire and water,” Xi declared to Trump, the ministry’s statement revealed.

The Chinese leader’s harsh language demonstrates Beijing’s mounting pressure on America, which serves as Taiwan’s primary unofficial partner. While U.S. law mandates ensuring Taiwan maintains defensive capabilities, Washington officially follows what experts call strategic ambiguity — avoiding clear commitments about potential military intervention should China attempt forcible reunification.

“If it is handled properly, the bilateral relationship will enjoy overall stability. Otherwise, the two countries will have clashes and even conflicts, putting the entire relationship in great jeopardy,” Xi stated, the ministry reported.

China has already intensified efforts in recent years to persuade Taiwan’s diplomatic partners to switch allegiances while escalating military intimidation around the island.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio declared Thursday that America’s Taiwan policy remains “unchanged” while cautioning that Chinese military action against Taiwan would constitute “a terrible mistake.”

“U.S. policy on the issue of Taiwan is unchanged as of today,” he stated during an NBC News interview.

The mainland and Taiwan have operated under separate governments since 1949, following the Communist Party’s victory in Beijing after civil warfare. Defeated Nationalist forces retreated to Taiwan, which eventually evolved from military rule into a multi-party democratic system.

Beijing considers independently-governed Taiwan a rebellious territory that must be reclaimed through force if needed.

Tensions between the mainland and Taiwan have escalated since Taiwan initially elected Tsai Ing-wen as president in 2016. Her Democratic Progressive Party maintains Taiwan operates as an independent, sovereign nation. China suspended most official communications with Taiwan’s administration. Recently, Beijing has deployed naval vessels and military aircraft near the island almost continuously.

The Chinese president has previously declared China would “surely be reunified” with Taiwan, home to approximately 23 million residents.

Apart from political considerations, Taiwan serves as a crucial producer of AI servers, semiconductor chips and advanced manufacturing equipment. The artificial intelligence surge has driven Taiwan’s top tech firms to unprecedented earnings and sales.

Experts suggest Xi’s statements reveal China’s concerns about strengthening defense cooperation between Taiwan and America.

“If China had secured any meaningful concession on Taiwan from Trump, it would have been reflected” in Beijing’s official summary of the leaders’ discussion, explained William Yang, a senior analyst for Northeast Asia for International Crisis Group.

“The lack of such mention and the relatively stern tone suggest Trump may not have budged on Taiwan in principle,” he noted.

In December, Trump’s administration revealed an $11 billion arms deal for Taiwan, representing the largest such package ever. Trump has also pressed Taiwan to boost its defense expenditures.

Ma Chun-wei, a specialist in China-Taiwan affairs at Taiwan’s Tamkang University, suggested China might also be concerned the Trump administration has shifted from traditional diplomatic terminology regarding Taiwan. America’s stance has historically acknowledged China’s Taiwan position while maintaining unofficial island relationships.

The most recent national security strategy from the Trump administration, released last December, states simply: “We will also maintain our longstanding declaratory policy on Taiwan, meaning that the United States does not support any unilateral change to the status quo in the Taiwan Strait.”

America typically employs highly standardized phrasing regarding its Taiwan relationship.

“For Xi Jinping, he must show that the Taiwan issue is in China’s hands. He must demonstrate this image, or else he would be criticized,” Ma observed.