Read the daily news to learn English

Middle East crisis live: Trump claims ‘I don’t make bad deals’ as questions remain over negotiation progress

US secretary of state Marco Rubio told The New York Times an agreement with Iran had garnered regional support but a nuclear deal couldn’t be achieved “in 72 hours on the back of a napkin.” His comments came after US president Donald Trump told his negotiators “not to rush into a deal” with Iran to end the three-month war. Rubio said on Sunday: “We’re not kicking it till later. Nuclear talks are highly technical matters. You can’t do a nuclear thing in 72 hours on the back of a napkin. “So right now, we have seven or eight countries in the region that are endorsing this approach, and we’re prepared to move forward on this approach.”

Trump says he does not make bad deals, but even Republican hawks doubt that now

On 24 May each year, Iranians celebrate a historic victory in the war with Iraq: the liberation of Khorramshahr in 1982. This year, some were hoping a peace deal looking likely to be signed with the US might mark a similar turning point in their country’s history. Last minute disagreements meant it looked unlikely a final Pakistani memorandum would be signed as hoped for on Sunday, but what seems clear is that the US has accepted it cannot achieve through war what it set out to do when it began the conflict on 28 February in terms of forcing Iran to make concessions over its nuclear programme. Instead, the US has apparently had to promise to unfreeze billions of Iranian assets upfront, handing them over to a regime that is more hardline than the one that entered the war. In return, the strait of Hormuz will gradually be reopened and commercial traffic will return to prewar levels, releasing the chokehold on the world economy. So, Iran receives its assets in return for restoring the prewar status quo. The amount of assets and the timing of their dispersal may turn on the concessions it gives on the nuclear file, especially its stockpile of highly enriched uranium. It was disagreement on this that triggered one of the last-minute hitches that held up a deal on Sunday, since Iran is insisting the nuclear talks cannot start with such inbuilt commitments. Donald Trump insists he does not make bad deals, and says this is not one. But both Democrats and Republican hawks have spent 48 hours challenging that assessment. Ben Rhodes, the Obama-era foreign policy adviser, put it pithily: “Nothing was accomplished by Operation Epic Fury [the US-Israeli war on Iran] except putting the IRGC [Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps] in charge of Iran and the strait of Hormuz”. Ali Vaez, director of the Iran Project at the Crisis Group, said: “DC’s Iran hawks got two wars, nearly every conceivable sanction designation, a blockade, threw a wrench in the global economy and will still claim that just a little more pressure and a touch more bombing will magically yield the concessions they still won’t be satisfied with.” Trita Parsi from the Quincy thinktank argued Trump has merely managed to negotiate his way back to the position that was supposed to hold when the original ceasefire was announced, before that ceasefire was then upended by his decision on 13 April to impose a US blockade of Iran’s ports, leading Iran to reimpose its own de facto blockade. In short, Trump, expending billions of dollars, has so far progressed no further on the nuclear issues than where he was at the last round of talks in Geneva on 26 February before the war was started. Little wonder Republican hawks such as Ted Cruz warned of a disaster. Iran, in a statement issued by the foreign minister, Abbas Araghchi, rejected claims in the US media that Iran had agreed to send enriched uranium abroad or to accept a cap on enrichment for 10 years. He said Iran was only willing to discuss these issues within a 60-day time frame, hardly an advance on the position in Geneva. That does not mean Iran rules out concessions in this area, as Trump assured a nervous Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu in talks on Saturday, but that this goal will now have to be achieved through diplomacy, not military force. Similarly, Israel’s agenda about Iran’s missiles, drones and proxies has been deferred. Indeed, the Iranian president, Masoud Pezeshkian, insisted the talks will show Iran is willing to prove to the west it is not seeking a nuclear weapon. The process of reaching agreement on Iran’s nuclear programme is laborious and technical, but it is achievable, especially if Iran does not believe it is negotiating under military duress. But the abandonment of the military route at least for now would be a blow to Netanyahu in an election year. It also comes at a time when support for Israel within the US has eroded severely across nearly every demographic group except older Republican voters. Israel is nevertheless resisting aspects of the memorandum, especially the Lebanon ceasefire framework. Israel is pushing Washington to include language allowing it to carry out military operations in Lebanon under the justification of responding to “any threat”.” Iran is rejecting that formulation and insisting on a sustainable and lasting ceasefire. Nor is every aspect of the future governance of the strait of Hormuz agreed. Iran and Oman are in discussions about the role of a Persian Gulf strait authority, but Oman is unlikely to back the idea of tolls, and Iran may find its newfound weapon is a diminishing asset.

Republican hawks warn of ‘disastrous mistake’ as Trump nears deal with Iran

Republican hawks have issued a rare rebuke of Donald Trump over his planned peace deal with Iran, describing it as a “disaster” and questioning why the US president launched the war in the first place. Allies of Trump who strongly backed his controversial decision to order war on Iran alongside Israel urged him to “hold the line” this weekend, despite mounting economic costs and no sign of progress on many of the the initial objectives set out by his administration. With the Iranian government apparently in jubilant mood, members of Trump’s own party responded furiously to reports that a proposed deal contained major concessions from Washington. Roger Wicker, who chairs the Senate armed services committee, said the “rumored 60-day ceasefire” would be a “disaster” in a post on social media. “Everything accomplished by Operation Epic Fury would be for naught,” he added. After suggesting on Saturday that a deal was within reach, Trump seemed to row back on Sunday morning, after the angry response from some corners of his party. Talks were progressing in an “orderly and constructive” manner, the president insisted, adding: “I have informed my representatives not to rush into a deal in that time is on our side.” Stressing that a “good and proper” deal was on the way, he later claimed “nobody has seen it” in a bid to quell criticism. “It isn’t even fully negotiated yet,” he said. “So don’t listen to the losers, who are critical about something they know nothing about.” Trump had claimed on Saturday that a memorandum of understanding to end the war had been “largely negotiated” and was waiting to be finalized. The US president said on his Truth Social platform that the agreement would include opening of the strait of Hormuz, a crucial chokepoint for global trade, which Iran has effectively shut since the US and Israel started the war in February. But the US president did not mention Iran’s nuclear program and highly enriched uranium, despite repeatedly insisting that Tehran renounce any nuclear ambitions was a “red line” in negotiations to end the war. Iranian officials have sought to negotiate those matters at a later date. The peace draft includes a 60-day ceasefire extension, during which the strait of Hormuz would be reopened, according to Axios. Iran would agree to clear mines it deployed in the strait and allow ships to pass freely, and in exchange, the US would lift its naval blockade on Iranian ports. During that time Iran would also be able to freely sell oil and negotiations would be held on the nuclear issue. The apparent concessions from Washington have triggered alarm among several Republican foreign policy hawks. Senator Lindsey Graham, a close ally of Trump, warned: “If a deal is struck to end the Iranian conflict because it is believed that the strait of Hormuz cannot be protected from Iranian terrorism and Iran still possesses the capability to destroy major Gulf oil infrastructure, then Iran will be perceived as being a dominate force requiring a diplomatic solution.” The perception of Iran being able to “terrorize” the strait of Hormuz, and its ability to damage oil infrastructure across the Gulf, amounts to a “major shift of the balance of power in the region and over time will be a nightmare for Israel”, Graham argued. “Also, it makes one wonder why the war started to begin with if these perceptions are accurate,” he added, stressing the need for the US to “get this right”. Tom Cotton, who chairs the Senate intelligence committee reposted Graham’s comments, while Texas senator Ted Cruz said he was “deeply concerned” by reports about the emerging agreement. “If the result of all that is to be an Iranian regime – still run by Islamists who chant ‘death to America’ – now receiving billions of dollars, being able to enrich uranium & develop nuclear weapons, and having effective control over the Strait of Hormuz, then that outcome would be a disastrous mistake,” Cruz wrote on X. Trump, he said, “should continue to hold the line, defend America & enforce the red lines he has repeatedly drawn”. Responding to a Trump supporter who criticized his position, and said “no one asked” for his opinion, Cruz replied that “young political grifters pushing Iran appeasement are not remotely helping the President.” Criticizing Trump’s agenda often prompts a swift backlash from the president and his senior officials. In a second statement on Sunday, Senator Graham hailed a “brilliant proposal by President Trump”, suggesting that several countries in the Middle East could join the Abraham accords, diplomatic agreements brokered in 2020 in which several Arab nations agreed to recognize Israel. “It is a brilliant move by President Trump,” declared Graham, publicly warning countries including Saudi Arabia that failure to join the accords would be a “major miscalculation”. Mike Pompeo, who served as secretary state and CIA director under the first Trump administration, sharply criticized the deal being floated as “not remotely America First”. In a harsh post on X, he compared the terms to the those of the 2015 nuclear agreement negotiated by the Obama administration, which Trump later abandoned, and has long chastised. “It’s straightforward,” Pompeo claimed. “Open the damned strait. Deny Iran access to money. Take out enough Iranian capability so it cannot threaten our allies in the region. Overdue. Let’s go.” Trump’s current secretary of state, Marco Rubio, hailed “significant” progress on Sunday. “I do think perhaps there is the possibility that in the next few hours the world will get some good news,” Rubio told reporters during a diplomatic visit to India.

Lion’s aid: blood ice lollies keep big cats cool at London zoo

A hot bank holiday weekend might see humans flock to the beach, don summer hats and crack open a cold beer, but when it comes to keeping big cats cool, zoos turn to a rather different treat: blood lollies. While experts note habitats within zoos are carefully tuned to their inhabitants’ needs, with areas of shade, water, sun and mud as appropriate, animals have tactics of their own to cope with the heat. Chester zoo says miniature wallabies called dusky pademelons use evaporative cooling by licking their wrists – as the saliva evaporates, the blood within the vessels close to the skin is cooled. Meanwhile, aardvarks and African crested porcupines opt for subterranean shelter from the heat. “As temperatures soar, many of the animals find their own ways of keeping cool in the sunshine,” said Dr Nick Davis, the mammals general manager at Chester zoo. “The likes of the eastern black rhinos and capybaras will cool off by submerging themselves in mud wallows, while big cats such as Sumatran tigers and jaguars, and other species like Asian elephants and Humboldt penguins, might beat the heat by taking a dip in their pools,” said Davis. Indeed, while such birds might be expected to struggle in the heat, Humboldt penguins – which originate from coastal regions of Peru and Chile – are actually well equipped for warm climes, with body adaptations including bare patches around their face and a bill through which heat can escape. But they also receive a little help: as well as boasting the largest penguin pool in England, the Zoological Society of London (ZSL) notes the habitat at London zoo includes misting systems and fans that can be used to cool the surrounding air as temperatures soar. Lions and Sumatran tigers might also be expected to cope well as the mercury rises – but that doesn’t mean they don’t get some special attention. Among the treats they can expect at London zoo are frozen blood-based ice blocks, which are often spiced or contain an edible treat. According to ZSL, the approach not only cools the big cats but encourages natural investigative and hunting behaviours. Other species can also look forward to a cooling snack. “Sometimes our keepers deliver special fruit and vegetable ice lollies to the chimps, bears and red pandas, while animals including the greater one-horned rhinos may be given a refreshing shower,” said Davis, while ZSL noted gorillas at London zoo receive ice blocks made from sugar-free fruit teas. Angela Ryan, ZSL’s head of zoological operations, said the key thing is to make sure every animal can choose what works for them. “Some will head straight for pools or shaded spots, while others really enjoy things like misting or frozen treats as a way to cool down,” she said. “A lot of our species are actually built for warm weather anyway, so it’s not about over-intervening – it’s about making sure they’ve got the right options, and we’re watching closely so they stay comfortable.”

US and Iran inch closer to peace deal as Trump faces criticism from GOP hawks

Donald Trump defended himself against criticism from fellow Republicans on Sunday as he appeared on the verge of agreeing a deal with Iran to end the war. As hawks in his party called the proposed agreement a disaster and questioned why the US president had launched the conflict in the first place, Trump claimed on social media that his deal would be “THE EXACT OPPOSITE” of the one agreed by Barack Obama, which Trump pulled out of in 2018. He added that he was not rushing into a deal, saying “both sides must take their time to get it right … There can be no mistakes!” Trump insisted “the US blockade of Iran’s ports will remain in full force and effect until an agreement is reached, certified, and signed.” “Nobody has seen” the deal, “or knows what it is”, the US president later added. “It isn’t even fully negotiated yet. So don’t listen to the losers, who are critical about something they know nothing about.” Facing mounting criticism from inside his own party, Trump insisted: “I don’t make bad deals!” The proposed deal reportedly offers Iran sanctions relief and the unlocking of as much as $20bn of frozen assets in return for Iran reopening the strait of Hormuz and agreeing to negotiate on its nuclear programme over the next 60 days, starting on 5 June in Pakistan. Details of the final points of dispute were not released. At least $12bn of the assets are in Qatar. At the centre of the delay is a US demand that the unfreezing of Iran’s assets held by Qatar worth £12bn be made conditional on progress on the handover of Iran’s enriched uranium. The deal also reportedly requires Iran and the US, and their allies, to cease fighting, and for Israel to end its offensive in Lebanon. Iran’s supreme leader and national security council still need to approve the proposed peace deal between Tehran and Washington, Iranian officials said on Sunday. One or two clauses in the proposed peace deal between the US and Iran must be clarified to Iran’s satisfaction before the memorandum of understanding can be sent to Iran’s supreme national security council and the supreme leader, Mojtaba Khamenei, for ratification, the officials said, adding this had been conveyed to the Pakistani mediators. The Iranian government seemed to be in jubilant mood, preparing to claim a massive and historic victory over its two great foes, the US and Israel. Iran’s president, Masoud Pezeshkian, said: “What has guaranteed the preservation and stability of the country is the solidarity and empathy of the people.” On Saturday, Trump spoke to the Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, the key original advocate of the war when it began in February, to try to reassure him on the ceasefire’s terms. The Israeli prime minister is also trying to retain his freedom to continue to attack Hezbollah in Lebanon, but Iran is insisting the ceasefire must apply on all fronts. On Sunday, Israel continued to strike south and east Lebanon, despite a supposed ceasefire there. In a social media post on Sunday, the Israeli leader said: “President Trump and I agreed that any final agreement with Iran must eliminate the nuclear danger,” and that Trump had reaffirmed Israel’s right to defend itself “on every front, including Lebanon”. In reality, Netanyahu has little option other than to accept Trump’s decision to end a war that is unpopular in the US and is crippling the world economy by increasing inflation and creating critical supply shortages. Gulf states, as well as the Turkish president, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, and the Egyptian president, Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, had lobbied Trump on Saturday on the phone urging him to rule out returning to a bombing campaign inside Iran that they said would only bring Iranian reprisals and not topple an entrenched regime. Trump – who said on Friday he would not attend his son’s wedding this weekend, citing Iran among the reasons for staying in Washington – wrote on his social media platform that “An agreement has been largely negotiated, subject to finalisation between the United States of America, the Islamic Republic of Iran and the various other Countries.” The US and western countries have been insistent that Iran should not be allowed to impose tolls on shipping in the strait. Iran’s Fars news agency, which is close to the powerful Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), stated that the strait would remain under Iranian control. It reported on Telegram that “the management of the strait, determining the route, time, method of passage and issuing permits, will continue to be the monopoly, and at the discretion of, the Islamic Republic of Iran”. But Iran has agreed that shipping through the strait should return to the prewar levels within 30 days. On Saturday, the Iranian foreign ministry spokesperson said the future governance of the strait was a matter for negotiation between Iran on the north shore of the strait and Oman on the south, and not an issue in which the US could be involved. Iran also said it had merely committed to negotiate all nuclear-related issues in talks lasting as long as 60 days, taking the timetable to late summer. No commitments on the outcome of those talks has been made, only the topics, meaning the US has largely reverted to the prewar position that held in Geneva on 26 February, two days before the war started. The deal will reportedly allow Iran to resume the sale of oil and petrochemicals during the negotiation period without the risk of sanctions. The US will also then lift its counter-blockade of Iranian ports. The US secretary of state, Marco Rubio, speaking in India, said: “We have made some progress over the last 48 hours working with our partners in the Gulf region on an outline that could ultimately – if it succeeds – leave us not just with a completely open strait … [but also address] some of the key things that underpin what have been Iran’s nuclear weapons ambitions in the past.” Challenging the mounting domestic criticism of a deal that in no way meets the US original objectives, Rubio said: “The idea that somehow this president, given everything he has already proven he is willing to do, is going to somehow agree to a deal that ultimately winds up putting Iran in a stronger position when it comes to nuclear ambitions is absurd. “That is just not going to happen. But our preference is to address this through a diplomatic means and that is what we are endeavouring to do here.” News of the potential deal triggered dismay among Republican hawks, who had spent years calling for US military action against Iran, and deriding the 2015 deal to limit Iran’s nuclear enrichment in return for sanctions relief negotiated during the Obama administration. Trump withdrew from that international deal, known as the joint comprehensive plan of action (JCPOA), in 2018. Mike Pompeo, who served as CIA director and secretary of state during Trump’s first term, denounced the current proposed agreement as too close to what Barack Obama’s negotiators had achieved and a boon to the IRGC. “The deal being floated with Iran seems straight out of the Wendy Sherman-Robert Malley-Ben Rhodes playbook: Pay the IRGC to build a WMD program and terrorize the world,” Pompeo wrote on social media, referring to Obama’s chief negotiators. The alternative, Pompeo added, is “straightforward: Open the damned strait. Deny Iran access to money. Take out enough Iranian capability so it cannot threaten our allies in the region.” Malley responded: “Not quite the path Wendy, Ben or I would have taken. But if this deal brings an end to an unlawful, unjustifiable war, to the senseless loss of life and destruction and to the cascading global economic fallout, I am quite sure we’d willingly accept it over the alternative.” The White House director of communications, Steven Cheung, was somewhat less diplomatic in his response to the former secretary of state. “Mike Pompeo has no idea what the fuck he’s talking about,” Cheung wrote on X. “He should shut his stupid mouth and leave the real work to the professionals. He’s not read into anything that’s happening, so how would he know.” After Republican senator Roger Wicker wrote the “rumored 60-day ceasefire – with the belief that Iran will ever engage in good faith – would be a disaster. Everything accomplished by Operation Epic Fury would be for naught!” Rhodes replied: “Nothing was accomplished by Operation Epic Fury except putting the IRGC in charge of Iran and the strait of Hormuz.” Ted Cruz, Republican senator for Texas, warned that if the war’s conclusion “is to be an Iranian regime – still run by Islamists who chant “death to America” – now receiving billions of dollars, being able to enrich uranium and develop nuclear weapons, and having effective control over the strait of Hormuz, then that outcome would be a disastrous mistake”. Senator Lindsey Graham, a close ally of Trump, warned: “If a deal is struck to end the Iranian conflict because it is believed that the strait of Hormuz cannot be protected from Iranian terrorism and Iran still possesses the capability to destroy major Gulf oil infrastructure, then Iran will be perceived as being a dominate force requiring a diplomatic solution.” Additional reporting by Lucy Campbell and Robert Mackey

With Ebola, we need to learn from past failures | Letters

Devi Sridhar is right that this Ebola outbreak needs urgent attention (Ebola in the DRC needs the world’s attention now – if your neighbour’s house is on fire, you don’t wait and watch, 19 May). Present an engineer with a problem needing a build or fix and you will often hear: “You can have it good, fast or cheap – pick two.” In global outbreak responses, we learn too late every time that we must pick “fast” first. Having worked on the west African Ebola outbreak in 2014-16 and on smaller Ebola responses in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in 2018-2020, I have seen the same failure pattern repeat. We think too long before going in, despite knowing what is needed, and we overestimate the complexity of what must be accomplished. The fixes are clear. First, lightweight rapid-response teams of clinicians, logisticians and, where appropriate, researchers should be salaried, equipped and ready to deploy in days, not weeks. Think of coastguard rescue, not military campaigns. Second, local capacity must be mobilised immediately. Community health workers are essential for contact tracing, guiding teams through remote areas, supporting sample movement and building trust. There are smart, capable people on the sidelines now waiting to help. Basic personal protective equipment and infection control training can be delivered quickly. Third, secure support areas should be staged adjacent to hot zones. This was essential in west Africa and may be even more important here, given conflict, mobility and the lack of specific countermeasures for this strain. We have been here before and will be here again. A few dozen well-equipped experts ready to move immediately cost almost nothing compared with recovering from an outbreak allowed to grow. When will we learn? Eric Perakslis Marstons Mills, Massachusetts, US • Devi Sridhar’s warning on the Bundibugyo Ebola strain exposes an unresolved domestic faultline: the delicate balance of duties between frontline healthcare workers and the state. As the medical director of the Cabinet Office’s Covid-19 PPE taskforce, I learned that equipment supply lines are ultimately about workforce confidence. In an infectious outbreak, reporting for duty relies on a social contract. No one would expect firefighters to enter a burning building with faulty breathing apparatus. Yet during the pandemic, hundreds of thousands of NHS staff crossed the threshold every day despite severe shortages and downgraded safety guidelines. During the 2014-16 west African Ebola epidemic, a lack of PPE turned care into a suicide mission. Rationally, large numbers of healthcare workers elected to avoid their workstations because the risk was simply too great. Prof Sridhar’s own 2015 Harvard-London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine panel report into that crisis outlined how to prevent future disasters. Those lessons were not learned then, and they were bypassed during Covid-19. If governments fail to ensure PPE availability, they will eventually face a novel kind of pandemic: all patients and no staff. Dr Darren Mann Former medical director, Cabinet Office Covid-19 PPE taskforce • I notice that viruses are still being named after places – in this case, Bundibugyo, a district in Uganda. During Covid, there were concerns about the virus being named after Wuhan in China, where it originated. Why can’t the World Health Organization and international media extend the same courtesy to countries like Uganda to avoid negative stereotypes? Dilman Dila Seeta, Uganda • Have an opinion on anything you’ve read in the Guardian today? Please email us your letter and it will be considered for publication in our letters section.

‘Sad, mad and disheartened’: for the diaspora, the bombardment in Lebanon is a special kind of loss

For the last two years, much of the Lebanese diaspora – estimated to be about 15 million people spread across Australia, Europe, North and South America and more – has held its breath. Much of it watched from afar, helpless, during the latest extended conflict between Hezbollah and Israel as Israeli attacks on their motherland, and particularly its southern villages, resulted in widespread destruction. To date, more than 1.2 million people have been displaced, thousands killed, and roughly 14.3% of Lebanese territory ordered to be vacated. But while those within the country endure their own suffering, those in the diaspora face a different, emotional struggle: the loss of familial homes they may not be able to return to, and a severing of connection to a place that is a fundamental part of who they are. ‘There is something especially painful about seeing a home destroyed twice’ Ali Hamka works in the construction industry. His family home in Bint Jbeil was among dozens ‘levelled’ in attacks in April. He lives in Sydney. My grandparents’ home was one of many happy memories. When I first went back in 1999, I remember feeling at ease with people I was properly meeting for the first time. These were people who loved you without really knowing you, because your photo had been on a wall. I went back many times afterwards. It is difficult to explain [how I felt when I found out it was destroyed]. You are in Australia looking at images and videos, trying to work out which street it is, which building it is, whether it is your family home or someone else’s. People outside Lebanon may not realise that many of these towns had become beautiful and prosperous again. The Lebanese diaspora had invested everything into them. My grandmother is around 90 years old and [has] lived through the conflicts of the 1970s, the 1980s, the 2006 war and now this. If she was on her land, she was at ease with whatever life threw at her. [Seeing her] being made homeless again is very hard to accept. There is something especially painful about seeing a home destroyed twice in one lifetime. For the older generation, it may be more than twice. In south Lebanon, a home is not just a building. Families are connected to a ḥāra [a small family quarter or neighbourhood within the village]. So when a home is destroyed, it is not just one private house being lost. It is a family presence, and part of the social map of the community being erased. When a village is destroyed, it is not just infrastructure. It is family history. It is elders losing the place they expected to grow old and die in. It is children losing the chance to know where they come from. It is the diaspora losing the place that kept them connected. But the bond to the land is too deep to be broken by destruction. To rebuild is not only to repair what was broken, but to say that we are still here. ‘It was always a dream to have a place I could return to’ Suha Karam Hourani relocated to San Diego from her village Deir Mimas 31 years ago. In the US she runs a YouTube cooking channel, Suha’s Dishes. She and her husband had planned on retiring in her village before their apartment was destroyed in May. The village grew around a monastery said to date back to the early 1400s. It’s famous locally for olive oil production. Some olive trees around the village are said to be centuries – even millennia old. I grew up in that village as a child and returned to it every year. All my family and friends live there and I was concerned that something may happen when the strikes broke out because the village was at the centre of the conflict. Our apartment building was [destroyed by bombs] on May 12th. I found out from a neighbour through text messages. At first, I was shocked and couldn’t believe it, but when they sent over photos I realised it was true. I started crying, not believing it. The water pump station that supplies water to the village was also bombed. Many people in the village have moved to other towns across Lebanon. The apartment I had was a very special place for me because I lived abroad and it was always a dream to have a place in the village that I could return to. I decorated the apartment and handpicked all the items, haul[ing] everything with me in my suitcases from America. I put my heart and soul into designing every layer of it. I have two children who are also devastated by this news because they also wanted to have a home they could come to in the village and now that is gone. I am so sad, mad and disheartened to know that many are displaced and suffering and to have also lost my dream house. I will miss all of it, every inch of that home has a chunk of me in it. I feel devastated and lonely. Same feeling when I lost my mother. I feel down. ‘I want to thank that house’ Adam Al-Bassam lives in Brazil, where he works in digital media and political content strategy. His family home was destroyed in March. I am from a small village called Aynatha, and I have never felt that I belonged anywhere else. I chose [to immigrate] to Brazil in 2023, and I haven’t been able to go back because of the situation there. But even though I am so far away, I am completely glued to what is happening. I often stay awake watching the live news while my mother is asleep in Lebanon. On the first of March this year, I actually had to wake her up and tell her to run out of the village because an Israeli attack was about to begin. Our house [which was destroyed in the July 2006 war and rebuilt], and the entire neighbourhood were destroyed by the Israeli army. It protected us over these past 20 years and holds many wonderful memories, especially of my mother. It reminds me of her voice, her food, her kindness and her protection. It feels awkward to thank a house, but I want to thank that house for all the memories it held, and of course, I will miss it deeply. Our balcony was the most important part of my house. Neighbours and visitors would drop in and we would have barbecues and play cards and play backgammon. It was a special place for the entire family. The garden is [a big part] of village culture in Lebanon. We eat seasonally. In October [my family] would go together to pick olives from groves. We had a lot of olive trees prior to 2006 and they got destroyed in the July 2006 war. Now all our plants and homes [have been impacted by] chemicals and missiles so we can’t replant. It’s hard to be so far away while this war takes place, because I don’t know what’s going to happen. Israel has occupied my village, and I am worried that we will become like the Palestinians … that we won’t have a home to return to. I am worried about my mother and 12-year-old brother, who are still there, and what will happen to them. I can’t defend them from here. “Resilience” is the most famous word used to describe the Lebanese. We are people who love to live and have fun. War is not our culture: it is not what we want, and it is not our choice. That is what I need the world to know.