Breaking AI & Tech News Analyzed

Israeli airstrikes across southern Lebanon have killed at least 18 people, including eight civilians in a village near Sidon and ten victims – among them three emergency workers – in the Nabatieh district, according to Lebanon’s Health Ministry. The ministry’s latest figures show the conflict, which erupted on March 2 after Hezbollah fired rockets in support of Iran, has now claimed 2,020 lives and wounded 6,436 since Lebanon was drawn into the U.S.–Israel war on Iran. In a separate incident, two Israeli paratroopers were wounded by shrapnel during clashes with Hezbollah forces in the south, as reported by Israel’s Channel 13. Amid the escalating violence, President Joseph Aoun announced that Lebanese, Israeli and U.S. officials will convene in Washington next week to discuss a ceasefire and the framework for future negotiations under U.S. auspices. Hezbollah, however, has reiterated its refusal to engage in direct talks with Israel, labeling the proposed negotiations a “blatant violation of the national pact, the constitution and Lebanese law,” according to lawmaker Hassan Fadlallah. Pro‑Hezbollah demonstrators gathered near the government headquarters in central Beirut, waving the group’s yellow flag and the Iranian standard, to protest the planned talks. Hezbollah and its ally, the Amal Movement, later urged supporters to refrain from further demonstrations, citing the need for stability and civil peace. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu emphasized that any peace settlement must be lasting and called for the disarmament of Hezbollah, underscoring the deep strategic divide. While the United States and Iran announced a tentative ceasefire this week, the agreement’s applicability to Israel’s campaign in Lebanon remains uncertain. Iranian officials claim they secured a U.S. assurance that Israel will reduce attacks on Lebanon, but no confirmation has been received from Israeli authorities regarding a ceasefire or a reduction in hostilities. These diplomatic efforts coincide with historic in‑person ceasefire talks between the U.S. and Iran in Islamabad, Pakistan, highlighting the broader regional stakes of the Lebanon‑Israel conflict.

Al Jazeera reports that the armed wing of Hamas has rejected any proposal to disarm, reaffirming its commitment to continue armed resistance. At the same time, Israeli forces have maintained their series of attacks, indicating that the current cycle of violence shows no sign of abating.The refusal underscores the deepening stalemate between the two sides, with each side entrenched in its respective position. Analysts note that without a credible pathway to disarmament, the prospect of a de‑escalation remains limited, potentially prolonging the humanitarian and security challenges in the region.

Hamas's armed wing has rejected calls for disarmament, stating that discussing the issue before Israel fully implements the first phase of the US-brokered ceasefire in Gaza amounts to an attempt to continue the genocide against Palestinians.In a televised statement, Hamas spokesman Abu Obeida said that raising the issue of weapons 'in a crude manner' would not be accepted. He emphasized that the disarmament demands are an overt attempt to continue the genocide against Palestinians, something Hamas will not accept under any circumstances.The issue of Hamas relinquishing its weapons is a major obstacle in talks to implement US President Donald Trump's 20-point plan for Gaza, aimed at ending Israel's war on the besieged territory. Since the US- and Qatar-brokered ceasefire took effect in October, more than 705 Palestinians have been killed in Israeli attacks, according to the Palestinian news agency Wafa.Hamas has told mediators it will not discuss disarmament without guarantees that Israel will completely withdraw from Gaza. Abu Obeida urged mediators to pressure Israel to fulfil its commitments under the first phase of the Trump plan before any discussion of the second phase can take place.Israel's war on Gaza, which began after Hamas-led attacks on southern Israel in October 2023, has killed more than 72,000 Palestinians and injured at least 172,000 others. Abu Obeida also addressed Israel's role in the US-Israel war on Iran, condemning it for launching strikes on Iran 'in the midst of the deception of negotiations, with full collusion and conspiracy with the United States'.

Beirut, Lebanon – On 24 March, Foreign Minister Youssef Raggi announced that Iran’s ambassador to Lebanon, Mohammad Reza Sheibani, was declared persona non grata and ordered to depart by 29 March. Two days after the deadline, the envoy remained in Beirut, refusing to leave. The episode unfolds against a broader conflict that has already claimed more than 1,000 lives and displaced over 1.2 million people within a single month of Israeli military action in Lebanon. It also highlights a deepening schism in Lebanese politics between supporters of the pro‑Iranian Shia militia Hezbollah and those demanding its disarmament. Imad Salamey, a political scientist at the Lebanese American University, told Al Jazeera that the ambassador’s defiance is a symptom of a larger contest over legitimacy and authority. IRGC’s Strategic Role Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) helped forge Hezbollah in 1982 as a response to Israel’s invasion. Over the decades, Tehran’s billions of dollars in funding elevated Hezbollah to Lebanon’s most powerful political and military force. Hezbollah’s popularity peaked in 2000 after driving Israeli forces from south Lebanon, but subsequent engagements—including the 2006 war, the 2008 Beirut street battles, the Syrian civil war, and the 2019 domestic protests—have eroded its broader support. When Hezbollah entered open conflict with Israel on 8 October 2023, it enjoyed limited backing beyond the Shia community. By the November 2024 cease‑fire, the group was at a low point, with Israel having killed more than 4,000 Lebanese, including leader Hassan Nasrallah and much of Hezbollah’s command. International pressure then mounted for Hezbollah’s disarmament, prompting Prime Minister Nawaf Salam and President Joseph Aoun to prioritize the issue. According to several analysts, the IRGC exploited the cease‑fire lull to dispatch officials to Lebanon, restructuring Hezbollah’s command and possibly ordering its re‑entry into the war on 2 March—just days after Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei was assassinated. Prime Minister Salam has publicly claimed the IRGC is “managing the military operation in Lebanon” and even accused Tehran of launching an attack on Cyprus. Ambassador Refuses to Exit In response to the perceived IRGC influence, Raggi’s declaration stripped Sheibani of diplomatic immunity. Dania Arayssi, senior analyst at the New Lines Institute, described the move as a “landmark decision” given Iran’s entrenched role in Lebanese politics. Iran’s Foreign Ministry, however, maintains that Sheibani will not depart, and Hezbollah has openly pledged to protect him, warning that any government attempt to disarm the militia will be met with “punishment.” Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri—longtime Hezbollah ally—initially backed the government’s ban on Hezbollah’s military activity after the March re‑entry, illustrating the fluidity of alliances within Lebanon’s power‑sharing system. State Authority Tested Hezbollah’s renewed campaign, which includes dozens of cross‑border attacks and direct engagements with Israeli forces on Lebanese soil, is reshaping the political calculus. The militia’s revived confidence challenges the Lebanese government’s ability to enforce disarmament. While the ambassador remains protected inside the Iranian diplomatic compound—effectively beyond the reach of Lebanese law—critics argue that Tehran’s refusal to honor the expulsion order undermines the state’s authority, already weakened by months of war. Salamey summed up the dilemma: “The state is asserting its authority on paper, but internal divisions and competing claims of legitimacy constrain its practical power, testing the limits of Lebanon’s fragile power‑sharing arrangement.”

The recent open letter from 60 clergy members, addressed to the author, underscores a shared concern for planetary stewardship and acknowledges that human‑generated carbon emissions are warming the climate. However, the signatories and the author diverge sharply on the appropriate policy response. Marshall contends that an outright ban on fossil fuels is both impractical and ideologically driven, creating a collective‑action dilemma for the UK. He notes that while the nation pursues a rapid net‑zero transition, major emitters such as India and China operate on markedly different timelines, and the United States has withdrawn from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). This leaves Britain navigating a path of unilateral economic disarmament. Industrial electricity rates in the UK have surged to two‑and‑a‑half to three times those in China and four times those in the United States. Such cost differentials are eroding the global competitiveness of sectors ranging from steel and oil refining to chemicals, automotive manufacturing, and emerging AI industries. The result, according to Marshall, is a wave of factory closures, investment pull‑backs, and significant job losses across the nation's industrial heartlands. Beyond macro‑economic concerns, the policy’s social toll is stark. Older and low‑income households are bearing the brunt of soaring energy bills, with an estimated 2,500 excess deaths last year attributed to an inability to adequately heat homes. This humanitarian impact, Marshall argues, contradicts the very notion of “human flourishing” that climate advocates champion. While acknowledging that every policy entails trade‑offs, Marshall warns that the clergy’s proposal would impose severe personal costs on working‑class Britons without delivering the promised climate benefits. He concludes that the current net‑zero trajectory is unlikely to curb global warming and instead jeopardizes the UK's economic vitality and social wellbeing. Paul MarshallChair, Marshall Wace; personal investor in GB News

Sir Paul Marshall, the co-owner of GB News and a self-described 'committed' Christian, has been criticized by a group of 100 church leaders over the TV channel's attacks on climate science and action. The leaders, including former Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, argue that Marshall's statements on climate change are misleading and that his hedge fund's £1.8bn investments in fossil fuels present a conflict of interest.Marshall has stated that the UK has been infected by 'climate derangement syndrome' and that efforts to cut planet-heating emissions are 'impoverishing people.' In response, the church leaders emphasized that 100% of global heating since 1950 has been caused by human emissions and activities, according to the world's climate scientists. They also noted that decarbonization is a huge growth opportunity that will save trillions of dollars in the long term.The leaders, in an open letter, urged Marshall to be transparent about any personal conflicts of interest and to declare his financial interests in fossil fuels. They cited research that found GB News broadcast 953 attacks on climate science and climate action in the period immediately before and after the 2024 general election.Marshall responded that 'the Gospel entreats us to look after the vulnerable' but argued that pursuing an 'ideological' net zero policy was 'a path of unilateral economic disarmament and self-harm.' He also stated that he was not involved in the editorial decisions of GB News, which has lost £131m since its launch in 2021.The Christian leaders' criticism of Marshall and GB News highlights the ongoing debate over climate change and the role of media outlets in shaping public discourse on the issue. As more than 100 countries have net zero policies and the UK's net zero economy grew by 10% in 2024, the pressure on media outlets to provide accurate and responsible reporting on climate issues continues to grow.