Lebanon reports casualties as ceasefire deadline with Israel expires
Tensions erupted in southern Lebanon on Sunday after the deadline expired for Israeli troops to withdraw as part of a ceasefire deal reached between Israel and the Iranian-allied Lebanese Hezbollah movement.
Three people were killed and 31 injured in Israeli attacks in southern Lebanon as people attempted to return to their towns there, the Lebanese Ministry of Health said.
People have gathered since the early hours of Sunday trying to return to their towns and villages in the border area of southern Lebanon, the official Lebanese National News Agency (NNA) said.
The Israeli military has warned residents against returning to the area and accused Hezbollah of inciting tensions.
Online images purportedly showed people crossing a barbed wire fence and entering the southern town of Kfar Kila carrying pictures and the Hezbollah banner.
The Israeli army captured two people in the southern town of Houla after they had entered it, the Lebanese television station LBC reported.
Footage circulating online showed a convoy of cars attempting to enter the southern town of Ayta al-Shaab despite the Israeli army warning that it is still deployed in the area.
Some locals sounded resolute about returning to their towns in the region against the odds.
"We are determined to enter our villages, whatever the cost may be," Fatma, a woman from the southern town of Mais al-Jabal, told dpa as she was trekking towards her home town.
"We are here as civilians and not as armed people. We are the people of the land," Mohammed, a male native of the southern town of Maroun al-Ras, said.
People were seen entering Maroun al-Ras and standing facing the nearby Israelis tanks, witnessed said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
33 minutes ago
- Yahoo
MIT class president barred from graduation after pro-Palestine speech
[Source] The Massachusetts Institute of Technology's 2025 class president was barred from attending her graduation ceremony on Friday after delivering a pro-Palestinian speech that criticized the university's ties to Israel during a commencement event the day prior. What she said Megha Vemuri took the stage at Thursday's OneMIT commencement ceremony wearing a keffiyeh over her graduation gown. During the Indian-origin graduate's four-minute speech, she praised students who protested the war in Gaza and condemned MIT's financial ties to Israel. 'Right now, while we prepare to graduate and move forward with our lives, there are no universities left in Gaza,' Vemuri said. 'We are watching Israel try to wipe out Palestine off the face of the Earth, and it is a shame that MIT is a part of it.' Vemuri specifically criticized MIT's research connections, stating that 'Israel is the only foreign military with which MIT has active research ties.' MIT reportedly received $2.8 million in grants, gifts and contracts from Israeli entities between 2020 and 2024. She concluded her speech by invoking MIT's tradition of turning class rings outward, saying graduates 'carry with us the stamp of the MIT name, the same name that is directly complicit in the ongoing genocide of the Palestinian people.' Trending on NextShark: The aftermath MIT President Sally Kornbluth attempted to calm the crowd immediately after Vemuri's speech, saying, 'At MIT, we believe in freedom of expression. But today is about the graduates.' University officials later informed Vemuri she could not attend Friday's undergraduate ceremony and was barred from campus until it concluded. MIT said the speech differed from what was submitted in advance, with the university claiming Vemuri chose to 'deliberately and repeatedly' mislead Commencement organizers and lead a protest from the stage. The big picture Trending on NextShark: Vemuri's ban reflects growing tensions at universities where students have transformed graduation ceremonies into platforms for Gaza-related protests. These events unfold as universities navigate pressure from the Trump administration, which has been cutting federal funding for research and launching investigations into DEI programs. In an X post, House Speaker Mike Johnson called Vemuri's speech 'Ignorant. Hateful. Morally bankrupt,' urging parents to 'avoid MIT & the Ivy League at all costs.' Despite the controversy, Vemuri will receive her degree by mail and expressed no regrets, telling CNN she sees 'no need for me to walk across the stage of an institution that is complicit in this genocide.' The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) condemned MIT's decision, with Massachusetts executive director Tahirah Amatul-Wadud saying, 'MIT must respect academic freedom and respect the voices of its students, not punish and intimidate those who speak out against genocide and in support of Palestinian humanity.' Trending on NextShark: This story is part of The Rebel Yellow Newsletter — a bold weekly newsletter from the creators of NextShark, reclaiming our stories and celebrating Asian American voices. Subscribe free to join the movement. If you love what we're building, consider becoming a paid member — your support helps us grow our team, investigate impactful stories, and uplift our community. ! Download the NextShark App: Want to keep up to date on Asian American News? Download the NextShark App today!
Yahoo
33 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Arizona teachers could be sued for what they say in classroom under bill on Hobbs' desk
A bill on the governor's desk would allow students and their parents to sue K-12 and university teachers and could make the instructors pay damages for teaching or promoting antisemitism. The proposal has provoked concern from public-school advocates about exacerbating the teacher shortage and has raised red flags about First Amendment violations due to what the proposed law considers "antisemitism." But supporters, such as bill sponsor Rep. Michael Way, R-Queen Creek, say it's needed because existing anti-discrimination laws "either weren't clear enough or didn't contain the necessary enforcement mechanism to address this problem." House Bill 2867 would prohibit teachers, administrators, contractors and volunteers at K-12 public schools and public or private universities from: teaching or promoting antisemitism; requiring students to advocate for anti-Semitic points of view; and receiving professional development "in any antisemitism" that creates a "discriminatory" or "hostile" environment. The bill includes specific examples of speech the state would prohibit, such as calling the existence of Israel "racist" or comparing Israeli policy to that of Nazis. But when Texas Gov. Greg Abbott tried to punish university student groups for the same type of speech, a Federal District Court in Texas said it amounted to "viewpoint discrimination that chills speech in violation of the First Amendment." That might bode poorly for the constitutionality of Arizona's bill. Some supporters have contended the bill doesn't violate the First Amendment because it targets teachers, not students. However, one provision of the Arizona bill does target students groups — a fact one First Amendment expert said was an obvious violation. Other sections of the bill raise concerns about the free speech rights of teachers and private universities. Way said his bill was prompted by concerns ignited by Hamas' attack against Israel on October 7. It comes amid a wave of similar proposals from lawmakers nationwide who also have tried to combat antisemitism. The efforts have come under fire by free speech advocates for using antisemitism to punish people for criticizing the Israeli government or for supporting the Palestinian people. The Arizona Education Association, the main teacher's union in the state, and the American Civil Liberties Union of Arizona have urged Gov. Katie Hobbs, a Democrat, to veto the bill. The teacher's union, in a letter also signed by the National Council of Jewish Women Arizona, told Hobbs the proposal "weaponizes legitimate concerns about antisemitism to attack public education" by stripping teachers of professional liability protections. That would "incentivize bad-faith litigation by outside groups with unlimited resources, leaving Arizona educators, who already earn some of the lowest salaries in the nation, with few avenues to defend themselves." The ACLU of Arizona wrote to Hobbs that signing it "will chill the First Amendment rights of students, teachers, speakers and administrators," and targets those who criticize Israel. State Rep. Walt Blackman, R-Snowflake, who supported the bill, rejected that idea. The bill wasn't about limiting speech but rather protecting a threatened group, he said. He urged other lawmakers to stand their ground and protect a persecuted community, pondering how such a law may have helped Black Americans in the past. "If you study your history, this sort of thing in schools were happening to Black Americans. And there wasn't a law to protect Black Americans from anti-Black speech in schools, particularly in the South," Blackman said. "This group of people, the Jewish community, this is a long time coming — to protect their identity, their community, their demographics," he said. In addition to banning antisemitic instruction in the classroom, the bill also seeks to restrict the use of public funding for training that promotes antisemitism and bans schools from penalizing or discriminating against a teacher who refuses to teach or promote antisemitism. The bill lays out a formal investigation and appeal process, involving school officials, governing boards and state education agencies. Any member of the public could file a complaint to kick-off the process. Accused officials found in violation could face consequences ranging from formal reprimands to suspension without pay to termination and losing their teaching certificate. The proposal also allows students and their parents to pursue civil litigation after an investigation ends, and says officials can be held personally responsible to pay damages or attorneys fees, if a court awards them. It is unclear who would pay the costs if a public institution itself was found in violation by a court. The bill says taxpayers funds could not be used. Way — who refused to answer questions when reached by phone and insisted on communication by email — told The Arizona Republic that decision would be left to the courts. There are varying opinions on how much of the proposed law, or which portions, would violate the First Amendment. If it became law and was challenged, courts could strike down parts of it and let others take effect. First Amendment expert Eugene Volokh, professor emeritus at the UCLA School of Law, said the parts of the bill banning what teachers couldn't teach in K-12 were probably OK. However, courts could find the bill's definition of antisemitism too vague to warrant punishment like termination, he added. The provision targeting university student groups, however, was "pretty clearly unconstitutional," Volokh said. "Generally speaking, the government can control what is taught in the public schools. It's sort of the government speech," he said. That dynamic changes in higher education, though. "Courts have recognized indeed that faculty members have very broad rights to speak out in public and in their scholarship. And in-part because we're talking not about kids as students but adults as students, that you can't just fire a faculty member simply on the grounds that the speech he said causes tension with people or disrupts morale ... . It would have to be very, very high bar," Volokh said. A few sections that appeared to restrict teachers' speech outside of the classroom also are constitutionally questionable. Volokh pointed to a section that would ban teachers or officials from calling for the genocide of a group of people or the "murder of members of a particular group." Because that section didn't specifically indicate that doing so was banned while teaching, it might be a First Amendment violation, Volokkh said. The First Amendment prohibits the government from banning speech, including offensive and uncomfortable ideas. Those protections are limited when the speech, by its very utterance, incites a clear and present danger — a high threshold. Hobbs, a Democrat whose 2026 re-election chances are widely seen as at risk, has not indicated her position on the bill. She is required to sign or veto it by June 10. It passed the Arizona Senate on May 28 along party lines, with Republicans in support. The House of Representatives passed it June 4, with Democrats Alma and Consuelo Hernandez of Tucson and Lydia Hernandez of Phoenix joining the Republicans. The Hernandez sisters, who are Jewish, are vocal proponents of laws that clamp down on antisemitism. Alma Hernandez, before casting her vote of approval, said the law was needed to address issues like schools displaying Palestinian flags. "That flag is not a flag of a country. That flag is a political statement, which should not be allowed in our public schools," Hernandez said. Taylor Seely is a First Amendment Reporting Fellow at The Arizona Republic / Do you have a story about the government infringing on your First Amendment rights? Reach her at tseely@ or by phone at 480-476-6116. Seely's role is funded through a collaboration between the Freedom Forum and Journalism Funding Partners. Funders do not provide editorial input. This article originally appeared on Arizona Republic: Arizona bill to ban teaching of antisemitism is First Amendment issue
Yahoo
33 minutes ago
- Yahoo
L.A. Burns
Riots in Los Angeles: President Donald Trump deployed the National Guard in Los Angeles following three days of clashes between protesters and police. The riots were set off when Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents raided workplaces in pursuit of immigrants here illegally. Most of the violence has so far been contained to downtown L.A. There, rioters have set self-driving Waymo taxis on fire and vandalized buildings. Protests are also happening some 15 miles south in Paramount, to the east of Compton and north of Long Beach. Jim McDonnell, the chief of the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD), implied the protests were not occurring organically and that the violence should be attributed to "anarchists" and "people who do this all the time." More than 150 people have been arrested in the L.A. protests since Friday, with 60 arrested in San Francisco (where similar protests are happening, but with less damage so far). At one point, it looks like the LAPD shot a journalist with a rubber bullet: "Trump's order for the troops was the first time since 1965 that a president had activated a state's National Guard force for a domestic operation without a state governor's request for the purposes of quelling unrest or enforcing the law," reports The New York Times. The paper quoted California Gov. Gavin Newsom, a Democrat, saying Trump's move "is purposefully inflammatory and will only escalate tensions"; he added that "this is the wrong mission and will erode public trust." (As for what he thinks the right mission is, I guess I just haven't listened to enough of his podcasts to be able to say.) It's hard to know where this goes: Whether it escalates further, whether the National Guard's presence will actually quell the unrest, whether public sentiment toward deportations changes based on the conduct of the rioters, and how much property damage Angelenos are willing to tolerate. One thing is clear: The Trump administration appears to relish the opportunity to send in the National Guard. And another: The senseless property destruction that has become commonplace at such events since the summer of George Floyd means normal, uninvolved people sometimes lose their livelihoods when cities descend into chaos. Shouldn't she be right now? Greta Thunberg and a group of 11 other activists—including Game of Thrones actor Liam Cunningham and Rima Hassan, a French-Palestinian member of the European Parliament—set sail from Sicily about a week ago and have made their way to Gaza in an attempt to deliver aid to people there. Along the way they picked up four Libyan migrants whose own boat was sinking and who reportedly feared being nabbed by the Libyan coast guard. When the crew were about 120 miles off the coast of Gaza, the Israeli military apprehended the ship. The Freedom Flotilla Coalition, the organizers of the trip, declared in a statement that the activists were "kidnapped by Israeli forces." "The ship was unlawfully boarded, its unarmed civilian crew abducted, and its life-saving cargo—including baby formula, food and medical supplies—confiscated," said the group. Israel's foreign ministry disagrees, derogatorily calling the boat a "selfie yacht" full of "celebrities." "I urge all my friends, family and comrades to put pressure on the Swedish government to release me and the others as soon as possible," said Thunberg in a recorded message. (Presumably she means to get the Swedish government to pressure the Israeli government to release her.) Human rights groups in Israel say the country has "no legal authority" to seize the boat, since it was in international waters. "An attempt last month by Freedom Flotilla to reach Gaza by sea failed after another of the group's vessels was attacked by two drones while sailing in international waters off Malta, organizers said," reports the Associated Press. Israel argues that these "aid shipments" don't amount to significant help for Gazans. "While Greta and others attempted to stage a media provocation whose sole purpose was to gain publicity—and which included less than a single truckload of aid—more than 1,200 aid trucks have entered Gaza from Israel within the past two weeks, and in addition, the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation has distributed close to 11 million meals directly to civilians in Gaza," the foreign ministry claimed. The state Senate is expected to vote today on a bill that would legalize assisted suicide for all New Yorkers. The Medical Aid in Dying Act would be available to patients whose doctors say they have incurable conditions with less than six months left to live. The state Assembly has already passed the bill. So if it passes the Senate, it will head to Gov. Kathy Hochul's desk for either a signature or a veto. Two separate doctors might sign off on a ruling that a patient has just six months to live in order for the patient to legally gain access to these drugs. "If either determines the patient 'may lack decision-making capacity' for any reason, they are required to refer them to a mental health professional for further evaluation," reports Gothamist. "Otherwise, a mental health check is not required." " I think my colleagues have come to the conclusion that medical aid in dying isn't so much about ending a person's life but shortening their deaths," state Sen. Brad Hoylman-Sigal, a Manhattan Democrat, told Gothamist. As I've said before, we're barreling toward Ättestupa, toward a world in which humans design when and how others come into this world as well as when and how they leave it. I worry important things are lost when we try to supplant our creator, but your mileage may vary. HERE FOR THIS! In many ways, consumer goods have improved over time and we can afford basic household supplies much more easily than we used to. But in other areas, there has been a degradation of quality. Nancy French has a nice thread illustrating this: "The wildly popular Nutella competitor El Mordjene has been banned by the European Union," reports The New Yorker in "How a Hazelnut Spread Became a Sticking Point in Franco-Algerian Relations." "Senate Republicans intend to propose revised tax and health-care provisions to President Donald Trump's $3 trillion signature economic package this week, shrugging off condemnations of the legislation by Elon Musk as they rush to enact it before July 4," reports Bloomberg. The post L.A. Burns appeared first on
