Russia has launched one of the largest drone attacks on Ukraine since the war began, mainly targeting overnight the region in and around the capital Kyiv, according to the Ukrainian military, which said all 89 drones fired were shot down.

It marks the largest attack on the capital so far this year, and the seventh time Russia has targeted Kyiv this month, military officials said on Wednesday.

The “massive” attack lasted more than seven hours and the drones came in two waves, Kyiv officials said, adding that “not a single drone reached its target.”

There were no hits to residential or critical infrastructure and no casualties in the Kyiv region, according to regional military head Ruslan Kravchenko. However, 13 houses were damaged and rescuers extinguished one fire caused by the downed drones. “The majority of the UAV [unmanned aerial vehicle] debris fell outside of the settlements,” he added.

Dramatic video released by the Ukrainian Air Force shows one drone on fire, falling from the sky and landing in a field — causing a large cloud of smoke but no visible damage.

Russia also attacked the country’s Mykolaiv region with an X-59 guided missile from the airspace of the occupied Kherson region, which Ukraine said it also shot down. However, separate attacks on eastern and southern Ukraine killed at least two people Wednesday morning.

The Kremlin did not comment on the attacks in its regular briefing with reporters on Wednesday.

Repeated calls for more air defense systems

Ukrainian Air Force Commander Mykola Oleshchuk called the drone barrage targeting Kyiv “one of the most massive attacks by Shahed-131/136” drones, comparing it to the Russian attack on New Year’s Eve in which 90 Shaheds were launched.

“Just like then, today the Ukrainian air defense has withstood and repelled a massive attack by enemy drones,” he said. “Mobile fire groups of all the Ukrainian Defence Forces, tactical aviation of the Air Force and Army Aviation of the Land Forces, anti-aircraft missile units and electronic warfare units of the Air Force were involved in repelling the air attack.”

During another wave of aerial attacks days before the New Year’s Eve holiday, Russia fired an unprecedented number of drones and missiles at targets across Ukraine, killing at least 31 people and injuring more than 150 others, according to Ukrainian officials at the time.

Since then, Ukraine has repeatedly pleaded for allies to provide more air defense systems.

“Ukrainians can fully protect their skies from Russian strikes when they have sufficient supplies,” Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky said Wednesday.

“The same level of defense is needed against Russian missiles and the occupier’s combat aircraft. And this can be achieved. We need sufficiently courageous decisions from our partners — enough air defense systems, enough range,” Zelensky added. “And Ukrainians will do everything correctly and precisely.”

The Biden administration announced on Monday a new lethal aid package for Ukraine totaling about $1.7 billion and largely consisting of missiles and ammunition for missile, artillery and air defense systems that the US has previously provided to Ukraine.

Deaths in eastern and southern Ukraine

In southern Ukraine, a 68-year-old man in Kherson was killed in a drone strike on Wednesday morning, according to the region’s military head. A 73-year-old woman was also injured in that attack, and elsewhere in the region three people were injured in Russian shelling, the official said.

In the Donetsk region, one resident in the city of Toretsk was killed, and four others were injured in attacks elsewhere.

Ukraine’s Armed Forces said it will “continue to effectively hit important military targets of the Russian occupiers,” claiming that on Tuesday night Ukraine carried out a strike on a weapons and military equipment storage facility near the city of Kursk, Russia.

The governor of Russia’s Kursk region said a fire broke out at a facility there “after an attack by the Ukrainian armed forces.”

One of the few things working in Iran’s favor after the humiliating news that Hamas political leader Ismail Haniyeh was assassinated in the Iranian capital overnight is that the regime controls most of the information the world gets to see.

What Iran has said so far is that Haniyeh died after being hit by an “airborne guided projectile” in Tehran where he was attending the inauguration of the Iranian president. But we know little else. Israel has not claimed responsibility for the strike but has previously vowed to eliminate Hamas and its leaders following the October 7 attacks.

Haniyeh’s death came hours after Israel confirmed it carried out a strike in Beirut, Lebanon, on Tuesday that killed the most senior military commander of Hezbollah, another Iranian-backed militant group, who it blamed for a deadly attack in the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights.

The precise details of what happened at around 2 a.m. (5.30 p.m. ET) in Tehran, will dictate what comes next, as Iran looks to present a narrative that justifies and fashions its response.

Whatever the truth and whatever Iran proffers, the attack is clearly a grave violation of its sovereignty and the supposed security bubble of the Iranian capital. Haniyeh was the regime’s guest, and its role as a regional power is compromised if it’s unable to guarantee the simple safety of visiting allies.

There are reports he was staying in a guest house for veterans, and it is unclear whose technical responsibility it was to protect this facility – and whether the elite Revolutionary Guards (IRGC) will be explicitly embarrassed, outside of the wider humiliation of an apparent Israeli assassination deep inside of Iran.

But Iran has stomached comparable violations in the past. The death of its leading nuclear scientist Mohsen Fakhrizadeh was met with limited wrath in 2020. The killing of Quds commander Qasem Suleinami, the country’s most fabled military figure, months earlier, led to fiery rhetoric, but instead a limited hit on a remote US base. Iran has stepped back before – and may do so again.

There is no shortage of furious rherotic the day after the strikes, but there is no easy route for Iran. It is clear Tehran has been reluctant, for the months since October 7, to launch its most ferocious proxy, Hezbollah, into a full-scale war with Israel from Lebanon. Putting aside the huge humanitarian horror such a conflict would muster for Lebanese and Israelis alike, Hezbollah remains a powerful card that Tehran gets to play probably once. The regime retains apparent ambitions in its nuclear program and a military eroded by sanctions, so Hezbollah is an ace that must be tabled with astute timing.

Iran has also tried an unprecedented direct all-out attack on Israel before, in April, after senior IRGC commanders were killed in an Israeli strike on Damascus. In short, the 300 drone and missiles fired – straight from Iran at Israel – just didn’t get through. Around 99% of them were intercepted.

The regime’s response to Haniyeh’s death will define its role as a regional power, and, if it fails to appear potent enough, risks that slipping. A stealthy, asymmetric strike, weeks from now, may not fix the damage done to its prestige.

The risk of the unchartered territory we are in is that the gravity of expected responses is not defined – the tit for tat is occurring in an environment evolving by the day. Indeed, the characters making the decisions are changing rapidly, or under intense domestic pressure themselves. This simply accentuates the risk of miscalculation, or of actions taken to satisfy selfish, insular concerns, rather than a wider regional impact. In short, it is a mess that grows, and with it surges the chance of the unexpected.

Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei’s first statement on the matter said of Israel, “You killed our dear guest in our house and now have paved the way for your harsh punishment.” But remember this is a superannuated, octogenarian leader who has just endured years of popular unrest and rising conflict with Israel, and 24 hours ago saw a surprisingly moderate president, Masoud Pezeshkian, get sworn in. He is projecting strength internally as much as he is internationally.

Separately, Hezbollah had stumbled it seemed into an acute crisis though the militant group’s apparently mistaken targeting of Druze schoolchildren in the Golan Heights at the weekend. It may feel the strike on Haniyeh has removed the spotlight to respond, for the shortest while, although it may be dragged into Iran’s eventual response. But the fact the assassination of its commander, Fuad Shukr, now seems like a distant memory, exposing how rapidly events are unfolding.

Tehran is taking its time to reveal how, yet again, its innermost sanctum was violated by Israel. The IRGC trailed a statement about Haniyeh at 2.50 a.m. US time, but it eventually avoided most details of how he was killed. Perhaps it doesn’t know, or doesn’t want to say, or is working out what to say in order to find a response that fits – and that it can execute.

Still, red lines have been criss-crossed for months, and this morning we lept a few rungs higher up the ladder of escalation. The agonizing question of the next 24 hours – as Iran fashions its narrative of how this major humiliation came to be – is what remaining steps are there on this well-trodden ladder, and what is at its peak?

The assassination of Hamas political leader Ismail Haniyeh in the Iranian capital Tehran has rocked the Middle East – threatening to further destabilize the region and jeopardize ceasefire negotiations between Israel and Hamas over the war in Gaza.

The attack on Haniyeh came in the early hours of Wednesday morning, with Hamas pointing the finger at Israel – which has so far declined to comment.

All eyes will now focus on two key questions. What happens to Gaza hostage and ceasefire negotiations, given Haniyeh headed up the group’s political operations from overseas and acted as a key interlocuter with international mediators? And will this strike inside Iran prove to be the catalyst for a potential full-blown regional war?

Here’s what we know so far.

What happened?

Haniyeh had been in Tehran for the inauguration of Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian, and was staying in a residence for veterans in the north of the city, state-affiliated news outlet Fars reported.

At around 2 a.m. local time, an “airborne guided projectile” targeted where Haniyeh was staying, according to Iranian state-run outlet IRNA which said his bodyguard was also killed.

IRNA said further investigations are underway to determine the details of the operation and the position from where the projectile was fired.

Shortly afterward, Hamas decried what it called a “Zionist strike” and a “grave escalation” in its decades long conflict with Israel.

One Hamas official said the group is “ready to pay various prices” and that the “moment of truth has come,” adding: “This assassination will not achieve the goals of the occupation and will not push Hamas to surrender.”

When asked for comment, Israel’s military said it “doesn’t respond to reports in the foreign media.”

Who was Haniyeh?

The 62-year-old had been part of Hamas for decades, becoming political chief of the group in 2017. The following year, he was named a “specially designated global terrorist” by the United States.

Despite that designation – and unlike Hamas’ military leadership – Haniyeh travelled globally, meeting with world figures as the political head of the organization.

During the war with Israel in Gaza he has taken a central role in hostage and ceasefire talks between Israel and Hamas.

Earlier this spring, he said Hamas was willing to strike a deal – but it would require Israel withdrawing from Gaza and a guarantee to cease fighting in the enclave permanently, demands that Israel has called “unacceptable.”

Haniyeh was in touch with mediators in Qatar and Egypt as recently as early July. Those talks now hang in the balance, despite some hope earlier this month that they were nearing a framework agreement.

What has the world said?

Leaders from around the region have weighed in, with some condemning the killing and voicing alarm about the potential fallout.

Palestinian leaders, including the Palestinian president and prime minister – who come from factions that have deep historical rivalries with Hamas – have condemned the killing and called for Palestinian “national unity.”

The White House has seen the reports of Haniyeh’s killing, a spokesperson said, but declined to immediately comment further. US Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin said he does not think war in the Middle East is inevitable, but that the US would help defend Israel if it were attacked.

Leaders from Russia and Turkey have both decried the assassination, warning it would lead to larger conflicts in the region.

Other Iran-backed militant groups have also voiced sympathy – including Hezbollah, based in Lebanon, and the Houthis in Yemen.

Two reported killings, in quick succession

News of Haniyeh’s killing came just hours after Israel said it had killed Hezbollah’s most senior military official, Fu’ad Shukr, in a drone strike in Beirut, Lebanon.

The group has not confirmed Shukr’s death, but said on Wednesday he “was present” at the time of the strike.

If true, Shukr would be the most high-ranking Hezbollah official to have been assassinated since 2016 when Mustafa Badreddine, the group’s top commander at the time, was killed in Syria.

Whatever the fate of Shukr, Wednesday’s strike marked the most serious Israeli escalation since confrontations between Hezbollah and Israel began on October 8.

Award-winning jazz guitarist Louis Mhlanga has always let music take center stage.

Growing up during the 1960s music revolution, Mhlanga remembers his mother playing Ella Fitzgerald and Mahalia Jackson records. However, it was his professional musician brothers, William and Shaft, who introduced him to the guitar and were his first inspiration.

“I would just watch and listen (to them), and when they are gone, that’s the time I would pick up a guitar and try to copy what they’ve been doing,” Mhlanga said.

His brothers also introduced him to the music of the guitarist who would become his idol — Jimi Hendrix.

“I got inspired by one album of Jimi Hendrix,” recalled Mhlanga. That album was “Band of Gypsys,” released in 1970.

“My brother brought it home, and I thought, wow, that guitar,” Mhlanga added. “My brother kept repeating it, and it was like he was injecting me with this music.”

One especially memorable song was “Machine Gun.” The 12-minute jam-style protest of the Vietnam War is often hailed as Hendrix’s greatest work. It showcases a stunning display of guitar virtuosity.

“His approach to the music and the ideas that he was introducing, the sustain of the guitar which he used and the feedback, I don’t think anybody was doing what he was doing,” Mhlanga explained. “Even today, it still keeps me going.”

Mhlanga’s musical journey has a rich tapestry of influences. He delved into the electrifying beats of rock legends like The Rolling Stones, Deep Purple, and Black Sabbath, while also being captivated by the soulful melodies of Motown icons such as The Temptations and Marvin Gaye. His exploration extended to sounds from China and India, creating a diverse and intriguing musical palette.

“The music of way back then had a lot of messages which was building people’s thoughts, people’s behavior, which was bringing people together and had so much love in it,” said the guitarist. “All that music really play(ed) a part in my growth.”

Professionally, Mhlanga started fronting bands in the late 1970s, mixing both American and Zimbabwean influences. Still, it was through collaboration that he made his mark, working with Zimbabwean music icon Oliver Mtukudzi.

Venturing further, he immersed himself in the rich guitar traditions of southern and West Africa, infusing the traditional mbira rhythms of the Shona people into his own vibrant and modern electric guitar style. Fusing together all these sounds, Mhlanga says, has enhanced his creativity.

“I thought maybe I should try and pick up some traditional songs and change them and play them in my own way, and that kind of worked,” Mhlanga said.

“I think all those different cultures are a melting pot for me, so it also brings out something different to me,” he added.

Mhlanga was intent on making his mark on the jazz scene, which meant composing his own music and blending jazz, rock and traditional Zimbabwean sounds.

“Slowly, I injected that idea into my mind, and it started growing within me. A song came up, another one came up and kept on growing, and the rest is now history,” he said.

Seeking new opportunities, Mhlanga joined The Beaters in 1976 on the invitation of band leader Sipho Mabuse, and relocated to South Africa.

While in South Africa, he collaborated with some of the country’s biggest acts, including Hugh Masekela, Miriam Makeba and Vusi Mahlasela. These collaborations not only expanded his musical horizons but also solidified his position in the music industry.

Affected by the woes of living in a brutal apartheid state, he relocated to the UK, seeking a more conducive environment for his music. However, his heart remained in South Africa, and he eventually returned, determined to contribute to the country’s vibrant music scene.

Mhlanga released his first solo album in 2000 and has since released more than 10 solo albums, EPs, and collaborative projects.

The musician was featured on the 1996 collaborative album “Place of Hope” alongside George Duke, James Ingram and Al Jarreau. In addition to releasing an album with American jazz steel pannist Andy Narell, he recently released “Two Words” with Budha Building (a pseudonym of Dutch musician Hans Timmermans).

After more than half a century playing his guitar, Mhlanga still aims to transform the African jazz sound. His latest album, “Living for the Living,” released earlier this year, aims to unite, uplift, and inspire, reflecting his belief in the power of music to bring people together and spread positivity in the world.

“It’s saying that we are living for each other; we are a chain,” the musician explained. “We need that respect and love within each other to uplift each other.”

See the full episode of African Voices Changemaker’s featuring Louis Mhlanga here.

Far-right protesters violently clashed with British police on Tuesday near a mosque in the northwest English town of Southport, a day after three young girls were stabbed to death in one of the worst assaults against children in the country in decades.

British Prime Minister Keir Starmer said the group had “hijacked” a peaceful vigil held for those killed and injured in the attack “with violence and thuggery” and “insulted the community as it grieves.”

Those involved “will feel the full force of the law,” Starmer added in the post on X.

The violence followed a peaceful vigil in the seaside town attended by hundreds of mourners who laid wreaths, toys and candles in an emotional tribute to the three girls who were killed during the attack during a Taylor Swift-themed event at a dance school.

Protesters, believed to be supporters of the far-right English Defence League, took to the streets in anger throwing bricks at a local mosque, setting cars and police vehicles alight and hurling bottles at police, Merseyside Police said in a statement.

Police believe the crowd took to the streets over unconfirmed reports speculating on the identity of the teenage suspect, who was arrested on suspicion of murder and attempted murder following Monday’s knife attack.

Officers “sustained serious injuries including fractures, lacerations, a suspected broken nose and concussion,” Merseyside Police said. “Other officers have suffered varying degrees of injury including head injuries, serious facial injuries, and one was knocked unconscious.”

Three police dogs were also injured, with two sustaining leg injuries from bricks thrown at them and one suffering burns, it added.

“Yesterday, our officers and other members of the emergency services were faced with one of the most difficult situations they will ever face,” Assistant Chief Constable Alex Goss said in a police statement, referring to the horrific knife attack.

“Tonight, they find themselves being attacked as they endeavour to prevent disorder,” he said.

The North West Ambulance Service said it treated 39 police officers injured in the violence, 27 of whom were taken to hospital.

Following the arrest in the stabbings case, an “incorrect” name linked to the suspect was spread on social media, police said.

“There has been much speculation and hypothesis around the status of a 17-year-old male who is currently in police custody, and some individuals are using this to bring violence and disorder to our streets,” Goss said.

“We have already said that the person arrested was born in the UK, and speculation helps nobody at this time.”

Police have said the suspect is from the village of Banks, near Southport, and was originally from Cardiff, Wales.

Goss added that many of those involved in the violence were not local to the area, suggesting they traveled to Southport with the intention of causing unrest.

The Muslim Council of Britain (MCB) paid tribute to the girls killed in the attack and said in a statement that “Southport’s tragedy was shamelessly exploited to spark outrage, with Islamophobia fueling the fire and leading to tonight’s violence.”

“This began with a false rumour on the internet, stoked by misinformation from a Russian news site, which wrongfully associated the crime with Muslims,” it said.

The MCB said the government “must address the increasing rise of violent far-right extremism targeting Muslim communities. More must be done to tackle Islamophobia and offer reassurance at this time.”

On Tuesday, police named the three girls killed in the stabbing as Bebe King, 6, Elsie Dot Stancombe, 7, and Alice Dasilva Aguiar, 9.

Eight other children suffered stab wounds in the attack and five of them are in critical condition, police said. Two adults also remain in critical condition after being injured in the attack.

Police shared a tribute from the family of King, who said: “No words can describe the devastation that has hit our family as we try to deal with the loss of our little girl Bebe.”

Prime Minister Starmer and other officials visited the site of the attack on Tuesday, paying tribute to the victims and thanking emergency responders who attended the scene.

Starmer laid a wreath of cream and yellow-colored flowers, alongside floral tributes left by the local community.

Taylor Swift, whose music was the theme of the dance class targeted in the attack, said Tuesday she was “completely in shock.”

Ismail Haniyeh has been part of Hamas for decades, in recent years running the militant group’s political operations from exile, and emerging as one of its most visible leaders during the war with Israel in Gaza.

Haniyeh’s death strikes a significant blow to Hamas at a time when tensions are flaring across the Middle East over the devastating war in Gaza, and raises fraught questions about the future of negotiations between Israel and Hamas.

As Hamas’s political leader, he was a key interlocutor with international mediators during stalled hostage and ceasefire talks between Israel and Hamas, following the group’s October 7 attack on Israel.

Haniyeh was born in a refugee camp near Gaza City, and joined Hamas in the late 1980s during the First Intifada, or uprising.

His parents were refugees expelled from Askalan, which later became known as the Israeli city Ashkelon.

He was imprisoned several times in Israel for his participation in the uprising, before being deported and returning to Gaza – where he steadily climbed Hamas ranks in the following decade.

Haniyeh was appointed part of a secret “collective leadership” in 2004 after the deaths of Hamas’ previous two leaders, Sheikh Ahmed Yassin and Abdel Aziz Rantisi, who were killed in Israeli strikes just weeks apart.

By 2017 he had become political chief of the group, and was named a “specially designated global terrorist” by the United States soon after.

This decision came during a period of tension between Washington and the Palestinians due to the decision to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, a decision made by the then-US President Donald Trump.

Despite that designation – and unlike Hamas’ military leadership – Haniyeh travelled globally, meeting with world figures as the political head of the organization. He was photographed meeting Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian in Tehran on Tuesday.

Ceasefire and hostage release talks

Hamas’ surprise attack on October 7 saw at least 1,500 Hamas fighters pour across the border into Israel, in an assault that killed at least 1,200, and some 200 others taken hostage.

Israeli strikes in Gaza have since killed more than 39,000 Palestinians, according to the Ministry of Health there, and sparked a humanitarian catastrophe in the densely crowded strip.

In the months since, Haniyeh had been a key figure participating in international negotiations over the conflict, including the release of hostages still in Gaza.

He had shown willingness to reach an agreement if Israel withdrew from Gaza – saying in May that the group was “still keen” to strike a deal with mediators, but that any proposal would have to cease fighting in the enclave permanently.

At the time, he said their demands aimed to stop “the aggression against our people, which is a fundamental and logical position that lays the foundation for a more stable future.”

In response, Israel has called those demands “unacceptable,” with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu vowing to keep fighting until Hamas was destroyed – leaving negotiations at a standstill as both sides traded blame.

As recently as early July, Haniyeh was in touch with mediators in Qatar and Egypt to discuss ideas on ending the war, sparking some hope that the two sides could be on the brink of a framework agreement.

Throughout the war, he has also continued meeting with other world leaders and officials – including Chinese diplomat Wang Kejian, who met Haniyeh in Qatar in March, during which they discussed the war in Gaza.

Haniyeh has also felt the personal toll of the war in Gaza. In April, Israeli police arrested one of his sisters on charges of communicating with members of the movement. Nine days later, Israeli airstrikes killed three of his sons and four of his grandchildren.

Afterward, Haniyeh insisted their deaths would not affect ongoing ceasefire and hostage talks.

“Whoever thinks that by targeting my kids during the negotiation talks and before a deal is agreed upon that it will force Hamas to back down on its demands, is delusional,” he said.

At the time, Haniyeh was based in Qatar, which is not a signatory of the Rome Statute allowing jurisdiction by the International Criminal Court.

Hamas political leader Ismail Haniyeh has been killed in the Iranian capital Tehran, according to Iran’s Revolutionary Guards Corps and Hamas on Wednesday.

His killing represents a significant blow to the militant group, eliminating a key figure who headed up its political operations while living overseas.

In a statement, Hamas accused Israel of targeting Haniyeh in a “raid” on his residence in Tehran, following his participation in the inauguration of the new Iranian president.

The Israeli military said it doesn’t respond to reports in foreign media, though senior officials have previously vowed to eliminate Hamas and its leadership in response to the group’s October 7 attack on Israel.

It is not clear precisely when Haniyeh, a key interlocutor with Egyptian and Qatari mediators on the ongoing hostage and ceasefire talks in Gaza, was killed. The new Iranian president was sworn in on Tuesday and Hamas released pictures the same day of Haniyeh meeting Iranian officials in Tehran.

The killing comes at an especially fraught time for the Middle East, with escalating confrontations between Israel and Hezbollah threatening to expand into a wider regional war and as Hamas continues to battle Israel’s military in Gaza amid an unfolding and catastrophic humanitarian crisis.

Musa Abu Marzouk, a member of Hamas’ Political Bureau, said Haniyeh’s death would “not pass in vain,” while another Hamas official said the group is “ready to pay various prices.”

News of Haniyeh’s death came a day after Israel said it killed Hezbollah’s most senior military official, Fu’ad Shukr, in a drone strike in the southern suburbs of Beirut, a populous neighborhood that is also the Iran-backed group’s stronghold. The strike was the most serious Israeli escalation since confrontations between Hezbollah and Israel began on October 8.

The White House said it has seen the reports of Haniyeh’s death but declined to immediately comment further, according to a spokesperson.

Haniyeh would be the second Hamas senior leader to be killed since the beginning of Israel’s war in Gaza. In January, the group said its deputy head of the political bureau Saleh Al Arouri was killed in an Israeli airstrike in the Lebanese capital Beirut. Arouri was considered one of the founding members of the Hamas’s military wing, the Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades.

However, the group has been able to weather the death of other key leaders before, including slaying of its co-founders Sheikh Ahmed Yassin and Abdel Aziz Rantisi who were killed weeks apart in 2004.

“This assassination is, in a way, just a matter of when, not a matter of if,” Ravid said.

Who is Ismail Haniyeh?

Haniyeh, 62, was born in a refugee camp near Gaza City, and joined Hamas in the late 1980s during the First Intifada, or uprising.

As Hamas grew in power, Haniyeh rose through the ranks – being appointed part of a secret “collective leadership” in 2004. By 2017 he had become chief of the group – and was named a “specially designated global terrorist” by the United States soon after.

Over the years, he has participated in peace talks with former US President Jimmy Carter, and met with other world leaders including the Emir of Qatar, Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa al-Thani, and Chinese diplomat Wang Kejian earlier this year.

In April, Israeli airstrikes killed three of Haniyeh’s sons and four of his grandchildren, according to Hamas.

At the time, Haniyeh – who was based in Qatar – insisted their deaths would not affect ongoing ceasefire and hostage talks.

“Whoever thinks that by targeting my kids during the negotiation talks and before a deal is agreed upon that it will force Hamas to back down on its demands, is delusional,” he said.

This is a developing story and will be updated.

Israel says it has killed Hezbollah’s most senior military official, Fu’ad Shukr, in a drone strike in the southern suburbs of Beirut, a populous neighborhood that is also the Iran-backed group’s stronghold.

If true, Shukr would be the most high-ranking Hezbollah official to have been assassinated since 2016 when Mustafa Badreddine, the group’s top commander at the time, was killed in Syria.

Hezbollah has not yet confirmed Shukr’s death. He was a senior military adviser to the group’s Secretary General Hassan Nasrallah, considered his right-hand man, and a member of the jihad council. The US government had put out a reward of $5 million for information about him and his whereabouts.

Whatever the fate of Shukr, Wednesday’s strike is the most serious Israeli escalation since confrontations between Hezbollah and Israel began on October 8.

Israel said it served as retaliation for a deadly strike in the Israeli-occupied town of Majdal Shams in the Golan Heights on Saturday, which Israel blamed on Hezbollah. Hezbollah denied the claim.

The developments have raised the specter of an all-out war between Lebanon and Israel that could extend beyond the borders of both countries.

Nasrallah has repeatedly threatened to hit Tel Aviv in response to any Israeli strike on Beirut, a move that would thrust the two countries, and the region, into uncharted waters.

Unlike Hamas in Gaza, Hezbollah has an arsenal of precision guided rockets and bombs with payloads of up to 500 kg.

They are also supported by a region-wide axis of Iran-backed fighters including the Houthis in Yemen and the Popular Mobilization Units in Iraq.

Tehran has indicated that it may act to defend Hezbollah, considered the crown jewel of its network of non-state fighters, warning of “severe consequences” in case of an Israeli escalation in Lebanon.

Neither Hezbollah nor Israel wants an all-out war. Hezbollah may seek to retaliate forcefully, falling short of igniting a larger conflict. Israel will likely also retaliate in kind.

How long this highly calibrated tit-for-tat can go on for before the region spirals into an unprecedented war is anyone’s guess.

The US is trying desperately to prevent this and to clinch a diplomatic solution. Hezbollah has vowed to keep fighting in confrontations until a ceasefire in Gaza, which remains elusive.

Until then, Lebanon, Israel and the wider region remains on the precipice.

It happened in Caracas on June 9, 2016, when I was there to cover a series of violent protests that had broken out in Venezuela.

Moments after we made it inside the building, Julio Borges, an opposition member of the assembly and its former president, arrived in bad shape. He had a bloody nose and said a group of opposition legislators like him had been attacked by colectivos as they were headed to the office of the national electoral authority. The month before, President Nicolás Maduro had declared a “constitutional state of emergency.”

Even before that tumultuous period, it had become abundantly clear that Maduro’s government had absolute control of all three branches of government as well as the the National Electoral Council (CNE).

And, as we had just witnessed, it also controlled the streets of Caracas. Maduro, now 61, is a former bus driver who became a Caracas metro system union leader and rose through the ranks. He is the handpicked successor of the late strongman Hugo Chávez, who ruled Venezuela from 1999 until his death in 2013.

A new wave of violence shook Venezuela once again in 2019. In January of that year, Juan Guaidó, then president of the National Assembly, had proclaimed himself interim president of Venezuela. The then-35-year-old Guaidó argued that he had the constitutional right to the presidency as leader of the assembly because Maduro, who had been sworn in only days before, was an illegitimate president.

Both the opposition and leaders of several countries in the region had called the previous year’s election a sham. Guaidó convinced 50 countries that he had a right to be president, including the United States.

By June 2019, when I returned to Caracas, Guaidó had already attempted a military uprising that almost succeeded on April 30, followed by weeks of violent clashes between protesters and security forces that left dozens dead.

The world started to pay close attention to Venezuela once again in the last few months as the country was getting ready to hold a new presidential election. Would Maduro allow the opposition to run a candidate of its choosing? Would this be a free, fair, and transparent election? Would the colectivos once again be used to intimidate voters as they had done in previous elections?

The first and second questions were answered in January when opposition leader María Corina Machado was barred by Venezuela’s highest court from running for president (or any other elected position) for 15 years over alleged financial irregularities. Machado had won more than 90% of the vote in last October’s opposition primary. She attracted large crowds everywhere she went, even though the government did everything possible to stop her, even persecuting those who rented sound systems to her campaign.

The third question was answered in the last hours of the election itself on Sunday when colectivos showed up at at least one polling center in Caracas and started beating up opposition sympathizers who had been asked by the leadership to keep an eye on ballot boxes in an effort to prevent tampering.

Those of us who have been following Venezuela for decades have seen this movie before: a “sham” election to justify Maduro’s staying in power. Democracy has been gradually weakening in Venezuela over the last 25 years since the charismatic socialist leader Chávez rose to power in 1999.

While Venezuelans and the world awaited results Sunday night, the country’s electoral authority delayed publication, alleging the system had been targeted by hackers operating from North Macedonia without showing any evidence. This was not surprising in a country where all three branches of government are in the hands of government loyalists, hundreds of opposition leaders have been imprisoned, and true democracy hasn’t existed in a generation.

“Is there anything different this time?” That’s the question I asked Michael Shifter, the former president of the Inter-American Dialogue and current professor of Latin American Politics at Georgetown University, who has been following Venezuelan politics for decades.

Shifter said the Maduro victory was a “blatant, massive and egregious fraud,” but the opposition managed to do something it had been unable to do before: uniting behind a single candidate and going to the polls in massive numbers.

“The alternative [to participating in the election] was taking themselves completely out of the political game, saying ‘we refuse to take part in this unfair and unjust election,’ but that would’ve left the opposition in a weaker position in practical and political terms” as it happened in 2018 when the opposition decided to boycott the whole process.

“I think the opposition learned that refusing to take part in elections was not helping their cause.  They recognized that even when the elections weren’t free and fair, they needed to defeat Maduro on his terms, which they’ve done,” Shifter said.

Venezuela’s CNE declared Maduro the winner Monday saying he had won with 51.2% of the votes, with 80% of the ballots counted. His main rival, opposition candidate Edmundo González, had obtained 44.2% of the votes, according to the body.

“When you’re in first grade, you learn that 20 is more than seven,” Quiroga said. “The probability that [opposition presidential candidate] Edmundo [González] could’ve won was low, but still arithmetically possible,” at that point, he said, adding that prior to the election there were credible exit polls showing González was ahead by as much as 40 percent.

Just like 2016 and 2019, violence has returned to Venezuela. At least 11 people died during protests in Venezuela on Monday, according to the non-governmental organization Foro Penal on social media. Venezuelan authorities say more than 700 people were detained in the protests. The Venezuelan opposition political party Voluntad Popular said Tuesday that its leader Freddy Superlano has been kidnapped.

Unlike the 2018 election, Shifter says, this time the opposition “knows they won, and the regime knows they won.” The question now is how long the governing coalition that includes not only the socialists, but the armed forces can hold, Shifter said.

If that coalition becomes “divided and weaker, the armed forces may say ‘this ship is sinking and we don’t want to go down with it,’” Shifter said.

Two men kiss on a Parisian bridge. The camera later jumps to a trio embracing passionately in a room, before the door shuts.

These are among the images that France, the organizer of the Paris 2024 Olympics, presented to the world during the opening ceremony last week.

In China, the scenes have become a rare point of celebration for the LGBTQ+ community. They were beamed live across hundreds of millions of television screens by the country’s state broadcaster – unimpeded by the usual censorship that blocks any content depicting same-sex relationships.

China has cracked down hard on its LGBTQ+ movement under leader Xi Jinping, who has adopted a more authoritarian, socially conservative and patriarchal vision for the country. Support groups have been forced to disband, with activists harassed by police, pride parades cancelled and films and TV shows featuring same-sex themes banned.

The clampdown has made it all the more striking when scenes of gay men and drag queens from the Paris Olympics opening ceremony made it onto Chinese state broadcaster CCTV. On social media site Weibo, the “#Paris opening ceremony is really cool# hashtag has generated more than 600 million views over the past four days.

Ken Huang, 26, who is gay and lives in Beijing, said it felt like “an unrealistic dream” when the scene came up.

“I burst into big laughs first. I was like ‘Well, every dog has his day!’ Then I quickly took a photo and sent it to my friends who were watching the live broadcast, and quickly posted it on social media,” he said.

Many others marveled at what they saw. “Those who didn’t stay up late to watch the Olympic opening ceremony tonight missed out big time. They missed the once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to see a gay kiss and a threesome on CCTV,” a Weibo user from Shanghai wrote during the live broadcast of the ceremony in the early Saturday.

In many parts of the world, the ceremony’s celebration of diversity and inclusion has sparked controversy and backlash. Olympics officials apologized on Sunday after a scene featuring drag queens and a trans model evoking Leonardo da Vinci’s The Last Supper infuriated Christian groups – although the director of the opening ceremony said the famous mural wasn’t the inspiration for the scene.

In China, where sexual minorities still face widespread discrimination and are viewed as a potential political and moral threat by the ruling Communist Party, it also drew a divisive response.

Within hours, comments about the ceremony exploded on popular Chinese social media site Weibo, with some praising French progressiveness.

“In a truly diverse and inclusive society, everyone has the right to freely explore and enjoy sex without being restricted by society’s taboos and prejudices. This is the real meaning of this scene,” one popular user who has more than 380,000 followers wrote.

But many others decry what they see as the glorification of sexual minorities.

“The LGBTQ+ elements are the failure of all failures. The Olympics are a venue for competitive sports and for the display of sportsmanship. And yet, these demons and ghosts were shown … encouraged by all kinds of flattery,” the person, also widely followed by 986,000 fans, wrote.

#Paris opening ceremony is really cool#

The ceremony remained the top trending topic on Weibo for more than 15 hours starting Saturday. Experts said the burst of enthusiasm may have been driven by what Chinese viewers consider a novelty.

“Representations of diverse gender and sexualities have been relatively limited because of regulations in mainland China,” said Suen Yiu-tung, an associate professor of gender studies at the Chinese University of Hong Kong.

“The audience may find such direct presentations of LGBTQ+ elements on TV, albeit relatively common in other parts of the world, rather foreign to them,” he said.

Suen said some in China yearn for the same level of progressiveness.

“To be able to see scenes that discomfort countless conservative people on a CCTV live broadcast, to see feminism that refuses to be silenced, is enough to give a moment of freedom to the soul,” a Weibo user wrote.

“In this world full of pressure, there are still French people shouting for love and freedom. This is the chaotic and beautiful art of France.”

Crackdown on social movements

While non-government organizations and activists have managed to drive incremental changes in the public perception of sexual minorities through health campaigns, the space for civil society has shrunk drastically in the past decade with LGBTQ+ groups facing wider crackdowns, according to critics and scholars.

In 2020, Shanghai Pride, China’s longest-running celebration, had to be cancelled abruptly due to mounting pressure from local authorities.

The following year, the country’s most popular messaging app WeChat shut down dozens of LGBTQ+ accounts run by university students, in one of the most widespread and coordinated acts of censorship targeting sexual minorities the country had seen in decades.

State censorship has also taken aim at other areas, including a ban on women’s cleavage on TV. China’s top media regulator issued new guidelines in 2016 to prohibit TV shows that promote “Western lifestyles.”

Suen explained that the backlash is partly due to Beijing’s campaign to portray expressions of diverse genders and sexualities as “foreign.”

“These Western ideas are not advanced, but rather backwards,” one Weibo user said wrote on Sunday, complaining that France has “forced” ideas like diversity on viewers.

Other users were simply stunned by how the ceremony managed to bypass China’s rigorous censorship, putting the state broadcaster in an awkward position.

Netizens created hashtag #CCTV’s narrators have gone silent# after commentators providing live analysis during the live streaming stopped abruptly when the LGBTQ+ scenes were broadcast.

“It may well have been the most boundary-pushing live broadcast CCTV has ever done,” one user noted on Weibo.