Breaking AI & Tech News Analyzed

In Lebanon, the war with Israel has severely impacted the traditional funeral process. Normally, the deceased are given a final procession through their hometown before burial. However, due to Israel's expanding ground invasion in south Lebanon, families are being forced to abandon these customs.In Tyre, temporary graves have been established with brief epitaphs marking the deceased. The burials are conducted using a special Islamic rite called wadiaa, which allows for the casket, but not the body, to be exhumed later. This practice is usually reserved for exceptional circumstances like war.Rabih Koubaissi, who oversees burials in Tyre, noted that people have an emotional attachment to burying their loved ones in their ancestral land, reflecting their sense of belonging and heritage. The brutality of war has made it impossible to follow traditional washing and preparation of bodies, sometimes only collecting pieces of bodies for burial.Families face the heartbreaking reality of having to bury their loved ones twice. The Israeli military's plan to occupy areas south of the Litani River indefinitely raises fears that reburials may not be possible for months or even years. This situation has left the deceased with few visitors, as most families have been forced to leave Tyre due to increased attacks.Hecham Reda, a medic, expressed his fear of not being able to rebury his friend Hadi back home, reflecting the anxiety many people from south Lebanon are experiencing. Koubaissi finds it difficult to comfort grieving families, trying to convey sympathy without revealing the harsh realities of the situation.

When President Donald Trump inaugurated Operation Epic Fury with Israel on 28 February, his administration outlined broad goals: neutralise Iran’s missile programme, cripple its navy and prevent a nuclear breakout. Within a month those objectives morphed, expanded and at times directly contradicted each other. On 29 March, aboard Air Force One, Trump told reporters that Iran had accepted most of Washington’s 15‑point demand list, conveyed through Pakistan, and even shipped oil to the United States as a goodwill gesture. In the same interview he floated the idea of seizing Kharg Island—the hub for 90 % of Iran’s oil exports—stating, “maybe we take Kharg Island, maybe we don’t. We have a lot of options.” The following day, 30 March, Trump posted on Truth Social that the United States was in “serious discussions with a new, more reasonable regime” in Tehran and claimed “great progress.” He simultaneously warned that, absent a swift deal, the U.S. would destroy Iran’s power plants, oil wells, Kharg Island and even its desalination facilities, and would force the Strait of Hormuz to reopen immediately. By 31 March, with U.S. gasoline prices climbing above $4 per gallon, Trump hinted at a rapid withdrawal, saying the U.S. would leave Iran “within two or three weeks.” He told European allies that if they needed oil or gas they could “go up through the Hormuz Strait” on their own, and rebuked the United Kingdom for not standing up for itself. On 1 April, Trump claimed on Truth Social that Iran’s new leadership had requested a U.S. cease‑fire, but only after the Hormuz Strait was “open, free, and clear.” He reiterated that the war was “not about oil,” yet threatened to blast Iran’s electric grid “back to the stone ages.” Iran’s foreign ministry dismissed the cease‑fire request as “false and baseless,” and the Revolutionary Guard warned the strait remained under its control. Following a U.S.–Israeli strike that demolished a bridge between Tehran and Karaj on 2 April, Trump posted that the next targets would be “bridges, then electric power plants,” signalling an escalation despite earlier talk of withdrawal. Finally, on 3 April, he suggested that reopening Hormuz and seizing Iranian oil could become a “gusher for the world,” a stark reversal of his earlier assertion that the conflict had nothing to do with oil. These rapid shifts illustrate a pattern of policy flip‑flopping that complicates diplomatic efforts, fuels market uncertainty, and raises questions about the strategic coherence of the U.S. approach to the Iran war.

The situation for Christians in the Holy Land has been a topic of increasing concern. The region, considered sacred by Christians, Jews, and Muslims alike, has seen a significant shift in its Christian population over the years.Historically, the Holy Land has been a place of pilgrimage and worship for Christians worldwide. However, recent trends indicate a decline in the number of Christians residing in the area, raising questions about the future of Christian presence in the region.The Israeli-Palestinian conflict has been a major factor contributing to this decline, with many Christians facing challenges related to displacement, economic instability, and religious tensions.Efforts to address these challenges and ensure the protection of Christian minorities in the Holy Land are underway. International organizations and religious leaders have been advocating for the rights of Christians and other religious minorities in the region, emphasizing the importance of preserving the cultural and religious diversity of the Holy Land.

Recent drone footage has surfaced, showcasing a factory in Israel that has sustained considerable damage due to debris from an Iranian missile. The incident underscores the escalating tensions between Israel and Iran, with this event being a stark visual representation of the heightened conflict between the two nations.The footage, which has been widely circulated, provides a clear visual impact of the missile debris on the factory, indicating a significant military escalation in the region. This development comes at a time when international concerns are growing over the potential for a wider regional conflict.

More than 100 United States‑based international law scholars have signed an open letter denouncing the recent US‑Israeli strikes on Iran as a violation of the United Nations Charter and potentially amounting to war crimes. The letter, released on Thursday, asserts that the campaign – launched on February 28 – proceeded without UN Security Council authorization and without credible evidence of an imminent Iranian threat. According to the scholars, the legal basis for force against another state exists only in self‑defence against an actual or imminent armed attack, or when expressly sanctioned by the Security Council. Iran has not attacked the United States or Israel, and the Security Council did not approve the operation. The experts organize their concerns into four categories: the legality of the war decision, the conduct of hostilities, threatening rhetoric from senior officials, and what they describe as the dismantling of civilian‑protection safeguards within the US defence establishment under Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth’s “gloves‑off” approach. Among the most alarming incidents highlighted is the strike on a primary school in Minab, Iran on the first day of the conflict, which killed at least 175 people, the majority of them children. The letter also cites attacks on hospitals, water treatment facilities, and energy infrastructure, emphasizing that schools, health facilities, and homes have been targeted. The signatories condemn public statements by senior US officials, including a mid‑March remark by former President Donald Trump that the United States might strike Iran “just for fun,” and early‑March comments from Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth dismissing “stupid rules of engagement.” They argue that such rhetoric reflects an “alarming disrespect” for international humanitarian law, which is designed to protect civilians and combatants alike. Financially, the letter notes that the war is costing US taxpayers up to $2 billion per day, underscoring the broader economic burden of the conflict. The open letter was co‑authored by prominent legal scholars such as Yale Law School’s Oona Hathaway, former State Department legal adviser Harold Koh, NYU’s Philip Alston, and former Human Rights Watch chief Kenneth Roth. While the authors focus on the United States’ conduct, they warn of a heightened risk of atrocities throughout the region. Emphasizing the need for consistent application of international law, the scholars write: “We urge US government officials to uphold the UN Charter, international humanitarian law, and human rights law at all times, and to publicly make clear US commitment to and respect for norms of international law.”

In the devastated streets of Gaza City's Tuffah neighborhood, residents are taking matters into their own hands to rebuild their homes. Mohammed al-Jadba, a 31-year-old father of 10, is using stones from the rubble of his destroyed house and mud to construct a new shelter. His home, once a four-storey building, was reduced to rubble during Israel's genocidal war on Gaza.With Israeli restrictions on imports preventing the entry of essential construction materials like cement, Gaza residents are forced to get creative. Mohammed has been collecting iron, window frames, and door frames from his old house to use in his new build. The mud, mixed with human hair collected from barbershops, is being used to stick everything together.The United Nations estimates that it will cost $70bn to fully reconstruct Gaza, with 92% of residential buildings damaged or destroyed. An urgent $20bn is needed within the first three years to initiate basic recovery and restore essential services. However, reconstruction efforts have been hindered by continued Israeli restrictions on the entry of construction materials and heavy machinery.As a result, Palestinians in Gaza have focused on partial reconstruction, using available materials to make damaged homes habitable. The United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) has worked on over 230 housing units, benefiting more than a thousand people. However, these interventions are temporary solutions, and the real solution remains elusive.Abdel Nasser al-Jalousi, a 55-year-old resident of Khan Younis, has benefited from partial rehabilitation projects. His heavily damaged home has been made habitable with tarpaulins used as substitutes for walls, doors, and room partitions. However, he stresses that these materials are not a long-term fix and will need to be replaced every season.The scale of the crisis remains severe, with over 213,000 families living in tents and widespread damage during winter storms. The situation highlights the need for political will and massive resources to rebuild Gaza and provide sustainable solutions for its residents.

President Donald Trump has unveiled a bold budget request, seeking $1.5 trillion for military spending, a nearly 40% increase from the previous year. This ambitious proposal underscores the White House's priorities, emphasizing military strength and law enforcement.The budget request, while not legally binding, sets the stage for intense congressional negotiations. It includes a proposed $455 billion increase over fiscal year 2026, separate from an emergency request of $200 billion for the US-Israeli conflict with Iran.The plan involves significant shifts in funding, with $73 billion in cuts to domestic programs, including initiatives to counter climate change, boost renewable energy, and support equality and access in housing, education, and healthcare. Instead, funding would be redirected to projects such as Trump's Golden Dome missile defense system, critical minerals investment, US shipbuilding, and troop salary increases.Trump's proposal also emphasizes immigration enforcement, calling for continued funding for the Department of Homeland Security and Immigration and Customs Enforcement to support his mass deportation campaign. The request includes a 13% increase for the Department of Justice, focusing on violent crime.The budget plan faces challenges, including a potential deadlock in Congress over funding for ICE and Customs and Border Patrol. The administration suggests passing the budget through a mechanism known as reconciliation, which could be achieved with a simple majority in Congress.The US military expenditure has steadily increased, reaching $997 billion in 2024, according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute. The country consistently spends more on its military than the next nine countries combined, raising questions about priorities in defense and domestic spending.

Analysts say that more than two years of relentless campaigns against Gaza, the Houthis, Lebanon and now Iran have reshaped Israel’s politics, economy and social fabric.Washington, rather than Jerusalem, is likely to decide the ultimate outcome of the conflict that Israeli leaders describe as an “existential battle” with Tehran.According to the Bank of Israel, the cumulative cost of these wars has reached 352 billion shekels (about $112 bn), which translates to roughly 300 million shekels ($96 m) per day. The financial pressure is compounded by the International Court of Justice hearing credible genocide accusations and the International Criminal Court’s arrest warrants for the prime minister and a former defence minister.Domestically, Israelis endure frequent air‑raid alerts and school closures, while many families juggle work and shelter duties. Yet a poll by the Israel Democracy Institute in late March showed that 78 % of Jewish Israelis still support continuing the war, even as a majority doubt that Washington and Israeli planners have fully grasped Tehran’s capabilities.Political commentator Dahlia Scheindlin told Al Jazeera that a “graveness” has settled over the population, noting a grim determination to press on despite exhaustion.Israel’s right‑wing coalition, led by figures such as National Security Minister Itamar Ben‑Gvir and ultra‑Orthodox Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich, has pushed through a controversial death‑penalty law targeting Palestinians and approved a record $271 bn budget. The budget allocates substantial funds to ultra‑Orthodox and settler communities, a move described by critics as an attempt to shore up Prime Minister Netanyahu’s waning support.Internationally, the United Nations, European Union and several Muslim‑majority states have condemned the new death‑penalty legislation, though Israel has so far avoided direct sanctions.Economists warn that the war’s fiscal impact extends beyond defence spending. A Le Monde analysis highlighted rising defence outlays, lost productivity from reservist mobilisation, and dampened consumer activity. While temporary tax cuts have mitigated fuel‑price spikes caused by Iran’s closure of the Strait of Hormuz, political economist Shir Hever cautions that Israel’s reliance on imported fuel means any relief is short‑lived.Hever likens the current economic trajectory to that of a “totalitarian state,” where military expenses are pursued arbitrarily, ignoring broader economic stability.Ultimately, the war’s duration may hinge more on U.S. policy than Israeli strategy. When asked by Newsmax about progress toward its goals, Prime Minister Netanyahu could only claim the effort was “halfway” achieved.

Israel’s military announced plans to bomb the Sohmor and Mashghara bridges spanning the Litani River in the western Bekaa Valley, stating they are being used by Hezbollah. The threat comes as Israeli forces intensify a ground invasion that began in early March. Al Jazeera reporter Obaida Hitto described the two spans as “the main arteries for goods, for people, for movement” between the rest of Lebanon and the western Bekaa. He warned that their destruction would effectively isolate the western Bekaa, making it extremely difficult for residents to reach the hub of Chtoura, hospitals, and other essential services. According to the same source, Israel has already demolished at least six other bridges over the Litani River since the offensive escalated in early March, signalling a systematic effort to sever transport links. Human‑rights organisations have condemned the targeting of civilian infrastructure, arguing that the strategy appears designed to isolate the region and contravene international humanitarian law. The deepening ground operation, announced last week, also includes plans to raze “scores of residential homes,” raising further concerns about the scale of civilian displacement. On Friday, the South Lebanon Water Establishment reported that Israeli strikes damaged critical water facilities in Ibl al‑Saqi and al‑Maysat, and impaired solar‑power installations at several stations. The authority called the attacks a “clear and explicit violation of all international conventions and norms” protecting civilian services. In the same wave of violence, the National News Agency (NNA) confirmed that four people were killed across Lebanon on Friday, including two worshippers exiting a mosque in the western Bekaa town of Sahmar. Since the conflict erupted on 2 March, more than 1.2 million people have been forced from their homes, according to UN data. Lebanon’s Ministry of Public Health cites a death toll of 1,345 and over 4,000 wounded nationwide. The fighting has also claimed the lives of at least three United Nations peacekeepers this week, with two additional peacekeepers seriously injured after an explosion near a UN position in al‑Adaissah. UNIFIL spokesperson Kandice Ardiel urged all parties to respect the safety of peacekeepers, emphasizing that combat activities must not endanger UN personnel.