Wednesday, February 25, 2026
Home Blog Page 39

Indonesia landslide death toll climbs to 17, officials confirm

Indonesia landslide death toll rises to 17
The death toll in the massive Indonesian landslide has reached 17

On the edge of the slope: Pasirlangu after the mud

They arrived in the gray light of dawn, under a sky that still smelled of rain. Men in mud-streaked jackets hunched over shovels. Women in headscarves clutched thin blankets. Children sat on overturned crates, eyes hollow with the slow, stunned grief that follows sudden loss.

This was Pasirlangu, a village tucked at the foot of Mount Burangrang in West Bandung. Early on a recent Saturday, a wall of wet earth and debris tore down the hillside, sweeping through homes, gardens and the narrow lanes where neighbors greet one another by name. By evening the official tally was grim: 17 confirmed dead, 73 people still unaccounted for, more than 50 houses severely damaged and upwards of 650 residents displaced.

“We keep coming back because we can’t stop,” said Aep Saepudin, gripping a paper list of names. “There are 11 of my family missing. I don’t know if we will find them alive. All I want is to find them, even if it is only to say goodbye.”

The hunt beneath the mud

Rescue teams—dozens of people deployed by local and national agencies—worked in a choreography of urgency and caution. Heavy excavators moved slowly, their tracks stirring a scent of wet soil. Where the machines could not go, volunteers and search-and-rescue personnel dug by hand, probing the unstable ground with poles and hope.

“The fear is that another slide could come down at any time,” said Rifaldi Ashabi, a volunteer rescuer who has been on landslide operations before. “You can feel the slope change under your boots. We are looking for people, but we also have to think about our own safety.”

Officials said the operation was complicated by persistent rain and the danger of further slope failures. The national disaster agency confirmed the fatalities, while local authorities continued to comb through the tangled wreckage of roofs, trees and the bright plastic of household items.

People, place, and memory

Pasirlangu is not an anonymous dot on a map. It sits in West Java’s Sundanese countryside, where morning markets sell steaming bowls of soto and vendors tuck packets of tempeh into banana leaves. Plantations and smallholdings slope up the hills—plots of vegetables and corn that feed nearby towns and feed families’ incomes.

“We are a close community,” said Siti Nurhayati, an elderly woman whose house survived the slide with its front gate warped and its small yard full of mud. “Everyone knows everyone. When something like this happens, it is as if the whole village is a single family grieving.”

Neighbors gathered at the edge of the wreckage, exchanging scraps of information—“My brother’s house was near the banyan tree,” “We last saw her at the market on Friday”—and offering small comforts: cups of hot tea, hands on shoulders, a borrowed umbrella. The air smelled of damp leaves, smoke from a kettle and the metallic tang of earth freshly upended.

Where the land ends and human choices begin

This disaster did not happen in a vacuum. Indonesia is no stranger to seasonal flooding and landslides: the monsoon rains, typically strongest between October and March, have long tested the archipelago’s slopes and rivers.

But scientists and officials increasingly point to human activities that make these ordinary hazards turn catastrophic. The government linked a spate of deadly floods and landslides in Sumatra late last year—disasters that killed around 1,200 people and displaced more than 240,000—to the loss of forests. Jakarta has filed lawsuits seeking more than $200 million in damages from several firms and revoked permits from multiple forestry, mining and hydroelectric companies.

“Forests hold the soil together,” said David Gaveau, founder of environmental startup The TreeMap and a researcher well acquainted with Indonesian landscapes. “When you strip the slopes of trees and replace them with monocultures or open fields, the land loses its natural sponge. Heavy rain then runs off faster, carving channels and turning slopes into sliding planes.”

Local leaders in West Java echoed these concerns. Governor Dedi Mulyadi has blamed sprawling vegetable plantations around Pasirlangu for increasing landslide risk and has urged relocation for families living in high-vulnerability zones.

Questions that linger

What should a community do when the land it has farmed for generations becomes a danger? How do we weigh the short-term needs of families relying on hillside plots against the long-term stability those slopes once enjoyed when forests still stood?

These are not abstract questions in Pasirlangu. They are the kind of practical dilemmas that fill municipal offices late into the night: where to build temporary shelters, how to compensate displaced families, and whether to redraw zoning maps that have been written for a different climate and landscape.

“People need alternatives,” said Dr. Lina Kartika, a disaster risk specialist based in Bandung. “Relocation is complex. It involves land rights, livelihoods, and the social fabric of villages. If you move people without plans for income or cultural continuity, you risk creating new vulnerabilities.”

Small measures, big ripples

There are steps communities and governments can take: stricter enforcement of land-use permits; restoring tree cover on vulnerable slopes; investing in early warning systems and emergency shelter; and supporting livelihood transitions for families who will no longer be able to farm fragile hillsides.

  • Indonesia’s monsoon season typically runs from October to March—this is when landslide and flood risks spike.
  • Recent government actions include lawsuits and permit revocations aimed at companies linked to deforestation in Sumatra.
  • For residents displaced by this landslide, immediate needs include shelter, clean water, and psychological support.

Beyond Pasirlangu: a global pattern

This tragedy is familiar in many parts of the world: steep hills, heavy rain, human alteration of landscapes, and the heartbreak when old margins collapse. From the Andean highlands to mountain towns in South Asia, communities are grappling with the same collision of climate variability, economic necessity and land-use change.

“You see the same story again and again,” said an international environmental aid worker who has worked in Southeast Asia for years. “It’s about the pressure to produce, to feed families, and sometimes to cash in on land value. The consequences are local, but the drivers are global—demand for commodities, inadequate planning, and a heating planet that intensifies storms.”

What happens next in Pasirlangu?

Rescue work will continue. Families will wait and hope and, perhaps, begin the slow business of rebuilding. Officials have promised relocations and pledged resources. Yet the harder work—the reshaping of livelihoods, the rethinking of land use and the reconciliation of economic needs with environmental resilience—lies ahead.

As you read this, ask yourself: how should communities be supported to live safely on lands that are changing under their feet? Whose responsibility is it to protect places like Pasirlangu—from corporate decisions, from short-term planning, from a warming climate—and what will we do differently when the next monsoon comes?

At the edge of the mud, a neighbor set down a steaming cup of tea and offered it to a young man who had been digging for hours. “Rest for a moment,” she said. “We will find a way.” It was a small kindness, but in the shadow of catastrophe it felt like the first truthful thing spoken: decisions must follow the gratitude for life, and the stubborn, human work of rebuilding must begin now.

Russia says peace talks show progress but territorial dispute persists

Peace talks positive but territory remains issue - Russia
A pedestrian in Moscow passing an advertisement promoting contracts in the Russian army

From Plush UAE Boardrooms to Smouldering Refineries: A Day When Diplomacy and War Shared the News Cycle

There is a peculiar hush that falls over a diplomatic hotel conference room — the kind that can feel like both a promise and a threat. Delegates sit with coffee cooling at their elbows, interpreters pause over headphones, and outside the glass the desert sun keeps its indifferent orbit. That was the scene this weekend in the United Arab Emirates, where US-brokered talks convened Russian and Ukrainian delegations for what officials described as initial, “constructive” contacts.

But the word “constructive” is slippery. “It would be a mistake to expect any significant results from the initial contacts,” Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov told reporters on Monday, adding that the talks were nonetheless a small, positive step forward. “There is significant work ahead,” he said, quickly steering the conversation back to territory — the red line that has defined, and still divides, the negotiating positions.

Territory as an Immovable Object

For Moscow, the territorial question is not a bargaining chip but a foundational demand. “The territorial issue — part of what Russia calls the ‘Anchorage formula’ — is of fundamental importance,” Peskov said. He framed that formula as a precondition, pointing to a document Moscow claims stems from earlier contacts between world leaders. Whether that “formula” is an agreed-upon blueprint or a unilateral reading of past exchanges, Kyiv’s answer is unequivocal: territory lost by force will not be handed over at the negotiating table.

“There is no room in our constitution for gifting land won by others on the battlefield,” a Ukrainian delegation member told me off the record, voice edged with a weary, hard-earned nationalism. “You can talk until dawn, but you cannot rewrite our maps without us.”

German Foreign Minister Johann Wadephul — speaking in Riga during a tour of Baltic capitals — voiced alarm at what he called Russia’s “stubborn insistence” on territorial concessions. “If there is no flexibility here, I fear these negotiations may still take a long time,” he warned, and made a point to remind audiences that Europe must be present at any table where the continent’s security order is reshaped.

Why the UAE?

The choice of Abu Dhabi as host carries its own symbolism. The Gulf emirates have quietly positioned themselves as convener-in-chief for conflicts that rattle beyond their borders: neutral enough to gather rivals, wealthy enough to keep the lights on, and strategically distant enough to promise privacy. “We’ve seen a lot of diplomacy migrate to the Gulf,” said Dr. Lena Hofstad, a security analyst based in Oslo. “It’s a neutral stage, but neutrality does not equal impact. The hard work still happens back in capitals.”

While Words Were Spoken, Fire Struck

Diplomatic niceties have a way of colliding with reality. As negotiators circled the thorny question of lines on a map, a very physical, combustible scene unfolded roughly 1,300 kilometers to the north-west of Abu Dhabi: an oil refining complex in Slavyansk-on-Kuban, in Russia’s Krasnodar region, caught fire after what officials said were fragments from drones fell on site.

Ukraine’s military took responsibility, saying strike drones hit the Slavyansk Eko plant and damaged elements of its primary oil processing facility. The refinery — a facility with a capacity in the region of 100,000 barrels per day — is not a small cog. It feeds both domestic markets and export routes, and its partial destruction creates ripple effects in fuel supply chains that reach far beyond Kuban’s patchwork of sunflower fields and Cossack villages.

“We heard explosions in the night,” said a refinery worker who asked to remain anonymous. “The alarms, the smell of burned rubber — there were moments when you thought the whole night would go black. We lost equipment. We are lucky only one person was hurt.”

Russian authorities reported that emergency crews had extinguished two fires and that only one person suffered injuries. The defence ministry said air defences had intercepted and destroyed 40 incoming drones overnight, including 34 in the Krasnodar region — a claim that, if accurate, underscores the scale and frequency of recent cross-border unmanned strikes.

The New Geography of Attack

Drone campaigns have transformed this conflict into something that resembles a diffuse, multi-front contest. No longer are attacks limited to soldier-to-soldier engagements; critical infrastructure — refineries, energy grids, logistics hubs — has become a battlefield. “What we are seeing is a redistribution of leverage,” explained Major-General (ret.) Anton Bekker, a military strategist now advising European governments. “Drones make it possible to threaten what was previously secure and distant. That changes how logistics and morale are managed.”

Kuban’s landscape is itself a study in contrast. Historic Cossack towns nestle beside sprawling agricultural land that feeds millions, while Soviet-era factories hum near modern logistics centers. In cafes and market stalls, people speak of tractors half-buried in sun, of markets that once supplied the Black Sea ports, of relatives who crossed the border to fight. “We keep living,” said a café owner in Yeysk, a town that’s known for its sunsets over the Azov Sea. “But every siren makes children look up. Every blackout leaves someone worrying about fuel for winter.”

What This All Means — Locally and Globally

These twin threads — fragile diplomacy and disruptive warfare — force a series of uncomfortable questions. Can negotiations that begin with mutual suspicion survive the very real scars being carved into infrastructure and civilian life? How do European security guarantees translate into on-the-ground protection for towns from Krasnodar to Kharkiv? And how should the international community respond when some parties demand territorial concessions and others stand firm?

“This is a test of whether diplomacy can outpace destruction,” Dr. Hofstad told me. “If talks are to succeed, they will need more than polite language. They will require enforceable guarantees, independent monitoring, and a credible path for reconstruction.”

There are practical stakes beyond politics. Oil markets, already jittery from years of geopolitical shocks, react to signals emanating from remote refineries. One disrupted plant can nudge prices, squeeze logistics chains, and reorder contracts thousands of miles away. Meanwhile, the spectre of protracted talks with no breakthrough risks normalizing skirmishes as a tool of leverage rather than a prelude to compromise.

Voices from the Ground

“We are exhausted by the slogans,” said Natalia, a schoolteacher in Krasnodar who runs an evening tutoring class in a converted church hall. “What we need is stability for children, not slogans for cameras.”

Across the dialogue table, a younger Ukrainian negotiator offered a different but not incompatible sentiment: “We do not seek endless war. We seek clarity: our borders, our lives. Diplomacy must protect that.”

Where Do We Go From Here?

The UAE talks have nudged open a door — not a gateway. They showed that adversaries can sit, speak, and listen. They did not, however, erase the geographic facts stamped into the ground: villages rebuilt over ruined homes, oil towers that face the risk of being targeted once more, and a population whose patience has thinned into a brittle strand.

So I ask you, reader: when does patience turn into acquiescence? When does the cost of negotiation outweigh the cost of resistance? And who, in the end, will be tasked with stitching a torn map back into something people can live on?

For now, diplomats will return to their capitals, analysts will write briefings, and the engines of production at Slavyansk Eko will either be repaired or replaced. The familiar choreography of crisis will continue: statements, denials, emergency crews, phone calls at odd hours. Meanwhile, in cafes, fields, and flat-roofed apartments across the region, life goes on — taut, watchful, and waiting.

Eric Trump oo beeniyay inuu madaxweynaha Somaliland kala hadlay dekad iyo arrimo la xiriira ganacsi

Jan 27(Jowhar)-Sida ay ku warantay wakaalada wararka ee Reuters, Kimberly Benza oo ah Afhayeenka Eric Trump ayaa sheegtay in aysan madaxweynaha Somaliland Cabdiraxmaan Cirro ka wada hadlin dekad ama arrimaho la xiriira ganacsi.

Wasiir ku-xigeenka Gaadiidka iyo Kaabayaasha Turkiga oo soo gaaray magaalada Muqdisho

Jan 27(Jowhar)-Wasiiru-dowlaha  Wasaaradda Dekadaha iyo Gaadiidka Badda Soomaaliya Maxamed Cabdulqaadir Dhucle oo uu wehlinayo Agaasimaha Guud ee Wasaaradda Dekadaha Axmed Yusuf Cabdulle ayaa garoonka diyaaradaha ee Aadan Cadde ku soo dhaweeyey wafti ballaaran oo uu hoggaaminayo Wasiir Ku-xigeenka Gaadiidka iyo Kaabayaasha Turkiga Durmuş Ünüvar.

Dowladda Soomaaliya oo dib u celisag Agab iyo Raashin ay kala baxday bakhaarka WFP

Jan 27(Jowhar)-l Wasaaradda Arrimaha Dibadda Xukuumadda Federaalka Soomaaliya ayaa shaacisay in dib loo soo celiyay agabkii iyo raashinkii laga qaatay kaydka raashinka Hay’adda Cunnada Adduunka (WFP) ee ku yaalla gudaha dekedda magaalada Muqdisho.

EU and India clinch landmark mega trade deal reshaping global commerce

EU and India finalise 'mother of all trade deals'
European Council President Antonio Costa (L) and European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen clasp hands with India's PM Narenda Modi

A New Chapter: When Two Billion People Suddenly Shared a Marketplace

There are moments in trade history that feel quiet on the surface but seismic underneath—the kind that rearrange supply chains, reshape factory floors, and change the lives of street vendors and start-up founders alike. On a crisp winter day in 2026, Brussels and New Delhi quietly signed what many are already calling a monumental pact: a sweeping trade agreement that stitches together the European Union and India into a de facto free-trade area impacting roughly two billion people.

It is not just a line on a map. It is an invitation: European wines and precision machinery alongside Indian textiles, software services and spices, meeting on store shelves, in ports, and on digital platforms with fewer tariffs, simpler rules, and—above all—more predictable relations.

How We Got Here: Two Decades, One Determined Thrust

The path to this accord was anything but straight. Negotiators first opened dialogue nearly twenty years ago, then drifted in fits and starts—diplomatic weather patterns shaped by geopolitics, domestic politics, and economic storms. Talks were relaunched in earnest in 2022 after a nine-year pause, accelerating as global trade partners scrambled to diversify relationships in an era of rising protectionism.

“We came into this knowing the obstacles,” said Meera Iyer, a trade analyst who followed the talks from Mumbai. “India has long guarded its markets; the EU has strict rules on standards. The breakthrough came when both sides began thinking beyond tariffs—about digital rules, sustainability, and mutual recognition of standards.”

What’s in the Deal—and Why It Matters

Details are still being legally vetted—a process expected to take five to six months—yet governments on both sides say the package could be rolled out within a year. At its core, the deal promises significant tariff reductions and better access across a raft of sectors, from automobiles and machinery to textiles and digital services.

Trade between India and the EU already runs deep: approximately $136.5 billion in the fiscal year that ended in March 2025. This new framework aims to accelerate that flow, offering India expanded market access for labour-intensive exports while giving European producers improved competitiveness in a market long buffered by high Indian tariffs—cars, for instance, have faced duties reportedly as high as 110% in some cases.

Voices from the Ground

Walk through any mid-sized Indian industrial town and you’ll find people already imagining what could change. In Surat, where textile mills hum day and night, factory owner Ravi Kapoor says he is cautiously optimistic.

“If tariffs fall, I can imagine new orders coming in,” Kapoor said, wiping a streak of dye from his forearm. “We’ve been competing on price and speed. Easier entry to Europe could mean more jobs here. But we also need training and investment—cheaper access won’t automatically solve quality gaps.”

Across the Mediterranean, in the French city of Lyon, Élodie Martin runs a boutique that sells Indian scarves and European silks. “This deal could make life simpler—less paperwork, more variety,” she smiled over a cup of coffee. “It’s also a cultural exchange. People here are curious about Indian crafts, and Indians are buying French cheese—we’ll all gain in small but meaningful ways.”

Experts Weigh In

Economists point to both opportunity and challenge. “For India, the immediate gain is increased exports in labour-intensive sectors,” said Ajay Srivastava, a former trade official. “For Europe, certain manufacturers get price advantages in India thanks to tariff relief. But success depends on implementation, effective safeguards, and investments in standards compliance.”

Trade scholar Dr. Lina Kovács adds a geopolitical lens: “This isn’t just economics. It’s a signal of strategic diversification. After a period of strained relations with some traditional partners, India and the EU are hedging—building resilience into their trade networks.”

Local Color: Markets, Meals, and Manufacturing

Imagine a typical Saturday morning in a small market in Delhi: vendors negotiating prices for bulk fabric, a chaiwallah swapping gossip about incoming European shipments, an app-based delivery scooter weaving past. That microcosm captures what trade really means—endless, practical connections that ripple outward.

Or picture a port on Europe’s Atlantic coast where containers of mango pulp await customs clearance, destined for patisseries in Nantes, while containers of German machine parts are unloaded for a factory near Pune. Trade manifests as refrigerators humming with imported cheese and textile stores brimming with Indian handlooms.

Bigger Patterns: A World Rewiring Trade

This deal sits among a flurry of recent agreements: the EU’s own pacts with Mercosur and other partners, and India’s separate arrangements with Britain, New Zealand and Oman. Nations are reweaving trade networks in response to unpredictable tariff threats, supply-chain shocks from climate events and pandemics, and shifting political alliances.

“We’re seeing a broader trend toward regionalization with a global flavor,” said Marta Ruiz, a Brussels-based trade strategist. “Countries want multiple reliable partners. This makes trade more resilient, but it can also fragment global standards unless there’s coordination.”

Questions and Concerns: Who Wins, Who Worries?

No agreement is a panacea. Farmers, small manufacturers, and environmental groups will scrutinize the terms closely. Will reduced tariffs overwhelm local producers? Are there safeguards for sensitive sectors? How will labour standards and sustainability be enforced?

A shopkeeper in Amritsar, who asked to be identified only as Sandeep, voiced a common hesitation: “I welcome more customers, but if big European brands flood in at lower prices, where does that leave my tiny shop?”

These are legitimate questions, and the success of the accord will depend on addressing them—through retraining programs, phased tariff reductions, support for small exporters, and strong mechanisms to uphold environmental and labour standards.

Why You Should Care

Trade might feel distant, but its consequences are tangible: the clothes we wear, the medicines we take, the jobs in our cities. This agreement will affect farmers in Punjab and vintners in Bordeaux, software engineers in Bengaluru and machine operators in Germany. It will shape prices, employment patterns, and even cultural exchange.

So here’s a question for you: when the next garment you buy is tagged “Made in India” and shipped from a European warehouse, will you see just an item, or will you see the invisible network—a decade of negotiation, small business hopes, and policy choices—that made it possible?

What Comes Next

For now, negotiators in Brussels and New Delhi are poring over legal text. The next five to six months of vetting will be crucial. If all goes to plan, implementation could begin within a year, and the slow, steady work of translating treaty language into roads, training programs, and business partnerships will begin.

Trade is rarely glamorous. It’s paperwork and patience, port logistics and policy debates. But tucked inside those technicalities lie opportunities to lift livelihoods, foster cooperation, and stitch together a world where commerce also means conversation.

Will this agreement be that stitch? Only time, and tenacity, will tell. But for a moment, imagine the possibilities: two billion people, fewer barriers, and a marketplace remade—not just for profit, but for connection.

Guddiga Dib U Eegista Dastuurka oo Laba Garab U Kala Jabay

Jan 27(Jowhar)-Guddoomiye ku-xigeenka Guddiga Dastuurka ee Labada Aqal, Senator Cabdirisaaq Cismaan iyo xubno kale oo weheliya ayaa si cad u qaaddacay dhamaystirka Dastuur baddalka.

Israel confirms recovery of final hostage’s remains from Gaza

Israel says body of last hostage retrieved from Gaza
Ran Gvili, a young Israeli police officer, was on medical leave when Hamas attacked on 7 October 2023

The Last Return: A Body, a Family, and the Quiet End of a Chapter

There are moments in war that feel impossibly small and unbearably large at the same time: a polished metal box lowered from a military helicopter, a pair of parents who have been waiting for months to know whether their child is alive, and the hush that follows when a country realizes a chapter has closed.

On a windswept morning that smelled faintly of dust and citrus groves, Israeli authorities announced they had recovered the remains of Police Officer Ran “Rani” Gvili — the last person taken from Israeli soil during the violence that erupted on 7 October 2023. For his family, and for a nation exhausted by headlines, the return marks the end of one brutal conditionhood in a larger, fragile ceasefire process brokered with U.S. involvement.

A nickname, a shoulder, and the decision to run toward danger

“He was the Defender of Alumim,” said Talik Gvili, his mother, at a candlelit vigil months ago. “That’s what the kibbutz called him. He liked being the one who stayed behind.”

Those who knew Ran remember a man of quiet force — a non-commissioned officer in the elite Yassam police unit stationed in Israel’s Negev. He was on medical leave ahead of a shoulder surgery and had been working on renovations at his parents’ home in Meitar. In the days before the attack, his father would later recall, Ran had been doing physical labor alongside a Palestinian construction worker from Gaza — an image that underscores how intimate and complicated life on the margins of conflict can be.

When news of the assault reached him, he drove toward the sound of gunfire. Outnumbered and in pain, he joined his unit near the kibbutz of Alumim and fought. “We were both wounded,” said Colonel Guy Madar, the last comrade to see him alive. “He ran to open a breach — to protect the kibbutz. He never stopped moving forward.”

From a battlefield to a coffin: the long wait for answers

Of the 251 people abducted on that October day, families waited almost unbearably for clarity. Many were released in prisoner exchanges or returned alive as ceasefire negotiations progressed; for months, 250 names fell slowly off that list. Ran’s remained.

It was not until January 2024 that Israeli authorities told Ran’s parents that he had been killed on the battlefield and that his remains had been taken into Gaza. The notification came months after the fighting and after a haze of rumors, prayers, petitions, and public demonstrations that had pulled at the nation’s nerves.

“He ran to help, to save people… even though he was already injured before 7 October,” his father said at a gathering of supporters. “That was Rani — first to help, first to jump in.”

Politics, ceasefires, and the difficult business of closure

The return of Ran’s body is not only a private solace. It is also a political fulcrum. The retrieval completes one of the stated conditions of a U.S.-brokered ceasefire framework — the return of all hostages and remains from Gaza — allowing a slow and contested next phase of the truce to proceed.

“We have brought them all back,” said Israel’s prime minister in a brief statement, framing the recovery as a national obligation fulfilled. Hamas, through spokesman Hazem Qassem, described the discovery as confirmation of the group’s adherence to the terms of the ceasefire agreement — a statement that, for many, underscored how much of the conflict remains choreographed by mutual leverage and public messaging.

For weeks, Ran’s family had resisted efforts to ease border restrictions at Rafah — the Gaza-Egypt crossing — insisting that their son’s remains be returned before wider openings took effect. The tension between humanitarian access and the deep, personal need for closure is one of the many painful trade-offs that shadow negotiations in conflict zones.

Voices from a small town

At a weekly gathering in Meitar, friends and neighbors spoke of Ran as someone whose presence was felt not by the size of his frame but by the warmth of his attention. “When he entered a room, you felt him,” said Emmanuel Ohayon, a close friend. “He had a way of making people feel seen.”

A neighbor, Miriam, whose small grocery sits at the corner near the Gvili home, paused when asked about the family. “They kept to themselves,” she said softly. “But there was always tea offered, always some bread shared with the workers. This town knows how to grieve quietly.”

What does ‘closure’ mean in a land where history keeps returning?

Closure, in practical terms, means the next steps of a diplomatic framework can move forward: more humanitarian aid may enter Gaza; crossings may open or widen; prisoners may be moved as part of second-stage exchanges. But for families, closure is a complicated and incomplete thing. It is a return of remains that enables burial, and with burial comes ritual, memory, and perhaps a sliver of peace. It is also a political event that will be dissected by opponents and allies alike.

“There are no winners in these cycles,” said Dr. Leila Mansour, a regional analyst who has followed previous hostage exchanges. “A return of remains is a moral and legal recovery, but it does not solve the structural drivers of violence: dislocation, blockade, political stalemate and the dehumanization that fuels each new round.”

Small moments that refuse to be forgotten

Ran’s story is stitched from small, intimate scenes: a shoulder strapped for surgery, a teenager hauling cement beside a Palestinian laborer, a mother speaking at vigils with a steady voice, a father who remembers his son’s impulse to stay and protect.

“He fought until the last bullet and then he was taken,” Talik told a crowd months ago, her voice steady in the face of a grief that has had no easy exit. “That’s how he lived.”

In a world that catalogues conflict by numbers, names like Ran’s force us back to singular human dimensions. They demand that we look at what is lost when the politics of war devour everyday lives: hands that held tools and tea cups, neighbors who shared work, plans for a surgery that never came to pass.

Questions for the reader

What do we owe the families who wait — not only to recover bodies, but to restore dignity and truth? How can ceasefires and international diplomacy balance the urgent needs of civilians with the very real demands families place on those agreements? And if a return of remains can signal an end to one phase, what will it take to prevent another beginning?

Perhaps the hardest truth is this: peace is not a single event. It’s a fragile set of choices, repeated, day after day. For Ran Gvili’s parents, for the people of Meitar, and for those in Gaza who mourn different losses, this return provides a narrow, necessary rest. The work of remembering and rebuilding — of confronting what allowed the single tragedy to ripple so widely — is only just beginning.

EU Opens Regulatory Probe into X’s AI Tool Grok Amid Scrutiny

EU launches investigation into X's AI tool Grok
Elon Musk's Grok chatbot is to be ⁠investigated on whether it disseminates illegal content such as manipulated sexualised images in the European Union

When an Algorithm Crossed a Line: Europe’s Crackdown on X’s Grok

It began, as many modern scandals do, with a single image and the slow, sickening realization that what felt like an isolated incident was anything but. Photos—manipulated, sexualized, impossible children—were surfacing on X. They moved across timelines, hopped between accounts, and lodged in the feeds of ordinary people who had logged on for news or jokes or to check on a friend.

The European Commission has answered with a formal investigation into Grok, the artificial intelligence engine embedded inside X, probing whether the tool enabled the spread of sexually explicit images, including material that may amount to child sexual abuse. The inquiry is being conducted under the Digital Services Act (DSA), the EU’s most ambitious law yet aimed at reining in platform harms.

What’s at stake

Ask any parent why they care about this investigation and they will not talk in policy jargon. “If someone can stitch my child into a degrading image and it spreads inside a heartbeat,” says Aoife Brennan, a mother of two in Dublin, “how am I supposed to protect them?”

The questions the Commission is asking are stark: Did X treat Grok as just another feature and fail to assess the risks it posed? Did the company meet its legal obligations to prevent systemic harms? And if it didn’t, what will the consequences be?

DSA: More than a rulebook

The DSA, which creates special obligations for so-called Very Large Online Platforms (VLOPs) with more than 45 million monthly users in the EU, requires careful, transparent risk assessments. Platforms designated as VLOPs must anticipate and mitigate systemic risks—ranging from the spread of illegal content to effects on public health and the rights of children—before, during, and after rolling out powerful features.

According to the European Commission, Grok is conspicuously absent from the risk assessment reports X is required to publish. “We expect companies to get their house in order,” a Commission spokesperson told us. “Grok doesn’t appear in those assessments. That omission is not a minor paperwork issue; it’s central to whether X complied with the law.”

The discovery and the response

News of sexualized deepfakes triggered alarm across Europe. Advocacy groups, parents, and regulators raised their voices. “These images aren’t just distasteful—when they involve children or are non-consensual, they’re a form of violence,” says Dr. Miriam Kovács, an academic who studies online abuse. “We have to treat them as such.”

The Commission coordinated closely with Ireland’s Coimisiún na Meán, the national digital regulator, because X’s European headquarters are in Dublin. Regulators there say they welcomed the formal probe and reminded people that legal responsibilities exist for online platforms under both national and EU law. “There is no place in our society for non-consensual intimate imagery or child sexual abuse material,” the regulator said in a public statement.

Inside EU agencies, the concern was not theoretical. Technical teams at the Centre for Algorithmic Transparency (ECAT) in Seville had been watching Grok since reports of a surge in hateful content last autumn. Their monitoring, combined with complaints received from users, created a picture of systemic problems linked to how the AI was being used on the platform.

Voices from the front line

On a rainy morning in Dublin’s Temple Bar, I spoke with Conor Maher, a freelance photographer whose younger sister’s likeness was subtly altered and circulated online. “The first thing you do is scream, then you call your family, then you try to chase it down,” he said. “But chasing a photo across the internet feels like trying to stop the tide.”

Policy experts were less emotive but equally blunt. “Companies have to take responsibility when they deploy models that can create lifelike images of people,” said Lina Ortega, a digital rights lawyer. “Mitigations like filters, robust reporting mechanisms, and pre-launch risk assessments aren’t optional. They’re central to preventing harm.”

Some voices urged caution before rushing to ban tools. “AI is a tool; it can be misused,” said Julian Weiss, a tech entrepreneur in Berlin. “But the right response is smart regulation and enforcement, not panic.” The Commission’s investigation is precisely about whether existing rules were followed.

What the investigation will do

The formal opening of proceedings under the DSA gives the Commission broad powers: it can request documents, interview staff, and carry out inspections. If the inquiry finds non-compliance, X could face additional enforcement measures on top of recent penalties.

In December, the Commission fined X €120 million over issues including deceptive design and insufficient transparency around advertising and data access for researchers. That financial penalty underscored a broader point: being large in Europe’s digital landscape brings responsibilities—and consequences when those responsibilities are not met.

Areas under scrutiny

  • Whether X conducted sufficient risk assessments of Grok and its integration into platform features.
  • Whether Grok’s capabilities materially increased the dissemination of illegal or non-consensual sexual imagery.
  • How the platform’s recommender systems—now under a separate but related probe—interact with Grok to amplify harmful content.

Local details that matter

Walk through Dublin, and you see more than government offices. You see a city where tech interns line up for flat whites, where natal posters for community theatre hang beside murals, where conversations about privacy and family safety hum in cafés. That is partly why the Irish regulator’s role feels intimate; this is not an abstract legal battle but one that touches families and neighborhoods.

In Seville, where technical teams have been plotting the algorithms’ behavior, engineers and ethicists have been poring over logs, looking for patterns. “We’re tracing how prompts travel, how images are generated and amplified,” said a researcher involved in monitoring Grok. “It’s like modern detective work—only the clues are data points and the suspects are code.”

A global ripple effect

As Europe tightens oversight on AI-powered platforms, the consequences will not stop at its borders. How regulators handle Grok could set precedents on transparency, safety, and corporate accountability for platforms from San Francisco to Singapore.

So here’s a tough question for every reader: Do you trust the architectures that shape your attention? Do you believe private companies will act fast enough to protect the vulnerable, or do we need rules that bite harder?

Closing: What comes next

The Commission has said X must provide more information, and officials expect further inspections. Irish and European regulators say they’ll play active roles. Lawmakers—like Irish MEPs who called for suspension of Grok while the probe proceeds—are watching closely.

For families who found their lives disrupted by a manipulated image, the investigation is not just a headline. It is a test of whether laws designed to protect citizens can keep pace with technologies that create harm almost as fast as they create convenience.

“We need systems that put people before profit,” says Aoife Brennan. “If the rules are only words on paper, they are meaningless when someone’s child is being exploited online.”

The EU’s probe into Grok is, then, more than a regulatory skirmish. It is a moment of collective reckoning—a chance to decide how we want a future shaped by AI to look, and who will be held accountable when the machines go wrong.

Court Orders North Korea to Pay Damages to Japanese Migrants

North Korea ordered to compensate Japanese migrants
North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un was summoned by the Japanese court but failed to appear

A Court Verdict for a Promise That Wasn’t: Remembering the Repatriation That Became Captivity

There are moments when a courtroom’s wooden bench does more than parse law — it holds memory. On a gray morning in Tokyo, a district court did just that, handing down a judgment that felt as much like historical reckoning as it did legal remedy.

The decision ordered North Korea to pay roughly €440,000 in compensation to four people who, decades ago, were convinced to leave Japan for what they were told was a “paradise on Earth.” Each plaintiff was awarded at least 20 million yen — about €110,000 — a modest sum, perhaps, for lives stolen, but a powerful symbolic recognition of wrongs that have long been whispered about in basements and over kitchen tables.

The Lure: How a “Humanitarian” Promise Became a Prison

Between 1959 and 1984, an estimated 90,000 ethnic Koreans living in Japan — and some of their Japanese spouses — boarded ships and planes under a government-backed repatriation program promising free education, healthcare and a return to roots. The program was framed as humanitarian: a chance for those with few prospects in Japan to start over in a homeland reborn.

Instead many found deprivation, suspicion, and isolation. Human Rights Watch and survivor testimonies describe systems that targeted those seen as insufficiently loyal, meting out forced labour, imprisonment, and the denial of basic rights. Some families were ripped apart; some detainees lived under surveillance for decades. Others escaped, after years of limited contact with the outside world, returning with haunted faces and stories few in Japan wanted to hear.

“I thought I was going to find a garden of roses,” said 83-year-old plaintiff Eiko Kawasaki, who arrived in North Korea as a teenager in 1960 and spent 43 years there before fleeing. “When I heard the verdict, I was overwhelmed with emotion.”

What the Evidence Shows

The plaintiffs’ 2018 complaint catalogued denials of food, movement, education and medical care — the very things that had been promised. Experts who have studied North Korea note that repatriation was not merely migration; for many it became a form of state-directed relocation that morphed into sustained human-rights abuses.

“This was not a simple flow of people choosing new lives,” said Kanae Doi, Japan director at Human Rights Watch. “It bears the hallmarks of state coercion, deception and, for many, conditions tantamount to imprisonment.”

Law Against Silence: A Case That Defied Convention

Bringing suit directly against Pyongyang is an audacious and unusual step. The plaintiffs’ lawyers symbolically summoned North Korean leader Kim Jong Un to court; unsurprisingly, there was no appearance. For years the case wound through Japan’s legal system: initially dismissed in 2022 for lack of jurisdiction, it was later sent back to the district court by a higher court for reconsideration.

Atsushi Shiraki, one of the plaintiffs’ lawyers, called Monday’s ruling “historic,” saying it was the first time a Japanese court had exercised its sovereignty to recognise North Korea’s malpractice in this context. “For survivors who returned, this is acknowledgement,” he told reporters. “It’s small, but important.”

Impossible to Enforce — and Why That Matters

Even as survivors breathed a measure of vindication, reality intruded. Kawasaki herself acknowledged the likely futility of collecting the award. “I’m sure the North Korean government will just ignore the court order,” she said.

Kenji Fukuda, lead counsel on the case, outlined a pragmatic alternative: seek to seize North Korean assets or property in Japan as a means of enforcing the ruling. But that path is thorny. North Korea’s foreign assets are limited and often masked behind diplomatic channels, front companies, or quasi-cultural organizations that have deep roots in Japan’s postwar history. International sanctions and the vagaries of state-to-state enforcement make the recovery of funds uncertain at best.

So the verdict may be less about immediate compensation than about narrative. It places on the public record — in a court’s clean language — an affirmation that promises of paradise became something else entirely for many.

Faces, Streets, Community: The Zainichi Korean Experience

Walk through neighborhoods like Shin-Ōkubo in Tokyo or Tsuruhashi in Osaka and you encounter the layered life of Zainichi Koreans — a community shaped by colonial history, wartime migration, and decades of marginalisation. Small restaurants hum with dialects, incense mingles with the smell of grilling meat, and conversation often travels between Japanese and Korean, stitched together by generations of shared hardship and resilience.

“My mother told me stories of the repatriation meetings,” said a shopkeeper in Shin-Ōkubo who asked to be called Mr. Nakamura. “They handed out leaflets like they were gifts. People believed in the promise because what they had was so little.”

For those who left, the promise was often not just nationalist nostalgia but the hope of security, a chance to belong somewhere that could be called home. For those who stayed, the repatriations remained a painful rupture: neighbors gone, names missing from family albums, unanswered letters that grew older and colder each year.

Beyond One Verdict: What the World Is Watching

Why should this resonate beyond Japan and the Korean Peninsula? Because it speaks to universal questions: How do states redress wrongs when treaty mechanisms fail? Can courts provide moral validation where politics offers none? What responsibility does a society bear for policies, however well-intentioned, that result in systemic harm?

Around the world, displaced communities are confronting similar questions — from refugees lured by false promises to minorities promised protection that turns into surveillance. The Tokyo ruling is a reminder that legal acknowledgment can be a stepping stone to broader societal reckoning, even when monetary recompense remains out of reach.

  • Estimated migrants to North Korea under the programme (1959–1984): ~90,000
  • Compensation per plaintiff ordered by the Tokyo District Court: 20 million yen (~€110,000)
  • Time spent in North Korea by one plaintiff, Eiko Kawasaki: 43 years

Closing: Memory, Accountability, and the Quiet Work of Justice

This verdict will not change every scar. It will not replace decades of lost birthdays, vanished kin, or the stolen certainty of a childhood. But it does do something hard: it names what happened. It asks a country that closes itself off to the world to answer, even if only in absentia, for the lives it shaped and broke.

As you close this piece, consider a simple question: when a promise is broken on the scale of nations, what weight should acknowledgement carry? Is recognition enough if material justice is not forthcoming? The Tokyo court offered a partial answer — one that invites more than legal debate; it calls for memory, conversation, and the slow, often painful work of reckoning.

Repairs to pipeline 'not that fast', Zelensky says

Zelensky: Pipeline Repairs Are Taking Longer Than Expected

0
When a Pipe Goes Silent: The Human Echo of the Druzhba Outage There is a hush to the roads south of Budapest that wasn’t there...
Mexico 'guarantees' World Cup safety amid violence

Mexico Vows World Cup Security Despite Surge in Violence

0
Guadalajara at a Crossroads: Football Fever Meets the Shadow of Violence The smell of grilled carne asada and the bright shimmer of team jerseys are...
Searches continue after Andrew's release from custody

Police search concludes at Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor’s former residence

0
A quiet lane in Berkshire, and the sound of history being re-examined On a mild afternoon in southeast England, a lane that usually sees school...
Sri Lanka's former spy chief arrested over 2019 bombings

Former Sri Lanka intelligence chief arrested in 2019 bombings probe

0
At Dawn in Colombo: An Arrest That Reopens Old Wounds The arrest happened before sunrise, the kind of quiet that makes every bird call louder...
Trump hails 'golden age' in State of the Union address

Trump Proclaims a ‘Golden Age’ in State of the Union Address

0
Night of Pageantry and Politics: Inside a State of the Union That Felt Like a Campaign Rally When the chamber lights dimmed and Donald Trump...