News
Why Israel and Hezbollah reached a ceasefire now − and what it means for Israel, Lebanon, Biden and Trump
Asher Kaufman, University of Notre Dame
Israel and the Lebanese militant group Hezbollah entered a 60-day ceasefire on Nov. 26, 2024, a move aimed at reducing tensions in the region more than a year into a multifront conflict.
Under the terms of the deal, Israel would gradually withdraw its forces from Lebanon, and Hezbollah would fully withdraw north of the Litani River. Meanwhile, the Lebanese Army would “deploy and take control over their own territory,” U.S. President Joe Biden said, adding that the United States, France and other allies have pledged to support the deal.
But what does the deal mean for the parties involved and future prospects for a more permanent cessation of hostilities? The Conversation U.S. turned to Asher Kaufman, an expert of Lebanon and border conflicts in the Middle East, to explain why they reached a ceasefire now and what it means going forward.
Why is the ceasefire deal happening now?
The timing of this ceasefire is the result of a convergence of interests among the government in Israel, Hezbollah itself and that of its chief sponsor, Iran – but all for different reasons.
For the Israeli government, domestic issues are at play. First off, the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) are exhausted after more than a year of war. This is particularly true for Israeli reservists, a growing number of whom are not turning up for duty. The Israeli general public, too, is tired of conflict, and a majority favors a ceasefire with Hezbollah.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu also has internal issues in his government to contend with. He is facing pressure from the ruling coalition’s ultra-Orthodox partners to draw up laws exempting ultra-Orthodox Jews from the military draft.
Reducing the need for active personnel by quieting the front with Lebanon will help in that regard. The secular and national-religious sectors of the society who do serve in the IDF and who are upset with the possibility of a formal draft-exemption law for ultra-Orthodox men may be more inclined to swallow this pill if the war with Hezbollah is over.
From the Israeli army’s perspective, the war in Lebanon is coming to a point of diminishing returns. It has succeeded in weakening Hezbollah’s military standing but has been unable to wipe the militant group out entirely.
This also factors into Hezbollah’s thinking. The group has been seriously debilitated in Lebanon; the war has eroded its military capabilities. Unlike its previous position – reiterated time and again over the past year by its now-dead leader, Hassan Nasrallah – that a ceasefire would only be possible if first it is reached between Hamas and Israel in Gaza, Hezbollah and, by extension, Iran are now willing to delink the two fronts. This leaves Hamas in a far weaker position as they are now left without the support of Iran’s main proxy “axis of resistance” group. Drawing Hezbollah, and other aligned groups in the region, into direct confrontation with Israel had been Hamas’ hope when it launched its attack on Israel on Oct. 7, 2023.
Hezbollah and Lebanon’s other political factions also have strong domestic pressures to contend with. Lebanon has more than 1 million refugees as a result of the conflict – the vast majority of them Shia, the branch of Islam that Hezbollah is drawn from. The conditions in Lebanon have increased the risk of sectarian fighting between Shia and others factions in the country. For Hezbollah leaders, the time may seem right to cut their losses and prepare to regroup as a political and military body.
Iran, too, is seeking to rehabilitate Hezbollah’s standing in Lebanon as soon as possible. The deal comes as Tehran is bracing for a U.S. administration that could have a more hawkish position on Iran and its proxies in the region, of which Hezbollah is the most significant. With a new Iranian president, and a new U.S. administration, a ceasefire between Iran’s main proxy and Israel may be a first step to Tehran building a constructive dialogue with a Trump White House.
What is the role of the US in the ceasefire?
What is interesting for me is that despite the very clear position of the U.S. in favoring Israel during the past year of conflict, it still functions as an effective mediator. It is thanks to the U.S. that there is a ceasefire – and it comes despite the fact that Washington is far from neutral in this conflict, being a chief ally of Israel and its main provider of weapons.
But the Lebanese government and Hezbollah see a U.S. role, too. And this is not new. The United States was the mediator in the 2022 landmark agreement that, for the first time, set out the maritime boundaries between Israel and Lebanon.
The ceasefire deal benefits both the outgoing and incoming U.S. administrations. For President Joe Biden, it would represent a diplomatic success after a year in which the U.S. has failed to mediate any breakthrough in the conflict in Gaza, and it is an opportunity for Biden to finish his presidency on a positive foreign policy note. From the perspective of Trump, the ceasefire in Lebanon will represent one less problem for him to face.
What might be the consequences for Lebanon and Israel?
Lebanon has the most at stake in this ceasefire holding. The country was already in a perilous economic situation before the war, and months of fighting has only worsened the structural, economic and political crises in the country. It is as dire as it can get.
Further, the war has reignited sectarian tension in Lebanon – talk of a return to civil war in the country is not far-fetched.
https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/PEbmQ/5
But there is uncertainty over how the ceasefire will affect the various rival factions in Lebanese society. Hezbollah has been weakened and may well now look for a way to reassert its strength in Lebanon’s politics. The main question is how the other factions and parties respond to that.
With a weak Hezbollah, other factions may challenge the militant organization in ways they haven’t before. Before being decimated by Israel, there were no rival groups in a position to challenge Hezbollah in Lebanon. But that has all changed: Hezbollah’s military power has been degraded and Nasrallah, the group’s leader, killed. And Nasrallah was not just the face and brains of Hezbollah, he was also the group’s most important link to Iran.
There is concern among some Lebanon experts that the gap left by a weakened Hezbollah may see a struggle for power and further strife in the country. And I believe there should be no illusions that Hezbollah will try to reassert itself as a domestic force.
Complicating matters is the fact that any realignment of political forces in Lebanon comes amid a political vacuum. There has been a caretaker government – and no president – for two years now since Hezbollah conditioned the appointment of a new president with the candidate being an ally of the group. Now, Lebanese politicians would need to agree on a new president who in turn would appoint a new prime minister and government. It remains to be seen how this will unfold with a weakened Hezbollah.
For Israel, the ceasefire will provide an opportunity to reconstruct parts of the north that have been devastated by Hezbollah missiles and a possible return of the 60,000 Israelis who fled northern areas close to the Lebanon border. It will also allow the Israel Defense Forces to regroup, refresh and focus their resources in Gaza, rather than fighting on two fronts.
Could the ceasefire lead to a permanent peace deal?
I don’t see any permanent peace deal on the horizon, given the fact that the fundamental political goals of Israel, Hezbollah and Iran have not changed and that the Israel-Palestine conflict continues to fester.
But I am hopeful that the ceasefire could lead to calm and stability between Israel and Lebanon for the foreseeable future. The details of the ceasefire agreement are not very different from U.N. Resolution 1701 that ended the last major war between Israel and Hezbollah in 2006. That agreement brought relative calm to the region for 18 years, even if Hezbollah, supported by Iran, used these years to build up its military capability and prepare for a potential ground invasion of northern Israel.
In my view, there is a possibility for greater stability this time around given the fact that the ceasefire agreement also stipulates that, if and when it becomes permanent, the deal would serve as a basis for negotiations over the demarcation of the Israel-Lebanon territorial boundary. This would not be an easy task, particularly in the area of Shebaa Farms and the village of Ghajar. But with goodwill and good intentions, even difficult border disputes could be resolved.
Asher Kaufman, Professor of History and Peace Studies, University of Notre Dame
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
STM Daily News is a vibrant news blog dedicated to sharing the brighter side of human experiences. Emphasizing positive, uplifting stories, the site focuses on delivering inspiring, informative, and well-researched content. With a commitment to accurate, fair, and responsible journalism, STM Daily News aims to foster a community of readers passionate about positive change and engaged in meaningful conversations. Join the movement and explore stories that celebrate the positive impacts shaping our world.
Author
Discover more from Daily News
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
The Knowledge
How to avoid seeing disturbing video on social media and protect your peace of mind
How to avoid seeing disturbing video on social media and protect your peace of mind
Last Updated on January 29, 2026 by Daily News Staff
Annie Margaret, University of Colorado Boulder
How to avoid seeing disturbing video on social media and protect your peace of mind
When graphic videos like those of the recent shooting of a protester by federal agents in Minneapolis go viral, it can feel impossible to protect yourself from seeing things you did not consent to see. But there are steps you can take.
Social media platforms are designed to maximize engagement, not protect your peace of mind. The major platforms have also reduced their content moderation efforts over the past year or so. That means upsetting content can reach you even when you never chose to watch it.
You do not have to watch every piece of content that crosses your screen, however. Protecting your own mental state is not avoidance or denial. As a researcher who studies ways to counteract the negative effects of social media on mental health and well-being, I believe it’s a way of safeguarding the bandwidth you need to stay engaged, compassionate and effective.
Why this matters
Research shows that repeated exposure to violent or disturbing media can increase stress, heighten anxiety and contribute to feelings of helplessness. These effects are not just short-term. Over time, they erode the emotional resources you rely on to care for yourself and others.
Protecting your attention is a form of care. Liberating your attention from harmful content is not withdrawal. It is reclaiming your most powerful creative force: your consciousness.
Just as with food, not everything on the table is meant to be eaten. You wouldn’t eat something spoiled or toxic simply because it was served to you. In the same way, not every piece of media laid out in your feed deserves your attention. Choosing what to consume is a matter of health.
And while you can choose what you keep in your own kitchen cabinets, you often have less control over what shows up in your feeds. That is why it helps to take intentional steps to filter, block and set boundaries.
Practical steps you can take
Fortunately, there are straightforward ways to reduce your chances of being confronted with violent or disturbing videos. Here are four that I recommend:
- Turn off autoplay or limit sensitive content. Note that these settings can vary depending on device, operating system and app version, and can change.
https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/d1deR/2
- Use keyword filters. Most platforms allow you to mute or block specific words, phrases or hashtags. This reduces the chance that graphic or violent content slips into your feed.
- Curate your feed. Unfollow accounts that regularly share disturbing images. Follow accounts that bring you knowledge, connection or joy instead.
- Set boundaries. Reserve phone-free time during meals or before bed. Research shows that intentional breaks reduce stress and improve well-being.
Reclaim your agency
Social media is not neutral. Its algorithms are engineered to hold your attention, even when that means amplifying harmful or sensational material. Watching passively only serves the interests of the social media companies. Choosing to protect your attention is a way to reclaim your agency.
The urge to follow along in real time can be strong, especially during crises. But choosing not to watch every disturbing image is not neglect; it is self-preservation. Looking away protects your ability to act with purpose. When your attention is hijacked, your energy goes into shock and outrage. When your attention is steady, you can choose where to invest it.
You are not powerless. Every boundary you set – whether it is turning off autoplay, filtering content or curating your feed – is a way of taking control over what enters your mind. These actions are the foundation for being able to connect with others, help people and work for meaningful change.
More resources
I’m the executive director of the Post-Internet Project, a nonprofit dedicated to helping people navigate the psychological and social challenges of life online. With my team, I designed the evidence-backed PRISM intervention to help people manage their social media use.
Our research-based program emphasizes agency, intention and values alignment as the keys to developing healthier patterns of media consumption. You can try the PRISM process for yourself with an online class I launched through Coursera in October 2025. You can find the course, Values Aligned Media Consumption, on Coursera. The course is aimed at anyone 18 and over, and the videos are free to watch.
This story was updated on Jan. 25, 2026 to include reference to the recent shooting in Minneapolis.
Annie Margaret, Teaching Assistant Professor of Creative Technology & Design, ATLAS Institute, University of Colorado Boulder
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Discover more from Daily News
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
News
Greenland’s Inuit have spent decades fighting for self-determination
The article highlights the Inuit communities in Greenland amid global discussions about the island’s ownership, particularly regarding U.S. President Trump’s interest. It chronicles the Inuit’s historical presence, their traditional lifestyles, and the ongoing struggle for self-determination. Despite colonial influences, modern Kalaallit strive for recognition and independence.
Susan A. Kaplan, Bowdoin College and Genevieve LeMoine, Bowdoin College
Amid the discussion between U.S. President Donald Trump and Danish and European leaders about who should own Greenland, the Inuit who live there and call it home aren’t getting much attention.
The Kalaallit (Inuit of West Greenland), the Tunumi (Inuit of East Greenland) and the Inughuit (Inuit of North Greenland) together represent nearly 90% of the population of Greenland, which totals about 57,000 people across 830,000 square miles (2.1 million square kilometers).
We are Arctic anthropologists who work in a museum focused on the Arctic and its people. One of the areas we study is a land whose inhabitants call it Kalaallit Nunaat, or land of the Kalaallit. Known in English as Greenland, it is an Indigenous nation whose relatively few people have been working for decades to reclaim their right to self-determination.
https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/WqWx2/1
Arrivals from the west
For nearly 5,000 years, northwestern Greenland – including the area that is now the U.S. Space Force’s Pituffik Space Base, formerly known as Thule Air Force Base – was the island’s main entry point. A succession of Indigenous groups moved eastward from the Bering Strait region and settled in Siberia, Alaska, Canada and Greenland.
Approximately 1,000 years ago, the ancestors of the Inuit living in Greenland today arrived in that area with sophisticated technologies that allowed them to thrive in a dynamic Arctic environment where minor mishaps can have serious consequences. They hunted animals using specialized technologies and tools, including kayaks, dog-drawn sleds, complex harpoons, and snow goggles made from wood or bone with slits cut into them. They dressed in highly engineered garments made from animal fur that kept them warm and dry in all conditions.
Their tools and clothing were imbued with symbolic meanings that reflected their worldview, in which humans and animals are interdependent. Inughuit families who live in the region today continue to hunt and fish, while navigating a warming climate.
Arrivals from the east
At Qassiarsuk in south Greenland, around the time Inuit arrived in the north, Erik the Red established the first Norse farm, Brattahlíð, in 986, and sent word back to Iceland to encourage others to join him, as described in an online exhibit at the Greenland National Museum. Numerous Norse families followed and established pastoral farms in the region.
As Inuit expanded southward, they encountered the Norse farmers. Inuit and Norse traded, but relations were sometimes tense: Inuit oral histories and Norse sagas describe some violent interactions. The two groups maintained distinctly different approaches to living on the land that rims Greenland’s massive ice sheet. The Norse were very place-based, while the Inuit moved seasonally, hunting around islands, bays and fjords.
As the Little Ice Age set in early in the 14th century, and temperatures dropped in the Northern Hemisphere, the Norse were not equipped to adjust to the changing conditions. Their colonies faltered and by 1500 had disappeared. By contrast, the mobile Inuit took a more flexible approach and hunted both land and marine mammals according to their availability. They continued living in the region without much change to their lifestyle.
A center of activity
In Nuuk, the modern capital of Greenland, an imposing and controversial statue of missionary Hans Egede commemorates his arrival in 1721 to establish a Lutheran mission in a place he called Godthåb.
In 1776, as trade became more important, the Danish government established the Royal Greenland Trading Department, a trading monopoly that administered the communities on the west coast of Greenland as a closed colony for the next 150 years.
By the 19th century some Kalaallit families who lived in Nuuk/Godthåb had formed an educated, urban class of ministers, educators, artists and writers, although Danish colonists continued to rule.
Meanwhile, Kalaallit families in small coastal communities continued to engage in traditional economic and social activities, based on respect of animals and sharing of resources.
On the more remote east coast and in the far north, colonization took root more slowly, leaving explorers such as American Robert Peary and traders such as Danish-Greenlandic Knud Rasmussen a free hand to employ and trade with local people.
The U.S. formally recognized Denmark’s claim to the island in 1916 when the Americans purchased the Danish West Indies, which are now the U.S. Virgin Islands. And in 1921, Denmark declared sovereignty over the whole of Greenland, a claim upheld in 1933 by the Permanent Court of International Justice. But Greenlanders were not consulted about these decisions.
The world arrives
World War II brought the outside world to Greenland’s door. With Denmark under Nazi control, the U.S. took responsibility for protecting the strategically important island of Greenland and built military bases on both the east and west coasts. The U.S. made efforts to keep military personnel and Kalaallit apart but were not entirely successful, and some visiting and trading went on. Radios and broadcast news also spread, and Kalaallit began to gain a sense of the world beyond their borders.
The Cold War brought more changes, including the forced relocation of 27 Inughuit families living near the newly constructed U.S. Air Force base at Thule to Qaanaaq, where they lived in tents until small wooden homes were built.
In 1953, Denmark revised parts of its constitution, including changing the status of Greenland from a colony to one of the nation’s counties, thereby making all Kalaallit residents of Greenland also full-fledged citizens of Denmark. For the first time, Kalaallit had elected representatives in the Danish parliament.
Denmark also increased assimilation efforts, promoting the Danish language and culture at the expense of Kalaallisut, the Greenlandic language. Among other projects, the Danish authorities sent Greenlandic children to residential schools in Denmark.
In Nuuk in the 1970s, a new generation of young Kalaallit politicians emerged, eager to protect and promote the use of Kalaallisut and gain greater control over Greenland’s affairs. The rock band Sumé, singing protest songs in Kalaallisut, contributed to the political awakening. https://www.youtube.com/embed/qe-f6jleXFs?wmode=transparent&start=0 Sumé, a rock band singing in Kalaallisut, the Greenlandic language, helped galvanize a political movement for self-determination in the 1970s.
In a 1979 Greenland-wide referendum, a substantial majority of Kalaallit voters opted for what was called “home rule” within the Danish Kingdom. That meant a parliament of elected Kalaallit representatives handled internal affairs, such as education and social welfare, while Denmark retained control of foreign affairs and mineral rights.
However, the push for full independence from Denmark continued: In 2009, home rule was replaced by a policy of self-government, which outlines a clear path to independence from Denmark, based on negotiations following a potential future referendum vote by Greenlanders. Self-government also allows Greenland to assert and benefit from control over its mineral resources, but not to manage foreign affairs.
Today, Nuuk is a busy, vibrant, modern city. Life is quieter in smaller settlements, where hunting and fishing are still a way of life. While contemporary Greenland encompasses this range of lifestyles, Kalaallit are unified in their desire for self-determination. Greenland’s leaders have delivered this message clearly to the public and to the White House directly.
Susan A. Kaplan, Professor of Anthropology, Director of Peary-MacMillan Arctic Museum and Arctic Studies Center, Bowdoin College and Genevieve LeMoine, Curator, Peary-MacMillan Arctic Museum and Arctic Studies Center, Bowdoin College
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
STM Daily News is a vibrant news blog dedicated to sharing the brighter side of human experiences. Emphasizing positive, uplifting stories, the site focuses on delivering inspiring, informative, and well-researched content. With a commitment to accurate, fair, and responsible journalism, STM Daily News aims to foster a community of readers passionate about positive change and engaged in meaningful conversations. Join the movement and explore stories that celebrate the positive impacts shaping our world.
Discover more from Daily News
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Local News
Why Arizona Republicans Are Pushing Back on Light Rail to the State Capitol — and What It Means for the West Valley
Arizona’s debate over a proposed light rail extension to the State Capitol has intensified. Supporters argue it promotes connectivity and equity, while Republicans oppose it due to cost concerns and a preference for car-centric infrastructure. The outcome will impact future west-side transit expansions and shape regional transportation priorities.
Arizona’s long-running debate over public transit has flared up again, this time over a proposed Valley Metro light rail extension that would bring rail service closer to the Arizona State Capitol complex. While Phoenix and Valley Metro leaders argue the project is a logical next step in regional mobility, Republican leaders at the state Capitol have mounted strong opposition — creating uncertainty not just for this segment, but for future west-side expansions.
The Case for the Capitol Light Rail Extension
Supporters of the project, including Valley Metro officials, Phoenix city leaders, transit advocates, and many west Phoenix residents, argue that extending light rail toward the Capitol area is both practical and symbolic.
From a planning standpoint, the Capitol is a major employment center that draws thousands of workers, visitors, and students. Transit planners say rail access would reduce congestion, improve air quality, and provide reliable transportation for residents who already depend heavily on public transit.
Proponents also emphasize equity. West Phoenix has historically received fewer infrastructure investments than other parts of the metro area, despite strong transit ridership. For supporters, extending rail service westward is about connecting communities to jobs, education, and government services — not politics.
There is also a broader regional argument: light rail lines function best as part of a connected network. Leaving a gap near a central civic destination, supporters say, undermines long-term system efficiency.
Why Republican Lawmakers Are Opposed
Republican leaders in the Arizona Legislature see the project very differently.
One major issue is cost. GOP lawmakers frequently point to the rising price of light rail construction, which has increased significantly over the past decade. They argue that rail projects deliver limited benefit compared to their expense and that bus service or roadway improvements could move more people at lower cost.
Usage is another concern. Critics note that light rail serves a relatively small percentage of total commuters in the Phoenix metro area and requires ongoing public subsidies to operate. From this perspective, expanding rail further — especially into politically sensitive areas like the Capitol — is viewed as fiscally irresponsible.
There is also a political and legal dimension. In recent years, Republican lawmakers passed legislation restricting light rail construction near the Capitol complex. While framed as a land-use and security issue, critics argue it reflects deeper ideological opposition to rail transit and urban-oriented infrastructure.
Finally, some GOP leaders simply prefer different transportation priorities. Arizona remains a car-centric state, and many Republican officials believe future investments should focus on highways, autonomous vehicle technology, or flexible transit options rather than fixed rail.
A Political Standoff with Real Transit Consequences
The dispute has become a high-stakes standoff between the Republican-controlled Legislature and Democratic leaders at the city and regional level. While lawmakers may not be able to directly cancel the project, they have significant leverage through funding approvals, oversight committees, and future legislation.
This uncertainty creates challenges for Valley Metro, which relies on long-term planning, federal funding commitments, and voter-approved local taxes. Transit systems work best with predictability — and political volatility can drive up costs or delay construction.
What This Means for West Valley Light Rail Expansion
The biggest question is what happens next for west Phoenix and the broader West Valley.
If the Capitol-area extension is altered or blocked, Valley Metro may be forced to redesign routes that avoid the restricted area, potentially making service less direct or less useful. That could weaken the case for future westward expansions toward areas like Maryvale or even farther west.
On the other hand, the controversy has also drawn renewed attention to west-side transit needs. Some advocates believe the political fight could energize local support, leading to stronger community backing and clearer messaging about why rail matters in west Phoenix.
Long term, the outcome may set a precedent. If state lawmakers successfully limit rail construction through legislative action, it could signal tighter constraints on future expansions. If cities push forward despite opposition, it may reaffirm local control over transportation planning.
The Bigger Picture
At its core, the debate over light rail to the Arizona State Capitol reflects a broader clash of visions for the region’s future: one focused on dense, transit-oriented growth, and another centered on fiscal restraint and automobile mobility.
For residents of the West Valley, the stakes are tangible. The decision will shape access to jobs, education, and public services for decades. Whether the project moves forward as planned, is rerouted, or delayed entirely, it will leave a lasting imprint on how — and for whom — the Valley’s transit system grows.
As Phoenix continues to expand westward, the question remains unresolved: will light rail be allowed to follow?
Further Reading & Context
- KJZZ Phoenix – State Politics & Transportation Coverage
In-depth reporting on Arizona legislative actions, Valley Metro planning, and Capitol-area transit disputes. - Valley Metro – Capitol / West Extension Project Page
Official project updates, maps, timelines, and explanations from the regional transit authority. - City of Phoenix Public Transit Department
City-level planning documents and policy perspectives on light rail expansion and transit equity. - Arizona State Legislature – Transportation & Infrastructure Bills
Primary source for legislation affecting light rail construction near the Capitol and statewide transit policy. - Cronkite News (Arizona PBS)
Nonpartisan reporting on Arizona infrastructure, urban growth, and political power dynamics. - Axios Phoenix
Concise breakdowns of Phoenix City Council decisions and regional transportation debates. - Federal Highway Administration – Public Transportation Planning
Federal perspective on transit funding, cost comparisons, and long-term mobility planning.
Authors
Discover more from Daily News
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
