The British Embassy announced today that the British Council has signed an MoU with Benghazi University allowing access to the British Council Digital...

The Tripoli based Libyan Ministry of Interior announced today that the security campaign conducted by competent security agencies—under the auspices o...

The migrants were at work, building homes and hotels, when the floods hit, sweeping three of them away.

PSG coach hails 'marvellous' Dembele after the French forward scored two goals in PSG's 6–1 win over Toure's side.

King Oyo's family say he left a will naming his young son as heir to the Tooro kingdom.

Declassified documents show Spanish and Moroccan authorities were alerted to social media calls for a mass migrant crossing the day before tens of thousands entered Ceuta.

The president also said oil prices won't come down until after the November races, claiming without evidence that Iran wants to impact the election.

Tehran condemns the resolution, blaming US and Israeli strikes on its nuclear facilities for disrupting inspections.

Ali al-Taher: What Israel’s 'operational control' of the hill really means for Hezbollah and Lebanon Submitted by Adam Chamseddine on Wed, 09/09/2026 - 12:52 Hezbollah's withdrawal from the strategic ridge may ultimately prove less important than what will now happen around it Smoke rises from the site of an Israeli strikes that targeted the hilltops of the mountainous area of the strategic Ali al-Taher Ridge, in the Nabatieh district, Lebanon, on 14 August 2026 (AFP) Off For months, the south Lebanon hill of Ali al-Taher was treated by Hezbollah as an exception to a strategy it had otherwise adopted since the beginning of the war with Israel on 2 March: avoid fighting to hold fixed geographical positions at all costs. The shift reflected lessons drawn from the 2024 war, when Hezbollah's attempt to maintain front-line positions produced heavy casualties without preventing Israel from penetrating parts of southern Lebanon. An official familiar with the group's thinking said that the experience, including the prolonged fighting around towns such as Khiam, pushed Hezbollah towards a more flexible guerrilla strategy, in which fighters would avoid being tied to territory and instead preserve their ability to operate after Israeli advances. Even Bint Jbeil in April, long portrayed as the “mother of all battles”, was not regarded internally as a position that had to be held to the last fighter. Ali al-Taher was different. (adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({}); In June, shortly before the ceasefire took effect, a Hezbollah official told Middle East Eye that the hill would be defended “until the last man” rather than surrendered. He described the position as being of exceptional strategic importance, while stressing that “tactics and strategy change according to the circumstances” and that his comments reflected the conditions of the full-scale war then being fought. The distinction is key to understanding what happened next. Ali al-Taher is not simply another piece of high ground. The ridge overlooking Nabatieh and the Iqlim al-Tuffah area, roughly 15 kilometres from the Israeli border and rising to about 600 metres, commands important roads and approaches across southern Lebanon. The ridge is suspected of containing Hezbollah underground command and weapons facilities, while Israeli forces have said they found underground routes and military infrastructure beneath it. (adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({}); Potential shift in the threat’s direction According to the Hezbollah official, the strategic value of Ali al-Taher came from three interconnected factors: the underground facilities beneath the ridge, their links to other strategic underground positions, and the geographical advantage provided by the hill itself. Its loss last week, he argued, would allow Israel to reverse the direction of the military threat: rather than Hezbollah using the territory north of the Litani river to threaten northern Israel, Israeli forces would gain a position from which they could exert pressure and surveillance over the Nabatieh and Iqlim al-Tuffah areas. Israeli strikes kill 11 in southern Lebanese village, including two infants Read More » That calculation explains why Hezbollah continued to fight around the ridge after the June ceasefire, even as it had largely moved away from defending fixed positions elsewhere. Ali al-Taher remained the scene of daily Israeli strikes and Hezbollah drone attacks for weeks after the ceasefire, while the United States had proposed that Hezbollah hand the position over to the Lebanese army as part of a broader disarmament arrangement. The battle subsequently became a prolonged contest of attrition. Israel maintained aerial and operational surveillance over the ridge, repeatedly striking the area while gradually tightening pressure around the underground complex. In August, Israeli officials were publicly discussing expanded air and ground operations around Ali al-Taher, with Israeli reporting claiming that Hezbollah fighters remained inside tunnels beneath the ridge. A strategic defeat for Hezbollah? Yet, the Hezbollah official argues that the significance of the group’s withdrawal cannot be reduced to Israel’s claim that it now controls the hill. “The hill stood for nearly three months with total aerial and operational oversight from Israel, constantly bombarded, and yet our men stood their ground,” he said. 'The hill stood for nearly three months with total aerial and operational oversight from Israel, constantly bombarded, and yet our men stood their ground' - Hezbollah official The eventual decision to withdraw, he added, was a cost-benefit assessment, rather than an abandonment of the strategic importance of the position. This distinction has become particularly relevant since Israel announced on 3 September that it had established “operational control” over Ali al-Taher. The Israeli military said its forces had cleared Hezbollah fighters from two underground routes and established control both above and below ground. Israeli Defence Minister Israel Katz subsequently presented the move as the consolidation of Israel's security zone in southern Lebanon. However, “operational control” is not necessarily synonymous with uncontested or permanent occupation. Hezbollah has not officially commented on the claim, but members of the group denied it the following day, saying there was no Israeli military presence on the ridge and that its fighters remained deployed in the area and prepared to confront any attempt to advance. The dispute over terminology therefore matters. Israel has demonstrated the ability to operate on and beneath the ridge, while Hezbollah is seeking to deny that this automatically translates into a decisive strategic defeat. What next? The question now is what Israel does with that advantage. (adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({}); Israeli officials have said they intend to remain in their security zone until Hezbollah is disarmed, turning Ali al-Taher into more than a battlefield achievement: it is now part of Israel's negotiating leverage over Lebanon. For Hezbollah, meanwhile, the challenge is to absorb the loss of a strategically valuable position without allowing it to become a wider erosion of its military posture north of the Litani. The party's response is likely to depend less on attempting to immediately retake the hill than on whether Israel can use it as a platform to penetrate or dominate the surrounding strategic terrain. Israeli forces reportedly use phosphorus shells in attacks on southern Lebanon Read More » The Hezbollah official stressed that Ali al-Taher remains overlooked by other strategic hills that the party controls, arguing that Israel's ability to enter the ridge and reverse the threat towards areas north of the Litani is “another matter” for both Hezbollah and Iran. That points towards the central question of the next phase: does Ali al-Taher's loss remain a contained tactical setback, or does Israel turn control of the ridge into a broader military and political advantage? The answer will depend on whether Israel can consolidate its positions, neutralise the underground infrastructure and use the ridge to constrain Hezbollah's freedom of movement, while Hezbollah attempts to demonstrate that its withdrawal from one strategic position does not amount to the collapse of its wider military network. Recent reporting already suggests that the contest has not ended with Israel's announcement. Israeli strikes around Nabatieh have continued, while reports of Hezbollah attacks on Israeli forces in the area have persisted. In that sense, Ali al-Taher may ultimately prove less important for what happened on the hill than for what happens around it. Its “operational control” by Israel marks the end of a months-long battle over one of Hezbollah's most important fixed positions. But whether it marks a strategic defeat for Hezbollah, the beginning of a new Israeli push north of the Litani, or simply another stage in the transition from conventional front-line warfare to a more dispersed confrontation remains unresolved. The hill has changed hands in the military sense claimed by Israel; the larger contest over the terrain, the underground network and the future security architecture of southern Lebanon has not. Israel's war on Lebanon Nabatieh, Lebanon What Israel’s 'operational control' of strategic hill really means for Hezbollah and Lebanon News Post Date Override 0 Update Date Mon, 05/04/2020 - 21:19 Update Date Override 0

Settlement trade ban: Burnham succeeds in weeks where Starmer failed for years Submitted by Peter Oborne on Wed, 09/09/2026 - 16:05 While more action is still needed, these sanctions go a long way towards bringing Britain in line with ICJ ruling on Israeli occupation British Prime Minister Andy Burnham speaks in the House of Commons on 9 September 2026 (House of Commons/AFP) On Less than two months have passed since Andy Burnham was installed as British prime minister. He has taken a more relaxed tone than his lacklustre predecessor, Keir Starmer. But there have been growing murmurs of discontent about his failure to deliver substantial changes. On Tuesday, those murmurs were silenced. By imposing a ban on trade with Israeli settlements, Burnham has presided over the most significant change in British foreign policy since Brexit. Tuesday was therefore a day of abject humiliation for Starmer, who was granted two years to call out settler terrorism and ethnic cleansing. Yet rather than taking robust action, he sat on his hands, making Britain complicit.  It’s taken Burnham seven weeks to put matters right. (adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({}); For two years, the wretched Starmer failed even to respond to the historic 2024 International Court of Justice (ICJ) ruling, which found that Israel’s presence in the occupied Palestinian territories was illegal.  In sharp contrast, the Burnham government’s decision to sanction the settlements goes a long way towards bringing Britain into line with that momentous ICJ judgment.   Historic error This principled action has opened a major dividing line between the ruling Labour Party and the Tory opposition. Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch has been praised, and fairly so, for the vigour and confidence she’s displayed at the despatch box, building a reputation as a confident parliamentary performer, and often outshining the wooden Starmer.  With Burnham, she is encountering a far more formidable opponent. On Tuesday, the new Labour prime minister enticed Badenoch into a historic error that could define - and potentially wreck - her leadership. It is beginning to feel like Burnham and Miliband have pulled off Britain's first major diplomatic triumph since Brexit When a British government finds itself in dispute with a foreign country, a wise opposition sides with Britain. Not Badenoch’s Tories. Tuesday’s Commons statement from Foreign Minister Ed Miliband immediately drew a battery of abuse, counter-measures and threats from Israel. Badenoch allowed her inexperienced foreign affairs spokesperson, Tom Tugendhat, to echo Israeli talking points, endorsing threats that British national security could be threatened by the move. This is perilous. Badenoch and Tugendhat are siding with a country that has been condemned by every major human rights organisation, including Israel’s own B’Tselem, for committing the crime of apartheid.  Their party is supporting Israel while it is in flagrant breach of international law and under investigation at the ICJ for committing the ultimate crime of genocide.  Badenoch backs a country that even appears to be threatening to support Argentina’s claim to the Falkland Islands. (adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({}); International alliance  There is one further point of burning relevance to British domestic politics. The Burnham government’s decision to ban settlement trade has not been tested yet in an opinion poll. But the majority of the British public, past polling strongly suggests, is likely to support the ban. On Tuesday, Badenoch repeated the Israeli attack line that Miliband has caved to pressure from Britain’s Muslim voters. This assertion makes little sense, and Badenoch’s Tories have produced no evidence to substantiate it. It is certainly true that many British Muslims are appalled by the ongoing settler barbarism in the occupied West Bank, as well as the slaughter in Gaza. But opinion polls show that the British public as a whole - not just Muslims - are appalled by Israeli violence. In my view, Badenoch’s hasty decision on the settlement ban will soon leave her domestically forlorn.  And not just domestically. Since his Commons speech on Tuesday, it has become apparent that Burnham has skilfully marshalled an international alliance in favour of the settlement ban. This coalition includes Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Iceland, Ireland, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Spain and Sweden. There are even provisional indications that President Donald Trump’s United States is relaxed about Britain’s new position. It is beginning to feel like Burnham and Miliband have pulled off Britain’s first major diplomatic triumph since Brexit. It is also important to note that while Miliband’s statement has indeed been greeted with hostility and dismay from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s extreme-right coalition government, serious and well-informed Israeli opinion has welcomed it.  Former Prime Minister Ehud Olmert noted: “The British government decision became unavoidable as a result of a continuous effort of ethnic cleansing perpetrated by a large group of Jewish terrorists in the West Bank … Sanctions are directed against the terrorists, not against Israel, and as such they are unavoidable.”  (adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({}); Beginning to listen Meanwhile, the respected and well-connected lawyer Daniel Seidemann, a careful student of settlement expansion, rejected the accusation that the UK was “abandoning Israel” or “joining forces with our enemies”, posting on X (formerly Twitter): “Occupation will end, or occupation will be the end of us.” He continued: “There is no greater threat to the viability and the legitimacy of Israel, and nothing [perpetuates] occupation more than the settlements. So I hope that my friends in the UK, in and out of government, will constantly bear in mind that the UK has today done a great service to Israel and the people of Israel.” There are plenty of Israeli voices who agree with Olmert and Seidemann, and like them, fear that Netanyahu is leading Israel to destruction. UK trade ban on illegal settlements is a welcome first step to justice for Palestinians Read More » So do many British Jews. In a supportive statement, Yachad UK noted: “These new policies target the occupation. They draw a clear distinction between the legitimacy of the State of Israel and the settlement enterprise.” Until now, such voices have been ignored by British leaders like Badenoch, Starmer and former Prime Minister Rishi Sunak. Miliband and Burnham have begun to listen.  There have been powerful criticisms from the left that Miliband’s package comes far too late. That’s entirely true, but Burnham has only been in office seven weeks, and can’t be blamed for that. It’s also true that this package does not go far enough - though future measures are promised. As a matter of urgency, the Burnham government needs to remove the foolish and arbitrary terrorist designation on Palestine Action.  These are early days. But it can already be stated that Miliband on Tuesday delivered the most meaningful speech by any British foreign secretary this century. The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Eye. UK Politics Opinion Post Date Override 0 Update Date Mon, 05/04/2020 - 21:29 Update Date Override 0

PRESS REVIEW – Thursday, September 10: US papers react to the first night of the Republicans' midterm convention in Dallas. Also: five baby orangutans from Southeast Asia have been found in a forest in India. Then some dystopian science news. Finally, perhaps we don't need to do as much sport as we think we do.

French President Emmanuel Macron on Thursday called for the "shared governance" of space in a speech delivered at the two-day International Space Summit. 

In last week’s column, I commented on the seemingly fragmented nature of cricket in Europe outside of the UK and Ireland. This may have been a disservice to the International Cricket Council Europe, which is the region’s administrative and governing body, consisting of 34 member associations. It was established in 2008 to succeed the independent European Cricket Council and to coordinate cricket development across its member nations under the ICC’s global governance model. This made it the fifth

DUBAI: The US embassy in Lebanon said on Thursday it supported the Lebanese government in asserting sovereignty and its enforcement by the country’s army. Posting on X, the embassy said it supported ensuring decisions regarding war and peace remained exclusively in the hands of the state. “Every day, the Lebanese people make it clear they prefer Lebanese state institutions over Hezbollah’s weapons. Southern Lebanon does not belong to regional actors or militias,” it said.

The Ebola survivors’ association in Beni, in the eastern part of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the epicenter of the Ebola outbreak, held an awareness-raising session for students as school resumed last week

Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez defended his government's handling of the migration crisis in Ceuta where some 80,000 migrants tried to enter at the end of July