Israel says it will invade Lebanon and enforce a ‘defensive buffer’ zone up to the Litani river. Or, in plain English, the settler-colonial state means to colonise Lebanon’s south – probably permanently.

In theory, Hezbollah breached a US-brokered ‘ceasefire’ with Israel in early March which had held up since their last war in 2024. In practice, the US gave Israel carte blanche to strike Lebanon, which it has done constantly since the deal was struck. During the intervening period, Israel attacked southern Lebanon about 15,400 times.

Now senior Israeli officials say they have destroyed many of the bridges on the Litani river, largely cutting off the south from the rest of the country.

The Guardian reported on 25 March:

During a meeting with the military chief of staff, Israel defence minister Israel Katz said Israeli forces would “control the remaining bridges and the security zone up to the Litani”, a river in Lebanon that meets the Mediterranean about 30km (20 miles) north of Israel’s border.

Adding:

Katz added all bridges over the Litani river, which he said had been used by Hezbollah to move operatives and weapons into southern Lebanon, “have been blown up and the IDF will control the remaining bridges”.

Far-right minister Bezalel Smotrich said on 23 March that the war:

needs to end with a different reality entirely, both with the Hezbollah decision but also with the change of Israel’s borders.

I say ​here definitively…in every room and in every discussion, too: the new Israeli border must be the Litani.

However:

He nevertheless represents a widely and deeply-held expansionist desire at the heart of Israel’s settler colonial polity. In Zionism’s ethno-nationalist fever-dream, Lebanon—and even lands far beyond it—are already part of Israel.

Israel aggression gathers steam

Israel attacked 92 villages in the south in 24 March:

The Israeli military attacked 92 villages and towns across Lebanon on Tuesday. A journalist on the ground recorded a new strike today while reporting from the town of Al-Burghuliyah, a coastal municipality in the Tyre district of southern Lebanon, near the Mediterranean. https://t.co/9Uun7KDNwG

— Drop Site (@DropSiteNews) March 25, 2026

Channel 4 News attended the funeral of another two paramedics killed by Israeli strikes on 25 March. the youngest was 16 years old:

Awful, heartbreaking, unacceptable

We’ve just been at the funeral of two young volunteer paramedics in southern Lebanon – killed in a direct Israeli strike… one was only 16 years old

They were killed whilst wearing their full kit according to witnesses – returning from the… pic.twitter.com/K5rtw0WwHO

Advertisement

— Secunder Kermani (@SecKermani) March 25, 2026

The Israeli assault has displaced one in five Lebanese people. The World Health Organisation (WHO) reported that massive surges of displacement were placing pressure on hospitals:

A #WHO team visited Siblin Governmental Hospital to assess capacity amid a surge in displacement. Over 130,000 people in the area are placing growing pressure on health services. pic.twitter.com/CeuYpAKKOa

— WHO Lebanon (@WHOLebanon) March 25, 2026

Al Jazeera reported that the war had caused food prices to inflate. While Hezbollah – a Shia political party and paramilitary force in the south – called for unity.

Hezbollah chief Naim Qassem said:

Negotiating with the Israeli enemy under fire amounts to imposing surrender and stripping Lebanon of its capabilities, especially since negotiations are fundamentally rejected with an enemy that occupies land and continues daily aggression.

We call for national unity against the Israeli-American enemy under one title at this stage: stopping the aggression to liberate the land and the people. All other issues can be discussed afterward.

Israel has had its sights on southern Lebanon for years. It’s desire to drive all the way through to the Litani has nothing to do with ‘defence’ or establishing ‘buffers’. This new outrage is driven by the same nakedly colonialist ambition which has driven Israel’s genocide against Palestinians, its attack on Iran, and its sundry other atrocities in the region.

Featured image via the Canary

3 min read40 min

It’s been rewarding to act on testimony from MPs, Peers, staff, academics and members of the public on how we can make the Commons more accessible, effective and open.

During the last Labour government, Modernisation Committee reports led to key changes that are now established parts of our parliamentary week, including Westminster Hall debates, topical questions and expanded educational and visitor facilities.

At the end of last year, we published our report into accessibility in the Commons. This year, we are examining the key topics in today’s parliamentary landscape.

Following our inquiry into accessibility, during which the committee heard from disabled MPs, Peers, House and Members’ staff as well as academics and senior officials, it was made clear that accessibility needs to become a major priority for the Commons, and be woven into the fabric of what it does.

Our report made a series of recommendations, including:

• Where reasonable adjustments are required for disabled MPs to contribute in the Chamber and committees, it should be made as clear as possible how they can be accessed.

• Visitors should be asked upon entry if they have a disability or access need and offered support accordingly.

• Senior leaders should establish an External Accessibility Advisory Group, allowing organisations representing disabled people the opportunity to provide feedback on accessibility challenges in Parliament.

• The Commons should lead by example and inspire other public sector bodies by ensuring as much as possible of its communication and engagement activities are delivered in accessible formats such as British Sign Language, Easy Read and audio file.

• Line managers should receive mandatory training on how to support disabled and neurodiverse individuals.

If you haven’t yet read our report, I would encourage you to do so, and we’ll continue following up on this important issue to ensure our recommendations are implemented and progress towards making the Commons more accessible continues at pace.

As a committee, we’re committed to regular engagement with the wider parliamentary community, including smaller parties, the Speaker and his deputies and all those who work here as well as the public.

So far this year, we’ve been working closely with the Liaison Committee on remote access to committee hearings to ensure the resilience of parliamentary proceedings, and we’ve discussed the recommendations from the independent review into Parliament’s Independent Complaints and Grievance Scheme (ICGS).

We’re also interested in how Parliament can use time as effectively as possible, enabling MPs to scrutinise legislation and raise issues of importance to their constituents.

This is a topic that came up in our call for views at the beginning of the parliament and one we will return to this year. We’ll explore practical ways to provide MPs with more certainty about upcoming business and on-the-day changes, ensuring the Commons remains the crucible of national debate.

There is still much to do if we’re to make Parliament a more accessible and open institution which best serves the interests of our constituents. I’m committed to continuing to work with all MPs to achieve consensus in this important work. 

Hundreds of frontline social workers are regularly stepping in to personally support people in crisis. New research by the Social Workers Union (SWU) suggests that the Government’s new Crisis and Resilience Fund may not be enough to prevent this.

Crisis support

Following a survey of the SWU’s members, many felt compelled to step in and personally fund basic items for people they support – from food to energy prepayment meter top-ups.

The Crisis and Resilience Fund, which is due to begin on 1 April, is intended to provide faster emergency support for households in hardship. It comes after reports of a looming social care crisis in 2024.

However, the SWU warns that the Fund may not go far enough to prevent social workers continuing to plug gaps themselves, particularly when crises arise suddenly or where systems remain slow and bureaucratic.

Survey findings

More than 380 social workers affected by the issue took part in the research last summer, with three in four (75%) saying they were unable to claim back the costs they incurred on behalf of service users.

The overwhelming majority had to buy food (87%), while others were compelled to pay for public transport (36%), clothing (26%), cleaning supplies (24%), and top-up energy prepayment meters (19%) to keep people warm.

Though over half of social workers affected (58%) described such payments as rare, more than a quarter (27%) said they were dipping into their own pockets every month, with nearly one in ten (9%) doing so even more regularly. Most contributions were under £25, but one in twenty social workers spent more than £100.

Over a third (36%) said helping clients put their own finances at risk, highlighting how the cost-of-living crisis is now affecting not just vulnerable families, but the very workers tasked with protecting them.

Despite 86% of social workers trying to secure support via foodbanks, council-run household support funds and local charities, seven in ten times (70%) they were faced with an emergency that left no time to navigate complex or slow bureaucratic systems.

A system in crisis

John McGowan, general secretary of the SWU, has warned the findings expose a “broken support system”:

It cannot be right that social workers are left to plug the gaps in a broken support system with their own money. While the new Crisis and Resilience Fund is a welcome step, it will not solve the problem on its own if support remains slow, complex or hard to access in an emergency.

The data paints a stark picture of a safety net riddled with delays and gaps. The true test of the new Fund moving forward will be to see if it means that local and national governments act urgently to ensure help is there when it is needed.

It is a claim backed up by the stories told by social workers themselves. Asked why they had resorted to providing direct financial support to service users, one social worker told researchers:

There are often several real forms to fill out to request financial support, which are declined anyhow by managers. To save time – something we don’t often have – I’ve paid for items myself.

Another claimed that their local authority “has restricted food bank vouchers to 3 per year”. Another stated that their “service user was unable to access the internet or navigate lengthy online forms.” One went so far as to say that there just was no longer any support left to apply for.

Featured image via the Canary

A US court has found that Meta and YouTube are deliberately getting kids addicted to their sites and causing them harm in the process. It’s the latest sign that the tide is turning against the sick US tech sector, which has enjoyed an ability to act without impunity for decades now.

A Los Angeles jury has ordered YouTube and Meta to pay $3 million to a woman who sued them, alleging that the negligence of both tech giants led her to get addicted to their platforms at a young age.

— More Perfect Union (@MorePerfectUS) March 25, 2026

Meta is the parent company of Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp; YouTube, meanwhile, is owned by Google.

Meta and YouTube causing harm

Variety summarised the case as follows:

A jury has ordered Meta and Google to pay $3M to a 20-year-old woman who alleged that she became addicted to Instagram and YouTube as a child:

• Jurors found the companies liable for product design features that harmed her mental health
• The plaintiff, Kaley G.M., testified that the apps replaced her hobbies and contributed to anxiety, depression and body dysmorphia
• The case is the first of thousands targeting Big Tech over addiction to reach trial, a “bellwether” to assess how other claims could be resolved
• Meta was ordered to pay 70% of the damages, with Google responsible for the remaining 30%

The trial took place in Los Angeles over a period of six weeks, with jurors hearing testimony from executives, whistleblowers, and expert witnesses. As the Guardian reported, the plaintiff:

testified that she became addicted to YouTube at age six and Instagram at nine, which she said had deleterious effects on her wellbeing. By age 10, she said, she had become depressed and was engaging in self-harm as a result. Her social media use allegedly caused her to have strained relationships with her family and in school. When she was 13, KGM’s therapist diagnosed her with body dysmorphic disorder and social phobia, which KGM attributes to her use of Instagram and YouTube.

The Guardian compared the case to the 1990s legal action against cigarette manufacturers. Then, like now, it was argued that executives understood the harms caused by their products, but they chose to prioritise profits over public health.

Counters

It’s clear that social media is having a negative impact, but there’s also a simultaneous push to restrict certain freedoms online. According to groups like Reclaim the Net, this latest case could be used to further inhibit freedoms in a similar fashion to what we’ve seen in the UK via the Online Safety Act.

In their summary of the above case, Reclaim the Net write:

The chain from these verdicts to surveillance architecture runs through a single word: “addiction.” Public health emergency follows from that classification. Emergency powers follow from the emergency. Age verification follows from emergency powers. OS-level ID checks follow from age verification. Each step is presented as protecting children. What gets built is a surveillance system for everyone unless we can get more people to wake up to it.

There’s obviously a line to be walked, but the grave harms caused by these companies cannot be ignored or pushed to one side. As the Guardian reported:

The jury’s verdict comes just one day after Meta was ordered to pay $375m in civil penalties in a separate lawsuit in New Mexico. In that case, the jury found the company misled consumers about the safety of its platforms and enabled harm, including child sexual exploitation, against its users. The back-to-back verdicts are the first ever to find Meta liable for how its products affect young people.

The problem activists have is that the loss of online anonymity will feel like a lesser evil to many than the sexual exploitation of children. This is why any successful campaign needs to be clear that the status quo does need to change, and that greedy tech companies cannot be the ones in charge of our digital spaces due to the clear and evident harm to children.

Floodgates

As people have highlighted, this case could open the floodgates for more legal action:

Welp, it sounds like a lot of people can sue Meta and Google and make some good money 😂 https://t.co/0U1uXZ8Juz

— DeepHumor (@DeepHumor) March 25, 2026

The governor of California Gavin Newsom also spoke out following the verdict:

Big Tech is finally answering for the harm it has caused our children — after years of fighting against common sense regulations, today’s verdict shows that they can’t escape accountability.

California isn’t backing down. We’ve enacted the nation’s strongest protections, and… https://t.co/SqY3PtW3Ls

— Governor Gavin Newsom (@CAgovernor) March 25, 2026

Newsom is very much a weather vane politician; he’s also eyeing up a run at the presidency. The fact that he’s speaking out against big tech and Israel shows that some of the US’s biggest political excesses have become unviable for an ambitious politician:

The Democrats’ ranking political weather vane has spoken. California Gov. Gavin Newsom ventured onto what was for him new terrain, invoking the A-word—“apartheid”—to describe a nation that had once been the cynosure of American liberals’ eyes. https://t.co/EuLQompHJA pic.twitter.com/KyrwtkTg2Q

— The American Prospect (@TheProspect) March 4, 2026

Advertisement

Of course, politicians like Newsom are also flip-floppers, so they can’t be trusted to enact the crucial change that needs to happen:

Governor Gavin Newsom: “I revere the state of Israel. I’m proud to support the state of Israel.

I deeply, deeply oppose Benjamin Netanyahu’s leadership, his opposition to the two-state solution, and deeply oppose how he is indulging the far right…”
pic.twitter.com/q2kl7s2GNu

— Republicans against Trump (@RpsAgainstTrump) March 24, 2026

Featured image via Wikimedia

What is “fricy” food?

What “swicy” foods can I try?

There’s some science behind it

1935: Winston Churchill (left) in the grounds of Chartwell with Ralph Wigram / Image by: Fremantle / Alamy

4 min read10 min

“One inch ahead is total darkness”: so goes the Japanese proverb. In times like now of global uncertainty, it seems a suitably appropriate dictum to caution the army of prophets, forecasters and poll interpreters, all ready to fire off a take, their visions of the future hedged in a string of qualifications and suitably Delphic in style.

The interesting question is whether any of this kind of activity, from the white-bearded biblical type or the hard-nosed corporate analyst (self-proclaimed or otherwise) in the internet age of total and instant connectivity, has any market or appeal at all.

A thought-provoking booklet appears, published by Haus Curiosities, which makes a valiant attempt to disentangle all the different types of futurology which surround us. From the lofty certainties to the entertaining guesses, and how on earth to evaluate them.

The author of this little volume, an academic and former defence analyst, Kenneth Weisbrode, employs the clever device of focusing on one very memorable instance when a person warned about oncoming world events in the 20th century – and one which, with hindsight, proved to be deadly and tragically right.

The name of this brave character was Ralph Wigram, a middle-ranking Foreign Office official who could see the huge conflagration ahead as Germany re-armed in the 1930s under the belligerent Nazi leaders, but with a generally complacent bien pensant outside world looking on and broadly assuming that it just could not happen again.

The information streams have all become avalanches

Advertisement

How and why did he, among the growing noise of opinions, get heard? Answer: by supplying a flow of detailed and reliable facts (he had been in Berlin and had plenty of German friends and contacts) to a few carefully selected and influential individuals – who in turn had the ear of the public. Top of his list was none other than Winston Churchill.

To me, this makes Churchill as well as Wigram the real prophets in this classic 20th century compound of forecast and prophecy – eventually borne out in the full horror of a Second World War. Wigram peered ahead and saw the facts. Churchill was the magician with language, had the courage to speak out endlessly against prevailing wisdom (or worse, disinterest).

Could any of this most celebrated saga have occurred in today’s information-soaked world?

I reckon not. The information streams have all become avalanches. The iPad and the mobile have connected billions and turned most people into mini-authors and home-made prophets. The cult of transparency, lauded by accountability crusaders, has left little in free societies to expose. The hunters after the truth have found their paths blocked by crowds of truth-seekers with their own different truths. Uncertainty is everywhere and there is talk of people turning back en masse to mysteries larger than the human mind and akin to new religions.

Are eye-catching prophesies and predictions therefore now to be left to who will win the 3.30 at Cheltenham or to financial stock pickers?

No, I think there will always be a market for the most plausible and original analysis – the cautious wisdom that sees just a few inches ahead, even if the message from the future is not a cheerful one, or all that clear.

The overwhelming message which Britain needs today is for a new national story, a sense of direction, articulated with colour, humour and history, but also with deep-rooted awareness and wisdom about the way power on the planet is shifting. That is the kind of prophecy realism which reassures, not a rehash of old ideologies which frighten. Its articulation must reach all, be noticed by all and unify all – or anyway, most.

Is the individual who can lead in performing this miracle of rallying and purpose – who can perceive the world trends and give them a prophet’s coherence and momentum – already in the political forum, or at least just there in the wings? Who knows? It is, after all, an age of deep uncertainty. Radio gurus are telling us every morning that the digital and AI age has rewired our brains as well as our emotions. It looks as though today’s prophets need to do some rewiring, too.

Lord Howell of Guildford is a Conservative peer

Prophecy in Politics: Or, the Wigram Aspect

By: Kenneth Weisbrode

Publisher: Haus Publishing