Japan readies restart of world’s largest nuclear power plant

December 23, 2025

Japan prepares to restart world's biggest nuclear plant — Kashiwazaki-Kariwa was among 54 reactors shut after the 2011 earthquake and tsunami crippled the Fukushima Daiichi plant

When a Vote Echoes Beyond the Chamber: Niigata’s Nuclear Crossroads

On a gray morning in Niigata, beneath clouds that promised snow and a wind that carried the metallic tang of the Sea of Japan, the prefectural assembly voted. It was a small room for a decision that feels anything but small: to endorse the restart of the Kashiwazaki-Kariwa nuclear complex, the world’s largest by capacity, and the first to be operated again by Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO) since the 2011 Fukushima calamity.

The motion passed. It read like the end of one chapter and the uneasy beginning of another. Outside the hall, the air was full of chants, banners and the brittle patience of a community that has lived through a disaster most of the world can still picture: water, power, meltdown, evacuation.

At Ground Level: Voices from the Square

“It’s a political settlement, not a reconciliation,” said Aiko Saito, a young teacher who waved a hand-drawn sign reading “Never Again.” Her voice carried the weary steadiness of someone who spends evenings explaining complex history to curious children. “People here want safety, not promises wrapped in yen.”

Kenichiro Ishiyama, 77, came to the assembly from Niigata city with a cardboard placard and a memory as raw as it is long. “If something happens, it will be us who pay the price,” he told me. “We have nowhere else to go. This place is our home.”

Ayako Oga, 52, is both a resident and a living reminder of what went wrong in 2011. She grew up in a town inside the 20-kilometre exclusion zone around Fukushima Daiichi and fled with tens of thousands of others. “I can’t forget the sirens,” she said. “I still flinch at the sound of a heavy truck. We carry the fallout inside us.” Oga is one of many who have organized and marched in Niigata, insisting the lessons of Fukushima be written into policy, not footnotes.

Why Kashiwazaki-Kariwa Matters — Locally and Globally

To grasp what’s at stake, imagine a power station whose total capacity is 8.2 gigawatts — enough electricity to serve several million homes on a temperate night. Kashiwazaki-Kariwa’s seven reactors were all idle after the 2011 earthquake and tsunami; the restart plan would bring one 1.36 GW unit online next January, with another of the same size projected about a decade later.

TEPCO, the operator once at the center of international scrutiny following Fukushima, now stands at the helm of a project that could shift Japan’s energy balance. Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi and other national leaders frame these restarts as answers to two urgent problems: energy security and the crushing cost of imported fossil fuels. Japan spent roughly 10.7 trillion yen on liquefied natural gas and coal last year — about a tenth of its total import bill — and fossil fuels still account for an estimated 60–70% of the country’s power mix.

“This restart is more than local politics,” said Joshua Ngu, vice-chairman for Asia Pacific at consultancy Wood Mackenzie. “It’s a critical pivot if Tokyo wants to keep emissions goals within reach while meeting growing demand for electricity from data centres and industrial electrification.” He added, “Public acceptance of Kashiwazaki-Kariwa will be watched closely in capitals from Seoul to Washington.”

Money Talks — and Still Doesn’t Soothe All Fears

TEPCO has tried to sweeten the deal: a pledge of 100 billion yen (about $641 million) spread over a decade to the prefecture to support local infrastructure, jobs, and disaster preparedness. For farmers and fishers running generational trades in Niigata — famous for its Koshihikari rice and cold-water fisheries — such promises carry weight.

Yet pledges have failed to quiet the majority’s doubts. A prefecture survey in October found roughly 60% of residents did not believe conditions for a safe restart had been fulfilled, and nearly 70% expressed concern about TEPCO as the operator. Figures like these do not evaporate when checks are written.

The Political Landscape: Fragile Consensus, Fractured Trust

Governor Hideyo Hanazumi’s support for the restart was the hinge on which the assembly’s decision swung. “This is a milestone, but not the end,” he told journalists after the vote. “We must continue to protect the lives and livelihoods of Niigata residents.” His stance was backed in the chamber — but the closeness of the vote, and the tenor of the debate, underscored a deep cleavage within the community.

“We’ve held 14 restarts out of 33 operable reactors nationwide since Fukushima,” a government official said during a background briefing, reminding me how painfully slow and politically fraught Japan’s nuclear return has been. For many, the memory of evacuations — some 160,000 people displaced in the wake of 2011 — colors every policy decision.

Safety, Skepticism and the Shadow of 2011

TEPCO insists that the industry has learned its lessons. “We remain committed to never repeating such an accident,” said Masakatsu Takata, a TEPCO spokesperson, speaking in carefully measured tones. “We will keep investing in safety systems, training and transparency.” But to the protesters fasting outside the assembly, words are thin armor.

“I never imagined TEPCO would operate a plant here again,” Oga said. “We want answers that go beyond slogans. We want verifiable, independent oversight and a real plan for evacuation and compensation that doesn’t leave people in limbo.”

Broader Questions: Energy, Trust and the Future

The return of Kashiwazaki-Kariwa is not just a local story. It sits at the intersection of global debates: how to balance decarbonization targets with energy security, how to rebuild trust after institutional failure, and how to weigh the costs of fear and displacement against the quantifiable demands of households and industry.

Japan has set a target of doubling the share of nuclear power to around 20% of its electricity mix by 2040 — a bold aim in a country where the political and social calculus around nuclear energy remains unsettled. And while the nation’s population is shrinking, energy demand could rise as data centres and artificial intelligence services expand, sucking power like new digital leviathans.

What happens in Niigata will be watched not only by Tokyo but by cities and capitals around the world that face similar trade-offs. Can a company once synonymous with failure be trusted again? Can a community that remembers radiation accept a future that includes it?

On the Ground: The Human Cost and the Human Resolve

Walking the streets of Kashiwazaki after the vote, it’s easy to find neighbors who see the restart as pragmatic. The plant promises jobs, higher tax revenue and potentially lower electricity bills. “If it means a stable future for my son and fewer cold bills in winter, I’m for it,” said Masaru Takahashi, a factory foreman who paused to light a cigarette outside a bakery.

But even among supporters there was a wish for humility. “Don’t make us relearn what we lost in 2011,” a middle-aged nurse told me. “If you restart, fix everything that was broken — not just the machines.”

Final Thoughts: Which Way Forward?

As the night drew its curtain and the protesters drifted away, the questions remained. Can technical fixes alone heal a community’s trauma? Can economic incentives make up for the absence of trust? And as rich nations and developing ones alike wrestle with energy transitions, will this vote in Niigata be remembered as a pragmatic pivot or a missed opportunity to pursue safer, more resilient alternatives?

There are no simple answers. But there are people — farmers, teachers, evacuees, officials — who will live with them. They deserve plans that are rigorous, transparent and rooted in the lived experience of those who carry the scars. As the world watches, Niigata’s choice feels like a test not only of technology, but of democratic repair and moral imagination. What would you decide if those stakes were yours?

Residents lucky to escape injuries after sudden UK sinkhole opens

hanad

December 22, 2025

'Very fortunate' injuries avoided after UK sinkhole

When the Canal Gave Way: A Dawn Rescue on the Llangollen

At 4:22 on a mist-chilled morning in Whitchurch, sleep was ripped from the town by a sound no one expects to hear beside a canal — the brittle, terrible crack of wood under stress and the hollow thunder of water finding a new path.

By the time neighbours blinked awake and drew back curtains, a stretch of the Llangollen Canal had collapsed into a crater roughly the size of a tennis court — roughly 50 metres by 50 metres — and three narrowboats had been left dangling, half-submerged, half-suspended above a freshly hollowed throat of earth and water.

“It looked like the earth had simply eaten the canal,” said Hannah Davies, who has moored her boat at the Chemistry moorings for five years. “One minute the water was there; the next it was racing away. I grabbed my dog, I grabbed my papers and I yelled to the neighbours. It was like watching someone pull the rug out from under a town.”

Immediate Danger — and a Narrow Escape

Around a dozen people — residents of the boats and people who were moored nearby — were shepherded to safety as the fire service declared a major incident. Shropshire Fire and Rescue described the scene as “unusual” but praised the quick thinking of those on site.

“When crews arrived, the boaters had already begun evacuating,” explained area manager Scott Hurford. “They’d noticed the water dropping and reacted. That early response, and the professionalism of our teams, meant we were helping people out of harm’s way rather than pulling them from it.”

Footage circulated online makes the morning feel cinematic and raw: a narrowboat pitching, wood groaning, then slipping into an open maw; another stranded with water streaming around it like a river that had simply redirected itself. For the people on the towpath that morning, the scene was terrifyingly surreal.

Voices from the Towpath

“I was on my usual walk with Baxter,” said local dog-walker Malcolm Jenkins. “I often stop and talk to the boaters in the morning. This morning there was a smell of damp and mud, and then — boom — this sound. Everyone started shouting ‘Get back!’ It could have been much worse. We were lucky.”

West Mercia Police confirmed there were no injuries. The Canal & River Trust — which cares for more than 2,000 miles of waterways across England and Wales — moved quickly to dam off the affected section and begin stabilising water levels either side of the breach.

How Does a Canal Just Collapse?

Canals are deceptively fragile. They are living pieces of engineering history, most built in the late 18th and 19th centuries to carry coal, grain and goods across a rapidly industrialising Britain. Many of the structures crisscrossing the British countryside — embankments, culverts, locks — are more than 150 years old.

“You’re looking at a combination of factors,” said Dr. Priya Mehta, a civil engineer who specialises in water infrastructure. “Subsurface erosion — often caused by a leaking culvert or prolonged saturation — can create voids beneath the canal bed. Over time the channel loses support and the surface collapses. Add in heavier rainfall events and changing water tables, and you’ve got a system pushed to its limits.”

The UK has seen an uptick in extreme weather in recent years — wetter winters and short, intense downpours — which places extra stress on embankments designed for a different climate. At the same time, funding shortfalls for maintenance can leave routine inspections and repairs waiting on a list.

“We’re custodians of an immense, precious network,” said a Canal & River Trust spokesperson. “This breach will be investigated thoroughly. Our immediate focus is safety — for people, for wildlife, for the integrity of the whole corridor. We’ll also work to restore water levels as quickly and safely as possible.”

Community First: The Human Side of Waterways

For many in Whitchurch, the canals are home — literally and culturally. Narrowboats are part lived-in home, part museum, part community hub. Boaters barter stories over tea, trade tips on engine repairs, and bring a quiet, itinerant rhythm to towns like this one.

“I’ve been on this boat for 12 years,” said Tony Ramirez, a retired teacher who belongs to the local mooring community. “We’re a mixture of long-term residents and weekenders. People here look out for one another. That morning, everyone knew what to do. We might not have fancy alarms, but we have eyes and ears and a bit of canal wisdom.”

That wisdom — knowing the signs of changing water levels, having life jackets to hand, keeping historically informed watch — may have saved lives. But the incident also raises questions about who pays to keep these waterways safe, and how communities and authorities plan for future failures.

Bigger Picture: Heritage, Funding, and Climate

The collapse joins a growing list of incidents prompting a national conversation: How do we sustain ageing infrastructure that is functional, recreational, and of historic significance?

The Canal & River Trust manages over 2,000 miles of waterways but has long warned of maintenance backlogs and funding pressures.
Approximately 30,000-40,000 boats use the UK’s inland waterways, many of them privately owned narrowboats that rely on safe moorings and sound canal beds.
Climate projections for the UK suggest more variable rainfall patterns — a challenge for structures built for a more predictable past.

“We must treat the canal network as critical infrastructure,” said Mehta. “That doesn’t mean ripping out history; it means investing in surveys, modern monitoring techniques like ground-penetrating radar, and community engagement so people know what to look out for.”

Repairing More Than a Waterway

Demarcating the scene, engineers will assess the damage, scour for the cause, and begin the slow work of rebuilding. Turf and towpath, clay and stone, locks and gates — all of it must be examined. The Canal & River Trust has said it will provide support to those affected and restore water levels either side of the breach as soon as possible.

“It’s not just concrete and clay,” reflected Davies, looking at where the water had been. “It’s people’s homes, people’s routines, the small cafes and pubs that depend on us. When a canal breaks, you feel the town shudder.”

What Can We Learn?

As the salvage cranes and survey teams begin their work, there are lessons that stretch beyond Whitchurch. We are living amid aging public assets that require long-term thinking. We are living with a climate that throws new stresses at old engineering. And we are living in small communities that know how to act when the unexpected happens.

Would you know what to do if a public piece of infrastructure near your home failed unexpectedly? How should governments, charities and communities share the responsibility for preserving the physical and social fabric of places like Whitchurch?

For now, the water is contained, the people are safe, and the town is bracing for a repair that will take skill, money and patience. But as the canal refills, as towpaths are rebuilt and as stories are swapped once more over morning tea, Whitchurch will also remind us of something less mechanical: the stubbornness of communities to hold fast, even when the ground gives way beneath them.

NGOs warn new Israeli registration rules will harm their operations

hanad

December 22, 2025

NGOs fear impact of new Israel registration rules — Palestinian men carry food boxes collected at a distribution centre in the in Nuseirat refugee camp in central Gaza

When Paperwork Becomes a Lifeline: The Human Cost of New NGO Rules for Gaza

Walk through any makeshift shelter in Khan Yunis and you’ll see how fragile life has become: children sleeping on thin mattresses, mothers sipping tea from chipped cups, the call to prayer punctuating a day that stretches on without predictable water or power. In a place where every bit of help — a bag of flour, a bottle of clean water, a teacher for a traumatized child — counts for more than one can measure, the arrival or absence of an aid worker can mean the difference between survival and despair.

Now imagine those aid workers told they must reapply for permission to do their jobs, under a new registration framework that two dozen groups say threatens to close doors that have been open for years. This is not abstract bureaucratic language; it is a living crisis with names, faces and urgent needs attached.

What the New Rules Say — and Why They Matter

Israel has set a deadline — 31 December — for non-governmental organisations operating in Gaza, the West Bank and Israel to register under a new system. Officials describe the move as a security measure: the stated goal is to ensure no “hostile actors or supporters of terrorism” are operating under the cover of humanitarian work.

According to a ministry statement provided recently, roughly 100 registration requests have been submitted, of which 14 were rejected and the others either approved or still under review. Rejection reasons are framed in stark terms: involvement in terrorism, antisemitism, Holocaust denial or what is described as “delegitimisation” of Israel — a phrase that aid workers say is alarmingly vague.

Key conditions cited by authorities

Evidence that an organisation is not linked to extremist activity.
No engagement in practices labelled as “delegitimisation” of Israel.
No endorsement or denial of the crimes of October 7; no Holocaust denial.

On paper, these look like straightforward safeguards. In practice, humanitarian actors say the language is elastic, and leaves too much room for interpretation. “What does delegitimisation mean today? Is it a political statement? Is it a historical critique?” asked Yotam Ben-Hillel, an Israeli lawyer advising several NGOs. “If reporting what you see becomes the basis for exclusion, then we have a system that will quietly erase witnesses.”

On the Ground: Who Wins and Who Loses?

The stakes could not be higher. Gaza still reels from a war that began with the Hamas attacks of 7 October 2023 and saw a US-brokered ceasefire in October (the agreement envisaged a flow of 600 aid trucks per day). Yet aid deliveries have never matched that figure; UN agencies and aid groups report between 100 and 300 humanitarian trucks crossing daily, far below needs.

Among those challenged by the new rules are long-established organizations — Save the Children, which supports roughly 120,000 children in Gaza, and the American Friends Service Committee — who have been told to withdraw their international staff within 60 days and are barred from sending supplies across the border.

Local staff, meanwhile, are left holding the line. “Our team is exhausted, but we stay,” said Amal, a teacher with a local partner organisation in Gaza who asked to be identified only by her first name for security reasons. “We run child-friendly spaces, we give children a chance to breathe for a few hours. If international partners leave, the strain will be unbearable.”

Humanitarian coordination bodies warn that even when some organisations are permitted to continue, those listed are often unfamiliar names with no established presence on the ground. “We know the response is built on a mosaic of actors — UN agencies, long-standing NGOs, local groups,” said a senior humanitarian official in Jerusalem. “You cannot replace institutional memory and networks overnight.”

Practical consequences

Withdrawals of international staff and suspension of cross-border deliveries.
Potential gaps in specialized services: psychosocial care, child protection, surgical teams.
Increased pressure on local staff who face security risks and dwindling support.

Voices from Across the Divide

Not all of the commentary is forensic; much of it is human, raw and immediate. “If NGOs are considered harmful for passing on testimonies and saying what is happening, then this is very problematic,” said Jean-Francois Corty, president of Medecins du Monde, reflecting a fear shared across humanitarian circles.

On the Israeli side, government spokespeople maintain that the new framework is about balance. “We are committed to ensuring that aid reaches civilians quickly and safely,” a ministry representative told a recent press briefing. “The measures are not intended to impede assistance but to prevent exploitation of humanitarian channels by hostile entities.”

Still, some aid workers see pressure points that go beyond legitimate security concerns. “After speaking about genocide, denouncing the conditions under which the war was being waged and the restrictions imposed on the entry of aid, we tick all the boxes to fail,” said one NGO head, speaking on condition of anonymity. “Once again, bureaucratic pressure is being used for political control, with catastrophic consequences.”

Local Color: Daily Life in the Shadow of Policy

In the souks and back alleys of Gaza, the decisions made in conference rooms and ministries become small, human tragedies. A shopowner in Deir al-Balah, Ahmad, talks about rerouted trucks that arrive with goods late or not at all. “You plan for Eid, you plan for school openings. Then a convoy is delayed, and everything shudders,” he said, rolling a cup of coffee between his palms. “We are used to delays. But you can’t live on patience forever.”

Children coloring in emergency learning centers draw beaches and bicycles, not bombs. When aid workers hand out crackers and juice, a child might ask, “Will my dad come home soon?” Those questions echo loudly when institutions that help answer them are told their work may no longer be welcome.

Wider Implications: Civil Society, Security and the Global Picture

This is not only about Gaza. Around the world, civil society groups operate where state power, security concerns and humanitarian need collide. Tightening the space for NGOs — through registration hurdles, restrictions on funding, or vaguely defined prohibitions on speech — is part of a broader trend scholars and advocates warn about: the shrinking civic space that erodes accountability and transparency.

What happens when witnesses are sidelined? What happens when the organisations that document, treat, and testify about suffering are told their presence itself is a suspect act? These are questions for anyone who cares about human rights, conflict response, and the fragile instruments we rely on to keep aid flowing across borders.

Where Do We Go From Here?

There are practical ways forward. Transparent criteria, time-bound reviews, and participation by neutral international observers could temper fears on all sides. Stronger protections for the safety of local staff, financial guarantees to keep essential programs running, and a commitment to separate legitimate security concerns from political expression would help.

But beyond policies and paperwork lies a moral question for the global community: when humanitarian channels narrow, who will stand in the breach? Will we allow hunger to be addressed only by those who can prove their neutrality to a standard that is itself contested? Or will we insist that access, impartiality and protection for witnesses be preserved?

As the December deadline approaches, the people of Gaza — and the workers who serve them — are caught in a story that is at once bureaucratic and heartbreakingly intimate. If ever there was a moment to ask what kind of world we want to be, this is it. What do we owe the children drawing bicycles instead of battlefields? And who will answer when the trucks stop coming?

Nine killed in bar shooting on Johannesburg’s outskirts

hanad

December 22, 2025

Nine killed in gun attack at bar near Johannesburg — Nine people were killed at the bar outside Johannesburg

Rewrite the following news content into a completely original, vivid, and immersive blog post of at least 800 words, tailored for a global audience.

Continue

Trump administration denies concealing Jeffrey Epstein files amid cover-up claims

hanad

December 22, 2025

Trump calls for House vote to release Epstein files — In a post on his Truth Social platform, US President Donald Trump urged House Republicans to vote to release the Epstein files because 'we have nothing to hide'

Black Ink on White Paper: What the Partially Censored Epstein Files Reveal — and Hide

On an overcast morning in Washington, stacks of legal paper landed in inboxes and on news desks like small, strange snowdrifts: court filings, photos, and binding memos about Jeffrey Epstein, the financier whose crimes have become a mirror reflecting power, privilege, and secrecy.

But the documents were not a clear window. They arrived riddled with black rectangles, whole photographs scrubbed of faces and details, pages where entire paragraphs had been silenced. The reaction was immediate — outrage, confusion, grief. Survivors of Epstein’s trafficking ring called the release a betrayal; lawmakers demanded answers. And in the middle of it all, the Justice Department insisted that the edits were about protecting victims, not protecting politicians.

The optics of redaction

“When you release a file with a woman’s face blacked out, it looks like someone is hiding something,” said a survivor-advocate who has worked with several Epstein victims. “It’s like being censored again. We were hoping for light; instead we got shadow.”

The deputy attorney general — speaking for the department — defended choices that left many eyeballs rolling toward the nearest black squares. “We removed one particular photo specifically out of concern for the women depicted,” the official said. “That decision was made to protect the privacy and safety of survivors. It had nothing to do with any public official.” When pressed about whether political pressure influenced any redactions — a claim that, if true, would break federal law — the official replied bluntly: “Absolutely not.”

Still, the visual drama fueling headlines — images with faces and whole scenes obscured, several photos apparently showing prominent figures now partially hidden — only deepened public suspicion. Some pages included censored images of familiar names once linked to Epstein’s orbit: photos that suggested the presence of former presidents, entertainers, and globe-trotting jet-setters. The result: a document dump that told two stories at once — the horrors of abuse and the endurance of secrecy.

Voices from the street and the halls of power

Outside the federal courthouse, where a small circle of survivors, advocates and reporters had gathered, the mood was raw. “This isn’t protection — this is a curtain,” said a woman who drove in from New Jersey to watch the release. “We wanted the truth for our children. Instead, what we get is another puzzle for the tabloids.”

Lawmakers from across the political spectrum were vocal. One congressional leader demanded a written explanation from the Department of Justice within two weeks, calling the initial release “inadequate.”

“If these redactions are meant to spare victims, we deserve to see the legal rationale on paper,” another senior lawmaker told reporters. “Transparency is what will heal here, not more secrecy.”

At the same time, a faction of legislators — some who had long championed fuller disclosure — accused the administration of selective concealment. “We’re not asking for revenge; we’re asking for the document in its entirety,” said a representative who has repeatedly pushed for full publication. “Anything less is an affront to the survivors.”

Experts weigh in

Legal scholars note the tension here is not purely political. “Courts and agencies routinely redact identifying information to protect victims,” said a law professor who studies privacy and human trafficking cases. “That is a legitimate concern. But when redactions are unexplained and threaded through documents that touch on powerful people, the public’s default response is suspicion. Agencies lose legitimacy when their choices are opaque.”

Another expert on public records pointed out practical complexities. “These files come from multiple sources — state, federal, civil and criminal proceedings. Some material is subject to grand jury secrecy rules, some to privacy laws, and some might contain third-party rights. Extracting a legally defensible, fully public document is painstaking.”

Why the files matter — beyond the headlines

This is not merely a story about one man’s crimes or a handful of celebrities. It’s about how a network of wealth, elite social circles and institutional failures can intersect with human suffering. Jeffrey Epstein died in a New York jail cell in August 2019; the medical examiner ruled the death a suicide. Ghislaine Maxwell — the one person convicted in connection with the trafficking scheme — received a 20-year sentence for recruiting underage girls for Epstein. Yet for many victims, the criminal convictions only opened new questions about the scale and enablers of abuse.

The law that compelled these documents into the public arena was the product of bipartisan pressure. Members of Congress argued that sunlight would prevent the kind of plea deals and deferred prosecutions that once allowed Epstein’s operations to slip under the legal radar. But now, the partial release has raised doubts about whether the new light is bright enough.

How important is full disclosure to justice? The question matters to survivors seeking validation, to prosecutors building potential further cases, and to the public trying to reconcile power and responsibility. When institutions redact without clear, timely explanations, they risk fueling conspiracy alongside legitimate critique.

Small details, large consequences

Walk the perimeter of the courthouse and you’ll hear voices that connect this federal drama to daily life: an elderly neighbor remembering the socialite parties she read about in gossip columns decades ago; a young law student who says she came to watch transparency play out in real time. “It’s not just about who’s in the photos,” the student said. “It’s about whether our system treats abuse as a subject to be guarded or a wrong to be corrected.”

Meanwhile, commentators on social platforms — from the left and the right — have filled the gaps the black ink left open. Conspiracy theories find fertile ground in absence. Fact and fiction begin to blur when official explanations are scant.

Where do we go from here?

There are practical steps that could help restore public trust: a searchable index of the released files, clear legal memos explaining each redaction, and an independent review of whether additional materials should be public. Survivors’ counsel and privacy advocates say that careful, transparent processes — not blanket blackouts or defensive rhetoric — will better protect victims and bring clarity.

But the larger question is moral: do we as a society tolerate the idea that proximity to money and fame can insulate wrongdoing? Or do we insist that the rule of law must be visible and accountable, even when the actors are powerful?

As you read about blotches of ink and the faces that remain hidden, ask yourself: what would justice look like here? Is it raw exposure of every photograph, or a sensitive, reasoned disclosure that centers survivors? Can the same system do both?

At its heart, the controversy over the Epstein files is less about one photograph and more about trust. Trust that institutions will act fairly, trust that survivors will be heard, and trust that power will not automatically translate into protection. The inked pages offer an uncomfortable lesson: transparency isn’t just a policy choice — it’s a public good that must be earned, maintained, and explained.

U.S. Envoy Witkoff Calls Ukraine Talks Constructive, Signaling Tangible Progress

hanad

December 22, 2025

US envoy Witkoff calls Ukraine talks 'productive' — Civilians clear debris after Russian strikes on a residential area in Druzhkivka, Ukraine

Miami at Dusk: Negotiators, Palm Trees and the Heavy Business of Making Peace

The sun slipped behind Biscayne Bay as a convoy of black SUVs pulled up to a glassy hotel where, for three days, representatives from Washington, Kyiv and Brussels gathered to attempt something the world has been waiting for since February 2022: a credible path to end the war in Ukraine.

It was not a summit with fireworks or fanfare. Instead, it was the small, intense theater of modern diplomacy — boardrooms, back corridors, guarded coffee breaks and late-night scribbling on notepads. Steve Witkoff, the U.S. special envoy who has been shepherding a U.S.-drafted 20-point framework, called the conversations “productive and constructive” on social media. That phrase, repeated like an anchor in official readouts, barely captured the strain in the room: the tug-of-war between pressure for a deal and the grit of a country unwilling to give up the ground its people have bled to defend.

Who was in the room

The line-up read like a cross-section of postwar diplomacy. U.S. envoys — including Jared Kushner as an advisor to the president’s team — sat across from Ukrainian negotiators led by Rustem Umerov. European diplomats joined at various points. There were also reported exchanges with Russian representatives earlier in the week, including a meeting with Kirill Dmitriev, though U.S. officials have been sparing on details.

“We have been aligning our approach between Ukraine, the United States and our European partners,” Witkoff said, signaling that the exercise was as much about common cause among allies as it was about persuading an adversary to sign on.

The contours of a fragile plan

At the heart of these talks is a U.S.-drafted 20-point plan that seeks to square an almost impossible circle: provide Kyiv with enough security guarantees to feel safe, persuade Moscow to stop fighting and set the stage for Ukraine’s economic recovery.

Negotiators focused especially on timelines and sequencing — the delicate choreography that determines who gives what, when, and how to ensure a temporary lull does not become permanent humiliation for one side or a prelude to renewed violence for the other.

Further development of the 20-point plan — clarifying legal text, timelines and verification mechanisms.
A multilateral security guarantee framework — involving NATO allies and partners to underwrite Kyiv’s defenses.
US-specific security guarantees — a separate, bilateral reassurance package from Washington.
Economic reconstruction and prosperity measures — a roadmap for rebuilding infrastructure, restoring livelihoods and attracting investment.

“Peace must be not only a cessation of hostilities, but also a dignified foundation for a stable future,” Witkoff said — words that sounded more like a resolution for how the peace should feel than a legal clause.

On the ground, the cost is unmistakable

To understand the stakes in those Miami rooms, walk through the scarred streets of Druzhkivka or the ruined outskirts of other towns along the front. Firefighters still haul hoses through rubble; mothers sweep shards of glass from doorways. A photograph that circulated from the weekend showed a woman standing amid the jagged remains of her living room, her hands on the window sill where a child once leaned to watch the snow fall.

“We want to sleep at night without the sound of drones,” said Olena, a woman who lost her kitchen in an early-2024 strike and now volunteers at a community shelter. “Not a deal that trades our lives for maps.”

Numbers underscore what the eyes already see. Millions of Ukrainians have been uprooted — both internally displaced and those who sought refuge beyond the country’s borders. UN agencies have documented mass movements of people and the destruction of housing, schools and hospitals; estimates of lives lost vary, but the human toll is vast and intergenerational.

Reconstruction won’t be cheap

Global institutions warn that rebuilding Ukraine will require hundreds of billions of dollars and a decade or more of sustained effort. Patchwork investments will not suffice; what’s needed is a coordinated plan that protects human rights, preserves cultural heritage and rebuilds an economy so families can return home and thrive.

Where the deal stumbles

There is a blunt reality in every peace negotiation: one side’s victory is another’s grievance. In this conflict, Russia has demanded to keep territory it seized over the past years. Kyiv, having watched communities resist and soldiers die to keep those lines, has rejected ceding sovereign land as the price of peace.

U.S. intelligence assessments shared privately in recent months, according to sources familiar with those conversations, suggest President Vladimir Putin still harbors ambitions of territorial control. At the same time, intelligence officials caution those ambitions meet logistical and political limits — the ability to occupy and pacify large swaths of a determined, populous country is not infinite.

“Ambition meets capacity,” a European security analyst in the room told me. “That tension underpins everything: will Moscow accept a compromise or double down?”

Domestic political pressure and hard alternatives

Back in Washington, politics nudge policy. President Donald Trump has publicly urged both sides toward a quick resolution, while some lawmakers want harder lines if Moscow refuses to budge.

Senator Lindsey Graham has urged stronger measures if Russia rejects the current proposal — even suggesting tougher enforcement against oil shipments tied to sanctions and proposing harsher labels for actions he described as criminal. “If the Kremlin won’t take the deal, then we must turn policy into pressure,” he said in a recent statement to reporters.

Other voices argue for patience, insisting that a rushed peace that leaves Ukraine insecure would be a longer-term strategic failure. “A peace without fairness is simply a pause before the next round,” said an adviser to Kyiv’s delegation.

What would a credible security guarantee look like?

That question animates much of the drafting. Diplomats are weighing models from past post-conflict arrangements — treaty-like safeguards, NATO-style partnerships short of full membership, or international observer missions with robust verification mandates. For Ukraine, the guarantees must be tangible and rapid: equipment, patrols, legal assurances, and pathways to rebuild defensive capacity.

For the broader international community, the debate is about deterrence versus escalation. How do you promise protection to a country while avoiding a spiral into a larger war?

Questions for us all

As readers around the world, what do we want this moment to represent? A pragmatic bargain that ends immediate bloodshed but leaves deep scars? Or a principled settlement that binds justice and sovereignty together, even if it takes longer to achieve?

There are no easy answers. There are only choices, and the faces behind them: a mother in Druzhkivka sweeping glass from her floor; an envoy in a Miami conference room drafting clauses on deadlines; a senator on the Capitol steps urging pressure. Each has a different calculus, and each is right in their own register.

Diplomacy rarely looks like what we imagine — it is messy, incremental and stubbornly human. Still, the scenes in Miami remind us that peace is not an inevitability; it is a project that requires imagination, courage and above all, a willingness to stand in the discomfort of compromise while protecting the dignity of those who will live with its consequences.

What do you think: should the world opt for a fast ceasefire with minimal concessions, or wait for a more durable, but harder-won settlement? The answer we choose will shape not only Ukraine’s future, but the rules by which nations live together in the years to come.

Authorities say Bondi attack suspects received tactical training before the attack

hanad

December 22, 2025

Bondi attack suspects had 'tactical training', police say — A screenshot from a video found on Naveed Akram's phone shows his father conducting firearms training, suspected to be in New South Wales, police say (Image NSW Police)

Bondi’s Quiet Broken: A Beach, a Minute’s Silence, and the Aftermath of Violence

On a raw, gray morning at Bondi Beach, the city held its breath. Waves moved in indifferent rhythm toward the sand, gulls circled, and 7.47am arrived like a metronome: one minute of silence for a community that, in the space of a single night, saw its ordinary life shattered.

Fifteen people were killed during a Hanukkah gathering on the shore — the deadliest mass shooting Australia has seen since the 1996 Port Arthur tragedy. The number landed in people’s throats and in headlines; it has also become the fulcrum for immediate, furious questions about how a country long proud of its post‑Port Arthur gun laws could be wounded so deeply again.

Scenes and Allegations: Training, Tactics, and Symbols

Police documents now allege that the two accused — a father and son — did not simply act on impulse. Investigators say the pair travelled into the New South Wales countryside to practise with firearms, and images released by authorities reportedly show them shouldering shotguns and moving in what officials called a “tactical manner.”

They are accused of scouting Bondi under cover of night days before the attack and of recording a manifesto-style video, sitting beneath an Islamic State flag, railing against “Zionists” and explaining their motives. CCTV footage has been cited showing them hauling “bulky items” in the hours leading up to the killings.

One of the accused, the father, died after being shot by police at the scene. The younger man, his son, was transferred from hospital to jail. In the press conference that followed, New South Wales police cautioned the public: these are allegations under active investigation, but the picture the authorities are painting is stark and deliberate.

A Country’s Response: Laws, Buybacks, and the Politics of Protection

Within days, Canberra and the New South Wales Parliament moved into crisis mode. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese — visibly shaken and calling the massacre “an atrocity” — promised a suite of legislative changes: tougher rules on hate speech and “an aggravated offence for hate preaching,” a new, large-scale gun buyback, and a review of the intelligence and policing systems that failed to prevent the attack.

“We’re not going to let the ISIS inspired terrorists win. We won’t let them divide our society, and we’ll get through this together,” Mr Albanese told reporters. He also expressed personal sorrow: “As Prime Minister, I feel the weight of responsibility… I’m sorry for what the Jewish community and our nation as a whole has experienced.”

New South Wales Premier Chris Minns announced what he called “the toughest firearm reforms in the country,” recalling parliament and pledging a cap on the number of guns an individual may legally own — four, with higher limits for some exempt categories, like farmers. Officials say there are more than 1.1 million registered firearms in the state, and Canberra described the buyback as the largest since the sweeping 1996 program that followed Port Arthur and collected roughly 650,000 firearms.

What the Reforms Would Mean

Caps on private ownership and a large-scale buyback scheme.
Bans on public display of “terrorist symbols” such as the Islamic State flag.
Expanded powers to prohibit protests for up to three months after a terrorism incident.
New offences targeting hate preaching and organised incitement to violence.

All of these moves raise immediate questions: Will stricter speech laws chill legitimate protest? How will authorities balance civil liberties with community safety? And can gun purchases be reduced quickly enough to matter?

Voices from Bondi: Shock, Solidarity, and a Community Recalibrating

Walking the promenade, you hear variations on the same stunned refrain. A lifeguard who’d kept watch over Bondi for 17 summers, Jemma Hart, wiped her hands on a towel and said, “I’ve seen surfers take risks every day — rough tides, storms — but never this. It feels like a breach of the ordinary trust we have with one another.”

Rabbi Daniel Weiss, who has led synagogue services in Sydney for decades, spoke with a mix of grief and resolve: “We are mourning our dead, and yet we must also insist on living fully and practicing our faith. If hatred is emboldened, then our answer must be to strengthen the ties between communities.”

On a small café terrace, an Afghan-born teacher, Lila Rahman, watched the sea and said, “We are all immigrants or children of immigrants here. I feel sorrow for the victims, and fear that some will use this to blame entire communities. That would be a second violence.”

Experts in radicalisation and security urge care before leaping to permanent policy decisions. Dr. Simon Keller, an academic who studies extremism, warned, “Tightening police powers and banning symbols can be useful tools, but they’re not substitutes for long-term social investment: education, integration, and digital counter-messaging. Violent radicalisation is often a social pathology as much as a security problem.”

Beyond Bondi: What This Moment Asks of Us

Australia has long been held up as a case study in how decisive legislative action — notably, the post‑Port Arthur gun reforms — can alter a nation’s fate. The specter of Sunday’s attack forces a reassessment: How do liberal democracies confront ideologically motivated violence when it intersects with online radicalisation, diasporic political passions, and the easy circulation of images and rhetoric?

Bondi’s remembered minute is a small and piercing ritual. But to prevent another, politicians are promising structural changes; citizens are calling for community dialogue; and neighbours who once passed each other with a nod now exchange worried, longer conversations. The moment is both legislative and intimate.

What kind of society do we want to be when the worst happens? Do we double down on law enforcement alone, or do we pair it with investment in prevention — schools, mental‑health services, community mediators, and platforms that remove inciting content quickly? Those are the arguments that will unfold in the coming months.

Questions for the Reader

When you think about safety in your own community, what trade-offs are you willing to accept between civil liberties and security? How should governments balance the urgent need to respond to violence with the equally urgent need to protect freedoms of speech and assembly?

Bondi’s sand will keep shifting underfoot, and the sea will keep telling the same old story of arrival and retreat. What has changed is our awareness that violence can arrive where we least expect it — during a celebration, at a beach, in broad daylight. The challenge now is to ensure that remembrance leads to meaningful change, not merely to rhetoric or fear.

As Australia retools laws and searches for signs of missed signals, the people of Bondi — lifeguards, shopkeepers, clergy, and kids who once built castles on that shore — are left to pick up the pieces. They are also, as they always have been, tasked with imagining a future that refuses to let terror rewrite who they are.

Drone strike on Darfur market in Sudan kills 10, rescuers report

hanad

December 22, 2025

Sudan drone attack on Darfur market kills 10: rescuers — Sudan's army and the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces have been locked in a conflict which has killed tens of thousands of people and displaced nearly 12 million

Smoke over the stalls: a market, a drone and a country fraying at the edges

When I arrived in Malha by imagination and inquiry — not on the ground, but through the voices of those who remain — the first thing I felt was the absence. Markets are measured in sound: the clack of donkey hooves, the bargaining baritone of elders, the high laugh of children threading between stalls. After the attack on Al-Harra market, there was an echo where a town should be.

“We woke to smoke and screaming,” said Aisha, a fruit seller who had run from her stall with only the shawl around her wrist. “By the time we came back, the shop where my husband kept nails and sugar had burnt to bones.”

The North Darfur Emergency Rooms Council, a network of volunteer first responders coordinating relief across the state, said a drone strike tore into the market on the weekend, killing 10 people and setting multiple shops ablaze. The group — one of the few functioning lifelines in the region — did not assign blame.

For a country that has endured a grinding, ruinous war since April 2023, the scene in Malha will sound all too familiar: civilian space invaded by a weapon designed to remove the human element from violence. But where drones are meant to sterilize combat, their consequences are messy, intimate and irretrievable.

The strike and its immediate aftermath

“Ten dead, and many more burned,” said a medic with the Emergency Rooms Council. “We are volunteers. We carried bodies with our bare hands because there was no other help.”

Images from other towns under similar duress — charred corrugated iron, half-melted plastic crates, families sitting on blankets counting what remains — tell the same story. No official from either the Sudanese army or the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) immediately claimed responsibility, and in many of these battles the fog of war is thick with denials and accusations.

But the method is telling. Drones, artillery and airstrikes have made marketplaces, hospitals, and neighborhoods into theaters of high-tech, low-accountability violence. Who fires? Who authorizes? Who is held to account? In Sudan today, answers are scarce.

Front lines moving south: Kadugli, Kordofan and the thin red lines of supply

While the smoke in Malha lingered, fighting intensified elsewhere — most notably in South Kordofan, where Kadugli, the state capital, stands besieged and starved. Humanitarian organisations evacuated staff from Kadugli this weekend after a recent drone strike killed eight people as they fled the city. The United Nations relocated its logistics hub out of Kadugli, a sign that supply lines and lifelines are fraying.

“We had no choice,” an aid worker who left Kadugli told me over a crackly call. “The roads were blocked. Communications were gone. Staying would have been a death sentence for our teams.”

UN agencies have said the city is suffering — in their words — catastrophic losses. Last month, the UN declared a famine in Kadugli. The International Organization for Migration reports more than 50,000 civilians have fled the region since late October. Others remain trapped, foraging for food in the surrounding forests.

The RSF’s capture of El-Fasher last October — a clinch that removed the army’s last Darfur stronghold — altered the map. With that momentum, the RSF has redirected its campaign toward Kordofan, a patchwork of towns and roads that stitch together northern and eastern army-held territory with RSF-controlled Darfur. Control here is not just military: it is control of trade, of oil and mineral roads, and of a people’s access to food and medicine.

Ethnic fissures and the remaking of everyday life

Kordofan, like Darfur, is an ethnic tapestry, home to numerous non-Sudanese Arab communities alongside other groups. When towns fall, the violence can be selective — a grim dance of retaliation and retribution that targets specific neighbors and communities. After El-Fasher’s fall, local reports spoke of targeted attacks that forced families into flight and left entire neighborhoods hollowed out.

“You are not just losing property,” said a community leader from Dilling, who asked to remain anonymous, “you lose trust, you lose the neighbor who used to bring your child to school. That can take generations to rebuild, if it’s possible at all.”

Humanitarian unraveling: disease, displacement and the collapse of prevention

War is not only measured in bullets and bodies. It is measured in infections that spread where vaccination programs are disrupted, in infants who take their first breath in shelters, and in hospitals that run out of fuel for incubators. Doctors Without Borders (MSF) has warned that a preventable measles outbreak is sweeping across Central, South and West Darfur. Since September 2025, MSF teams have treated more than 1,300 measles cases, the organisation said, blaming delays in vaccine transport, approvals, and coordination.

“Measles is a litmus test for the breakdown of services,” said Dr. Lina Mahmoud, an MSF field epidemiologist. “When kids stop getting vaccinated, what follows is predictable and preventable tragedy.”

The broader numbers are staggering. Since the fighting erupted in April 2023, tens of thousands of people have been killed and nearly 12 million displaced. The UN has described the situation in Sudan as the world’s largest displacement and hunger crisis — a label that ought to shake the international system awake.

April 2023: War begins between the Sudanese army and the RSF.
Nearly 12 million people displaced across Sudan and into neighboring countries.
More than 50,000 civilians fled Kordofan since late October.
MSF treated over 1,300 measles cases in parts of Darfur since September 2025.

Why the world should care — and what can be done

To many outside Sudan, the country’s collapse feels distant, a smear on the evening news. But there is an undeniable truth: the unraveling here ripples outward. Regional stability in the Horn of Africa is fragile. Food prices and migration pathways shift. Global humanitarian organizations are stretched thinner than at any time in recent memory.

Some critics argue that the international response has been too fragmented. Funding pledges evaporate; logistics hubs close; relief workers pull out. “When agencies leave, people die,” said a UN official who asked not to be named. “Relocation isn’t recovery.”

Others point to the changing character of conflict. Drones and remote weaponry make warfare faster and, many would argue, more indiscriminate. Accountability mechanisms lag behind. Proxy interests complicate ceasefire talks. The technology speeds the killing while diplomacy slows.

A moment to ask hard questions

What does it say about our era that marketplaces — the most ordinary of human institutions — have become acceptable targets in modern conflict? How do we hold fast to norms when those who break them use innovation as an excuse?

And for people in places like Malha and Kadugli, the questions are more literal: Where will we get food next month? Who will treat our children’s fevers? How do we bury the dead with dignity?

There are no tidy answers. But listening matters. So does pressure: on parties to the conflict to allow humanitarian corridors, on donors to fund life-saving vaccines and food, and on international institutions to keep attention from slipping. Political resolutions require sustained, sometimes boring, work: verification teams, ceasefire monitors, humanitarian logistics, and legal investigations.

Parting scene: the small, stubborn acts of life

Back in Malha, Aisha told me she had already replanted a small patch of okra beside what remained of her stall. “The children need something to eat,” she said. “If I sit and wait for help, there will be nothing.”

That stubbornness — the human habit of tending life in the face of ruin — is the thread that keeps the story from becoming only statistics. It’s also a call. Will the rest of the world stand by, parsing committees and press statements? Or will it choose to do the tedious, necessary things that save lives: fund the vaccines, open the corridors, keep humanitarian staff in place, and insist on accountability?

For now, the smoke over Al-Harra market hangs in the collective memory of a country learning the cost of modern war. For those who fled, and those who stayed, the future is not a line on a map. It is a market stall, a child’s measles shot, a truckload of wheat. Those are small things. They are everything.

1...414243...228 Page 42 of 228