188 jili slot

A ceasefire deal that could end more than a year of cross-border fighting between Israel and Lebanon's Hezbollah militant group won backing from Israeli leaders Tuesday, raising hopes and renewing difficult questions in a region gripped by conflict. Hezbollah leaders also signaled tentative backing for the U.S.-brokered deal, which offers both sides an off-ramp from hostilities that have driven more than 1.2 million Lebanese and 50,000 Israelis from their homes. An intense bombing campaign by Israel has killed more than 3,700 people, many of them civilians, Lebanese officials say. But while the deal, set to take effect early Wednesday, could significantly calm the tensions that have inflamed the region, it does little directly to resolve the much deadlier war that has raged in Gaza since the Hamas attack on southern Israel in October 2023 that killed 1,200 people. Hezbollah, which began firing scores of rockets into Israel the following day in support of Hamas, has previously said it would keep fighting until there was a stop to the fighting in Gaza. Here’s what to know about the tentative ceasefire agreement and its potential implications: The agreement reportedly calls for a 60-day halt in fighting that would see Israeli troops retreat to their side of the border while requiring Hezbollah to end its armed presence in a broad swath of southern Lebanon. President Joe Biden said Tuesday that the deal is set to take effect at 4 a.m. local time on Wednesday (9 p.m. EST Tuesday). Under the deal, thousands of Lebanese troops and U.N. peacekeepers are to deploy to the region south of the Litani River. An international panel lead by the U.S. would monitor compliance by all sides. Biden said the deal “was designed to be a permanent cessation of hostilities.” Israel has demanded the right to act should Hezbollah violate its obligations. Lebanese officials have rejected writing that into the proposal. Israel’s Defense Minister Israel Katz insisted Tuesday that the military would strike Hezbollah if the U.N. peacekeeping force, known as UNIFIL , does not provide “effective enforcement” of the deal. A Hezbollah leader said the group's support for the deal hinged on clarity that Israel would not renew its attacks. “After reviewing the agreement signed by the enemy government, we will see if there is a match between what we stated and what was agreed upon by the Lebanese officials,” Mahmoud Qamati, deputy chair of Hezbollah’s political council, told the Qatari satellite news network Al Jazeera. “We want an end to the aggression, of course, but not at the expense of the sovereignty of the state” of Lebanon, he said. The European Union’s top diplomat, Josep Borrell, said Tuesday that Israel’s security concerns had been addressed in the deal also brokered by France. After months of cross-border bombings, Israel can claim major victories, including the killing of Hezbollah’s top leader, Hassan Nasrallah, most of his senior commanders and the destruction of extensive militant infrastructure. A complex attack in September involving the explosion of hundreds of walkie-talkies and pagers used by Hezbollah was widely attributed to Israel, signaling a remarkable penetration of the militant group. The damage inflicted on Hezbollah has come not only in its ranks, but to the reputation it built by fighting Israel to a stalemate in the 2006 war. Still, its fighters managed to put up heavy resistance on the ground, slowing Israel’s advance while continuing to fire scores of rockets, missiles and drones across the border each day. The ceasefire offers relief to both sides, giving Israel’s overstretched army a break and allowing Hezbollah leaders to tout the group’s effectiveness in holding their ground despite Israel’s massive advantage in weaponry. But the group is likely to face a reckoning, with many Lebanese accusing it of tying their country’s fate to Gaza’s at the service of key ally Iran, inflicting great damage on a Lebanese economy that was already in grave condition. Until now, Hezbollah has insisted that it would only halt its attacks on Israel when it agreed to stop fighting in Gaza. Some in the region are likely to view a deal between the Lebanon-based group and Israel as a capitulation. In Gaza, where officials say the war has killed more than 44,000 Palestinians, Israel’s attacks have inflicted a heavy toll on Hamas, including the killing of the group’s top leaders. But Hamas fighters continue to hold scores of Israeli hostages, giving the militant group a bargaining chip if indirect ceasefire negotiations resume. Hamas is likely to continue to demand a lasting truce and a full Israeli withdrawal from Gaza in any such deal. Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas offered a pointed reminder Tuesday of the intractability of the war, demanding urgent international intervention. “The only way to halt the dangerous escalation we are witnessing in the region, and maintain regional and international stability, security and peace, is to resolve the question of Palestine,” he said in a speech to the U.N. read by his ambassador.

None

President-elect Trump announces Pam Bondi as his new pick for US attorney generalDuring a Labour away day ahead of the last election, the party’s candidates were put through their paces as parliamentary debaters. The topic chosen, , was a deliberately intractable issue designed to test their analytical skills. Yet just months later, scores of new MPs find themselves having to make a very real decision over changing the law. “I’m genuinely the most back and forth on this that I’ve been on anything,” said one new MP who has found themselves over recent months. Like so many, with the issues so finely balanced in their mind, a single conversation can sway their thinking. “I had a conversation during the election campaign with a woman whose husband was on a [syringe] driver for 12 days,” the MP said. “I can honestly say that conversation really changed my mind and put me in the pro camp. But the challenge for the people who are pro is whether they can convince everybody that this bill is narrow enough. I don’t know what they could do prior to Friday to get that over.” All MPs are now grappling over how they will vote in Friday’s once-in-a-generation decision on the brought forward by Labour backbencher Kim Leadbeater. They talk of being bombarded with campaign material from the pro and anti campaigns, as well as being swayed by personal stories of friends, family and constituents. However, Labour MPs involved in that pre-election debate practice say it could never have prepared them for the real thing, as discussing the principle of assisted dying has given way to assessing the merits of the specific bill now before them. “The general public get to say whether they’re pro or against it as a principle,” said a Labour MP. “The MPs in the grey area now are the ones asking: ‘How would this work?’ We’re trying to think of it pragmatically.” MPs across the political divide said that there had been a large amount of lobbying in their inboxes, but they are taking very different approaches to reaching their final decisions. Some said they were talking at length to their colleagues to thrash out the issues. Others said they were keeping their thoughts to themselves. While new MPs find themselves thrown into a major ethical debate only months into their career, Friday’s free vote on the issue has been no easier for some veteran MPs. John McDonnell, the former shadow chancellor who entered parliament in 1997, said he had thought about the issue for decades – but had only very recently switched in favour of backing the bill. “I’ve been in parliament 27 years now,” he said. “This has become a recurring debate every few years. It’s a hardy perennial that comes back. “Up until now, I was unsure and opposed previous attempts at assisted dying. I was concerned, as everyone is, to make sure that we get it right and that there’s safeguards in place. “I’ve been trying to talk to as many organisations as possible. I’ve read everything that’s come into my inbox. I’ve tried to interrogate the proposals as much as possible that Kim and others put forward. And so now, for the first time, I’ve come to the view that, yes, I’ll support an assisted dying bill. I think the safeguards that Kim has put forward are pretty strong. But again, if there are other improvements that could be made, I’m open minded to looking at those. But as a matter of principle, I now think we need to move forward on it.” As it is a free vote, there are figures from the political left and right on both sides. Former Tory cabinet ministers and are among the leading advocates for a . It is also an issue that has divided politicians who have almost always agreed. McDonnell will be voting in the opposite division lobby to some of his oldest political fellow travellers on the left, including . Jeremy Corbyn has also previously indicated he will oppose assisted dying. “I haven’t spoken to either Jeremy or Diane,” he said. “I will do, but it’s not left or right. It’s a very individual position. And again, it’s only in this recent period, in the last few months, that I’ve come to the conclusion that, actually, I can’t any longer deny people that right.” Other MPs said that they and many of their colleagues had a clear instinct on the issue but wanted to show they were willing to consider all sides before casting their vote. “There are some people who feel that you’re denying them a fundamental human right versus other people who think you’re allowing people to kill themselves ,” said a Tory MP. “You get quite strong, ­visceral opinions from constituents.”None

NoneWomen will for the first time make up a majority of state legislators in Colorado and New Mexico next year, but at least 13 states saw losses in female representation after the November election, according to a count released Thursday by the Rutgers Center for American Women and Politics. While women will fill a record number of state legislative seats in 2025, the overall uptick will be slight, filling just over third of legislative seats. Races in some states are still being called. "We certainly would like to see a faster rate of change and more significant increases in each election cycle to get us to a place where parity in state legislatures is less novel and more normal," said Kelly Dittmar, director of research at the CAWP, which is a unit of the Eagleton Institute of Politics at Rutgers University. As of Wednesday, at least 2,450 women will serve in state legislatures, representing 33.2% of the seats nationwide. The previous record was set in 2024 with 2,431 women, according to the CAWP. The number of Republican women, at least 851, will break the previous record of 815 state lawmakers set in 2024. "But still, Republican women are very underrepresented compared to Democratic women," Debbie Walsh, director of the CAWP, said. From left, House Maj. Whip Reena Szczepanski, D-Santa Fe, Rep. D. Wonda Johnson, D-Church Rock and Rep. Cristina Parajon, D-Albuquerque, talk July 18 before the start of a special session, in Santa Fe, N.M. By the most recent count, 19 states will have increased the number of women in their state legislatures, according to the CAWP. The most notable increases were in New Mexico and Colorado, where women will for the first time make up a majority of lawmakers. In New Mexico, voters sent an 11 additional women to the chambers. Colorado previously attained gender parity in 2023 and is set to tip over to a slight female majority in the upcoming year. The states follow Nevada, which was the first in the country to see a female majority in the legislature following elections in 2018. Next year, women will make up almost 62% of state lawmakers in Nevada, far exceeding parity. Women in California's Senate will make up the chamber's majority for the first time in 2025 as well. Women also made notable gains in South Dakota, increasing its number by at least nine. Four of South Carolina's Sister Senators, from left, Sen. Margie Bright Matthews, D-Walterboro, Sen. Mia McLeod, I-Columbia, Sen. Katrina Shealy, R-Lexington, and Sen. Penry Gustafson, R-Camden, stand in front of the Senate on June 26 with their John F. Kennedy Profile in Courage award in Columbia, S.C. At least thirteen states emerged from the election with fewer female lawmakers than before, with the most significant loss occurring in South Carolina. This year, the only three Republican women in the South Carolina Senate lost their primaries after they stopped a total abortion ban from passing. Next year, only two women, who are Democrats, will be in the 46-member Senate. No other state in the country will have fewer women in its upper chamber, according to the CAWP. Women make up 55% of the state's registered voters. Half the members in the GOP dominated state were elected in 2012 or before, so it will likely be the 2040s before any Republican woman elected in the future can rise to leadership or a committee chairmanship in the chamber, which doles out leadership positions based on seniority. A net loss of five women in the legislature means they will make up only about 13% of South Carolina's lawmakers, making the state the second lowest in the country for female representation. Only West Virginia has a smaller proportion of women in the legislature. West Virginia stands to lose one more women from its legislative ranks, furthering its representation problem in the legislature where women will make up just 11% of lawmakers. Many women, lawmakers and experts say that women's voices are needed in discussions on policy, especially at a time when state government is at its most powerful in decades. Walsh, director of the CAWP, said the new changes expected from the Trump administration will turn even more policy and regulation to the states. The experiences and perspectives women offer will be increasingly needed, she said, especially on topics related to reproductive rights, healthcare, education and childcare. "The states may have to pick up where the federal government may, in fact, be walking away," Walsh said. "And so who serves in those institutions is more important now than ever." November 7, 2024: Trump Victory Stay up-to-date on the latest in local and national government and political topics with our newsletter.Pat Bryant caught a 40-yard touchdown on fourth down with four seconds remaining as No. 25 Illinois rallied for a dramatic 38-31 victory over Rutgers on Saturday afternoon in Piscataway, N.J. With Rutgers playing cover-zero defense, Bryant caught Luke Altmyer's sidearm toss on fourth-and-13 at the 22-yard line in the middle of the field and ran in from the right side for a 36-31 lead. Bryant's dramatic catch came after Illinois initially decided to attempt a go-ahead 57-yard field goal into the wind. Following a timeout, the Ilini went for it on fourth down. Altmeyer's two-point conversion attempt to Bryant was incomplete, but the visitors recorded a safety on the game's final play. Bryant finished with seven catches for a career-high 197 yards, and his score came after Rutgers took a 31-30 lead on a 13-yard rushing TD by Kyle Monangai with 1:08 left. Monangai gave the Scarlet Knights the lead after Illinois overcame a nine-point deficit on Aidan Laughery's 8-yard TD run with 13:48 remaining and Altmyer's 30-yard run with 3:07 left. Bryant's clutch catch gave Illinois (8-3, 5-3 Big Ten) eight wins for the second time in three seasons on a day when it committed 11 penalties. Altmyer finished 12-of-26 passing for 249 yards and threw two touchdowns. He also gained a team-high 74 yards on the ground as the Ilini totaled 182 rushing yards. Monangai finished with 122 yards on 28 carries and Kaliakmanis completed 19-of-37 passes for 175 yards, but Rutgers (6-5, 3-5) was unable to win a third straight Big Ten game for the first time. Kaliakmanis also rushed for 84 yards and two touchdowns on 13 carries. The Scarlet Knights saw their losing streak against ranked teams reach 41 games after taking a 17-9 halftime lead and a 24-15 advantage early in the fourth. --Field Level Media