If you want to understand the soul of Bint Jbeil, you don’t look at a map. Instead, you look at the Israeli artillery left in our town square – a sign of liberation from the occupation after the year 2000. 

Our town centre was a graveyard of Israeli hubris. We kept the rusted skeletons of Israeli armored carriers and cannons right there in the open, turning the engines of an ‘invincible’ occupation into a playground for our children. To the world, these were war trophies; to us, they were the physical receipts of a decades-long debt paid in blood. We are a people of the ‘Thursday Market,’ a town where intellectual defiance was traded as freely as grain, and where every stone house was built with the silent understanding that it might one day have to become a fortress.

“Israel is weaker than a spider’s web”

I speak to you as a descendent of that town. I saw how my town stood its ground in 1948, in 1978, and in 1982. We have proven time and again that Israel cannot govern a people who recognizes its presence only as a temporary shadow. When Hassan Nasrallah, former secretary general of Hezbollah, stood in Bint Jbeil’s municipal football field, he stated in his famous Liberation Day speech that:

Israel is weaker than a spider’s web.

It is a statement that, until today, Israel wanted to retaliate against, by taking over the football field and raising its flag in it. 

Forward to 2006, Israel’s July aggression back then failed to fulfil any of its announced goals. The military announced in the last two weeks of the war that their sole goal was raising the Israeli flag in Bint Jbeil’s city centre. They failed to do so after sporadic clashes. They couldn’t even reach the square, which is roughly 5km away from the nearest border point. 

Now, in 2026, the most bitter truth of our history is that Israel destroyed the whole town after failing to occupy it. 

Lebanon’s “Stalingrad”

After weeks of failing to break our spirit in house-to-house combat, the occupation realized they couldn’t actually take Bint Jbeil. They couldn’t even settle for more than a couple of hours in its centre. 

The town became a “Stalingrad” of southern Lebanon. Yet again, Bint Jbeil resisted an occupation and an aggressor, fighting for the safety of the entire mid-south of the country. 

Nevertheless, Israelis waited for the ceasefire, as they had done in the 2024 war with the border towns. They waited for the world to look away, and then they used the silence of the ‘peace’ to systematically level everything to the ground. The buildings that they didn’t destroy, they stole, burnt, or committed their usual psychopathic acts, as they’ve done in the previous “ceasefire”.

But they didn’t defeat us; they simply erased the geography because they were too afraid to stand in our streets while the walls were still standing.

A confession of failure

This erasure was a confession of failure. For 33 days, the most advanced military machine in the region pounded against Bint Jbeil’s perimeter, only to find that high-tech warfare is useless against a geography that breathes. 

Israel has turned the districts into a maze, where armor became a liability and specialized training meant nothing against a man defending his own front yard. The world called it a ‘stalemate,’ but for those of us who know the weight of Bint Jbeil’s soil, it was a victory of the spirit. The Lebanese resistance didn’t just hold the line; it proved that a town built on centuries of southern Lebanon’s identity cannot be intimidated by the optics of power.

Then came the ‘cessation of hostilities.’ As the ink dried on Resolution 1701, the strategy shifted from combat to spite. It was during those final hours, and the fragile days of the so-called ceasefire, that the real catastrophe unfolded. This was no longer about military objectives; it was about the psychological demolition of a symbol. 

Israel brought down our marketplaces, our historic centres, and the very homes that had housed generations of resistance; our intellectuals, politicians, key figures, artists, businessmen, expats, journalists, historians, philanthropists, and others. They did this not because they were ‘targets,’ but because they were witnesses. They sought to create a ‘victory’ out of debris, standing atop the dust of our heritage because they could never truly stand on our streets while they were whole.

Reconstruction as an assertive geopolitical statement

In Bint Jbeil, the act of reconstruction is not merely an urban planning project; it is an assertive geopolitical statement. 

When the stones of the neighborhoods were leveled in 2006, the intent was to dismantle the “intellectual market” that had long anchored the South. However, the occupier failed to realize that our geography is not just made of mortar and rock, but of a collective memory that remains immune to bombardment. 

To rebuild a home on the exact footprint where it was destroyed is to reinforce a psychological barrier that says:

You may have stood on this dust for a moment, but you never owned the ground.

By restoring the ancient stone facades and reopening the Thursday Market, the locals have ensured that the physical environment continues to mirror their internal defiance. The architecture of Bint Jbeil serves as a permanent witness, proving that while buildings can be murdered, the social contract of a people rooted in their land is indestructible.

A stark, living contradiction

Yet again, my town stands as a stark, living contradiction to the paralysis of the Lebanese central government. 

The “Spectator State” in Beirut often remains a passive observer to regional storms, bound by institutional deadlock and unable to project sovereignty over its own borders. Even though PM Nawaf Salam has visited the town during the previous ceasefire to assure the people that they’re under the government’s safety, Bint Jbeil has historically functioned as its own sovereign sentinel. 

The town has been forced to cultivate a localized, grassroots strength precisely because the national state could not provide a shield. In the absence of a robust state defense, the town’s social fabric and its heritage of resistance became the actual border of the country. This creates a unique geopolitical phenomenon where a single town maintains a psychological and military barrier that the state it belongs to cannot physically uphold, transforming Bint Jbeil from a mere border town into the primary guardian of a sovereignty that the centre has long since abdicated.

Now that the town has been taken over by the Israelis, during an imposed ceasefire after IOF failed to occupy it in combat, the entirety of the southern Litani river is being bombarded with relative ease. Earlier today, on 11 May 2026, Salam declared that Bint Jbeil “has become a version of Gaza.” With no government military presence whatsoever to impose security, our officials scramble to negotiate peace with a brutal, psychopathic, genocidal machine, as if they have anything in hand to force a complete Israeli retreat from the 35 towns they’ve completely taken over or stopping the attacks on the 82 towns in total. 

Featured images courtesy of the author

By Mohamad Kleit

Source link

The BBC has once again been exposed as being entirely at odds with the interests of the British public after Gaza: Doctors Under Attack won a BAFTA at the 2026 ceremony.

The previously censored documentary won in the current affairs category — a result that further highlights how biased the licence-funded broadcaster has become in service of a foreign state committing genocide.

After the BBC attempted to block Gaza: Doctors Under Attack from being broadcast, Channel 4 stepped in to ensure it aired.

The BBC justified its decision at the time and said:

We have come to the conclusion that broadcasting this material risked creating a perception of partiality that would not meet the high standards that the public rightly expect of the BBC.

Nevertheless, the broadcaster showed little willingness to learn and continued censoring large parts of the acceptance speech. More specifically, it removed references to the vast and unforgivable number of Palestinian women and children killed, as well as references to the targeting of hospitals in Gaza.

Gaza documentary winners’ speech censored

However, this is far from the first time BBC executives have made highly questionable decisions that damaged both the corporation’s credibility and its privileged position as a national broadcaster tasked with delivering impartial, honest coverage to licence fee payers.

Its blatant censorship at the BAFTAs earlier this year fuelled unnecessary tensions between disabled and Black communities. It also reinforced the view among critics that the BBC is less interested in reporting current affairs than in shaping them within British society.

Cowardly BBC remove parts of the BAFTA acceptance speech delivered by the team behind "Gaza: Doctors Under Attack", after the filmmakers publicly criticized the broadcaster for refusing to air the documentary. pic.twitter.com/nCsqqzP5mW

— PalMedia (@PalMediaOrg) May 10, 2026

This represents an impressively foolish own goal for the national broadcaster, which licence fee payers continue to fund despite reporting that many believe runs directly against the public interest.

In his acceptance speech, executive producer Ben De Pear challenged the BBC asking whether their acceptance speech would face censorship like this award-winning documentary had been.

Clearly the BBC, this time, wanted to somewhat save face — but still, for good measure, censored anything substantial regarding Israel’s genocide in Gaza. That becomes far easier to understand when we recognise just how prolific pro-Israel bias has become, once again prompting renewed questions over whether this broadcaster should fundamentally change its business model.

After all, it clearly is not working as the BBC confuse, incite and manipulate British audiences.

Navia: ‘We refused to be silenced and censored’

This is the acceptance speech the BBC would have you believe occurred, as in the video above:

Journalist Ramita Navia:

This award means so much to us. These are the findings of our investigation that the BBC paid for but refused to show. But we refused to be silenced and censored. And we thank you. And we thank Channel 4 for showing this film.

Exec producer, Ben De Pear:

We also want to dedicate this award to Jabba Badwin and Osama Al-Ashi, the two journalists on the ground who made this film for us. So, I’d like a round of applause for them please.

Just a question to the BBC. Given that you dropped our film, will you drop us from the BAFTA screening later tonight? Thank you. Bye.

From Navia’s powerful and principled speech, these sections were omitted:

Israel has killed over 47,000 children and women in Gaza. So far, Israel has bombed and targeted every single one of Gaza’s hospitals.

It’s killed over 1,700 Palestinian doctors and health care workers. It has imprisoned over 400 in what the UN now calls the medicide. These are the findings of our investigation that the BBC paid for but refused to show. But we refuse to be silenced and censored.

Advertisement

We thank Channel 4 for showing this film. Right now, there are over 80 Palestinian doctors and healthcare workers being held in detention centers that Israeli human rights groups describe as torture camps.

We dedicate this award to them.

What does terrorism mean to you? If it’s no double-tap killings of paramedics, journalists, and today a 12 year old girl, then what is it?

Westerners, where is your humanity?

Advertisement

Cameraman: @aliezzedine7 pic.twitter.com/ntXIwz4s6H

— courtneybonneauimages (@cbonneauimages) May 9, 2026

Sometimes, it is far better to look at what someone omits than what they choose to say. The BBC is making clear that whilst it cares about saving face publicly, it will always shield the indefensible genocide and expansionist agenda waged by Zionists in Israel.

Gaza: Doctors Under Attack is awarded the BAFTA for Current Affairs #BAFTATVAwards with @pandocruises pic.twitter.com/jZI9Mrsjx2

— BAFTA (@BAFTA) May 10, 2026

The BBC has done this before

Let’s face it, impartiality is pretty much impossible. The BBC makes that pretty apparent.

It may claim its reporting is impartial, but its editorial choices — what it broadcasts and what it omits — makes that partiality increasingly obvious. Instead, wouldn’t it be better if they were at least honest about its Zionist tendencies, and its clear politicised coverage in the interests of war criminals wanted by the International Criminal Court.

The Canary wrote extensively about the BAFTA incident in February this year, making clear that the blame for the harm caused lays firmly at the feet of the BBC. It wasn’t the responsibility of disabled and Black communities to unpick, unravel and make sense of what happened.

‘Sinners’ star Wunmi Mosaku weighs in on what happened to her co-stars, Michael B. Jordan and Delroy Lindo, at the BAFTAs last weekend. pic.twitter.com/HLAyitiB7h

— Entertainment Tonight (@etnow) March 2, 2026

Advertisement

The BBC should rely on Zionist funding not licence fee

First, the BBC tried to pit embattled communities against each other and now it stands completely at odds with the public through its shameful coverage of Zionist Israel and its many, many flagrant and murderous breaches of international and humanitarian law.

Therefore, it can no longer be denied that the BBC does not work in the interests of British people. Instead, it works for the establishment which has pushed many of the BBC‘s viewers into poverty, struggle and deprivation.

Consequently, this leaves people feeling hopeless and searching more desperately for honest, accurate reporting. It has also never been more urgent that the public understands who is actively working against their interests.

The BBC has not been living up to its remit for many years. Even when called out for its nefarious censorship as De Pear did yesterday, it still cannot resist cutting pertinent information. As a result, it is time for TV licences to end and the BBC to start earning its funds.

Right now, it is only earning its funding from a country committing genocide, and its Zionist stooges in Starmer’s cabinet.

Featured image via Getty Images for BAFTA/ John Phillips

By Maddison Wheeldon

Source link

Source link

Source link

Source link

4 min read1 hr

With 1 in 8 young people Not in Education, Employment, or Training (NEET), too many young people are being failed by our education system. We must equip young people with the skills to thrive in the modern world.

Advertisement

I believe this is not down to a lack of skill or commitment amongst our dedicated teachers across the country, but due to a curriculum and assessment regime that focuses too much on exams and not enough on empowering a love of learning, and the value of practical and ‘soft’ skills.

You don’t need to take my word for it- teachers agree. 73 per cent believe that the curriculum does not teach the soft skills needed for employment.

Previous curriculum reforms have led to a fixation on learning by rote and exams and have not put enough emphasis on the skills young people need to thrive- like leadership, teamwork, and resilience. 

 Now is the time to pause and create a modern approach to education to fit the modern world.

Advertisement

High quality careers education and work experience will be key to this. It should be deeply imbedded into the curriculum.  Done well, it can break down barriers to opportunity, help tackle NEET, and drive economic growth.

The evidence supports this. Young people in schools and colleges with the highest-quality careers provision are 8 per cent less likely to become NEET. That effect is magnified in the most disadvantaged schools, where the highest-quality careers provision is associated with a 20% reduction in NEET rates.

Young people agree that current careers provision is not sufficient. A recent longitudinal study has highlighted that young people do not feel they are getting adequate careers advice, particularly if they want to pursue non-university routes into work.

Advertisement

Many schools see work experience and careers guidance as additional to, rather than, core responsibilities and too often work experience becomes ‘join your parents at work week’. To maximise the value of work experience, young people must get an opportunity to see environments that truly open new horizons.

The Labour government have talked a good game about the importance of skills – to people, to employers, and to what we want to achieve as a country – and I am proud to have supported some welcome initiatives that have already been introduced.

As Alan Milburn reviews the causes of our NEET numbers, I urge him to consider the role of careers education in tackling youth unemployment.

This could be through practical steps such as making it mandatory for schools to work more closely with colleges or other experts to standardise careers education in the school/college transition. Another practical action the Government could take is the creation of an online platform for young people which clearly sets out who to contact for careers advice, and keeps a virtual record of what they have done so far.

Advertisement

I would also like to see the Gatsby Benchmarks, which are an evidence-based framework that defines good careers guidance, better incorporated into the curriculum, particularly now they are on a statutory footing and a clear focus on soft skills in the new V-levels.

Employers need to have confidence that they can take on young people straight from school. This is particularly vital for increasing opportunities for apprenticeships.

Recent evidence suggests that one of the barriers for employers to take on apprentices is a skills shortage amongst young people. This is particularly stark amongst tradespeople, with 71 per cent highlighting that a skills shortage is stopping them from expanding.

The APPG for Apprenticeships, which I chair, will be looking into this matter further, through an inquiry that will consider if current skills policy is helping to deliver for the industrial strategy. 

Advertisement

There is both a moral and economic imperative to act. We cannot write off so many of our young people before they even have a chance to start their careers. And in the long-term, failing to tackle youth unemployment will cost millions through missed tax revenue.

The current system has led to a crisis of NEET young people. There is an opportunity to change the system to correct this – now is the time to act.

Source link

Celtic overturned an early deficit to beat Rangers 3-1 at Celtic Park, with Daizen Maeda producing a moment of real quality — an overhead kick that sealed the win and kept Celtic within a point of the Premiership leaders.

The result hands momentum back to the Hoops with two games to go.

Celtic vs Rangers: How the game unfolded

Rangers started the brighter side, they struck early, with a period of pressure which paid off inside the opening ten minutes when Mikey Moore reacted quickest after a blocked shot to put the visitors ahead. That early goal gave Rangers the initiative and forced Celtic to chase the game.

Celtic respond before half

Celtic steadied and found an equaliser before the break. A well-weighted pass created space on the right, the cutback was finished by Hyun‑Jun Yang to level the score. VAR checked for offside but the goal stood, and the match reset with everything to play for.

Maeda takes over

Celtic raised the tempo after the interval. Kieran Tierney’s work down the left produced a dangerous delivery and Maeda got in front of his marker to prod Celtic ahead.

The game was still in the balance then Maeda produced the moment that will be replayed for weeks. From around 15 yards, he flicked up a partially blocked cross and executed a perfect overhead kick into the top corner, leaving Jack Butland with no chance. It was a finish of great technique and timing.

Rangers search for answers

After going behind, Rangers had spells of possession but struggled to turn control into clear-cut chances. Substitute Bojan Miovski came closest late on when he struck the bar, but Celtic defended the lead without being seriously threatened.

Title race significance

Celtic’s win narrows the gap to the top to a single point. With two fixtures remaining, an away trip to Motherwell and a final-day showdown against leaders Hearts, the title is still very much in Celtic’s hands. If they win both games, they reclaim the crown. The result injects belief and puts pressure back on the teams above them.

Managers and mood

Martin O’Neill’s side showed resilience, coming from behind and scoring at decisive moments. The manager highlighted the team’s effort and the importance of momentum as they head into a crucial mid-week fixture.

Rangers’ boss Danny Røhl acknowledged recurring issues in key moments and stressed the need for defensive sharpness and learning from the run of results. Both managers framed the match as a lesson: Celtic for finishing strongly, Rangers for tightening up in the small moments that decide big games.

Key impacts

Maeda’s moments of magic with two goals, the second an overhead kick that changed the tone of the derby and the title race, gave Celtic all the momentum. This win gives them belief and a clear path, two wins from two would be enough.

Rangers’ problems continue. Having started brightly, their early defensive lapses and then missed chances to respond after going behind. This concludes three straight defeats which underline a season that has petered out.

Close of play

This was a derby decided by a moment of individual brilliance and a team that refused to fold. Celtic leave Celtic Park with their title hopes very much alive. Rangers on the other hand, leave with questions to answer about concentration and consistency. The closing fortnight of the season just got a lot more interesting.

Featured image via PA

By Faz Ali

Source link