Russia’s Putin visits Kursk as Ukraine says six killed in missile strike

For the first time since Russian forces ejected Ukrainian troops from Kursk last month, President Vladimir Putin has traveled there, according to the Kremlin.

In one of their boldest battlefield victories in the more than three-year conflict, Ukrainian forces made an incursion into the Kursk region in August of 2024. Russian territory was first occupied by an invader since World War II.

With the exception of Kursk, Russia has largely had the upper hand on the battlefield since the end of 2023.

Nearly 1,400 square kilometers (540 square miles) of Kursk were taken by Ukrainian forces at the height of the incursion.

Late in April, Russia announced that it had evacuated Ukrainian forces from the area.

Putin visited a nuclear power plant in Kursk and took a tour of the area’s “working visit,” the Kremlin reported on Wednesday.

Putin met with local officials, including acting governor Alexander Khinshtein, and volunteers from Russian state television.

Sergei Kiriyenko, the first deputy chief of staff at the Kremlin, accompanied Putin.

According to the Ukrainian national guard, at least six service members were killed and ten others were hurt in a missile attack on Tuesday in Ukraine.

Russian servicemen allegedly training assault units inside Ukraine in this image, which was captured on video by the Russian Defense Ministry Press Service.

“The incident is being looked into internally.” According to a statement from the Ukrainian national guard, the military unit’s commander has been suspended, and the necessary information has been passed on to law enforcement, according to the statement.

In recent months, Sumy border region in Ukraine has seen more frequent attacks. The Russian defense ministry had announced on Tuesday night that it had attacked the Ukrainian site with ballistic missiles.

A training camp for Ukrainian special forces was “detected” during reconnaissance activities, according to a social media post.

An Iskander missile strike was launched based on the received coordinates.

Russia also released video that depicts the attack at a allegedly fortified training camp.

A large fire was sparked by one strike, which exploded into the air in the form of a plume of thick black smoke.

Russia, according to a statement released on Wednesday, said it intercepted 159 drones launched by Ukraine over the course of 12 hours that targeted Moscow and other Russian regions.

According to a statement from the defense ministry, the drones were mostly targeted Russian regions close to Ukraine and were launched on Tuesday night and Wednesday morning.

In a drone attack on Russia’s Oryol region on Wednesday, the Ukrainian military claimed to have struck a semiconductor device factory.

According to the military, the plant supplies a number of businesses, some of which are involved in the production of Iskander and Kinzhal missiles, adding that ten drones have hit the target area and a fire has erupted in the area.

Two days prior to the three-year conflict’s conclusion, a phone call between Putin and US President Donald Trump failed to broker a ceasefire.

Moscow has been under intense pressure from European diplomats to agree to a truce.

Volodymyr Zelenskyy, the president of Ukraine, has accused the Kremlin of stalling in order to carry on its offensive.

Thunder-Wolves: Gilgeous-Alexander leads OKC to Game 1 win in West finals

In Game 1 of the Western Conference finals, the Oklahoma City Thunder defeated the Minnesota Timberwolves 114-88 to earn a slow start with 31 points.

Gilgeous-Alexander recorded his eighth playoff game of the year with 30 or more points, and his fourth in a row. On Tuesday, he also added a game-high nine assists.

Gilgeous-Alexander capped off the fourth quarter with a stunning play with seven minutes left. The All-Star guard began falling as he approached the basket before flipping the ball toward the hoop.

Jaden McDaniels was called for the foul after the ball briefly rolled around the rim before breaking through.

The Thunder rose by 14 at the conclusion of Gilgeous-Alexander’s three-point play. He made 11 of 14 attempts from the free-throw line while making 10-of-27 from the floor and 0-of-4 from 3-point range.

Gilgeous-Alexander struggled early on, holding him only to shoot 2-of-13 on the first half.

With less than a minute left in the first half, Oklahoma City had a nine-point lead before the Thunder cut the deficit to four with a 6-1 run.

In Game 1, Oklahoma City Thunder guard Shai Gilgeous-Alexander (Brett Rojo/Imagn Images via Reuters), scored a game-high 35 points.

Gilgeous-Alexander was subsequently moved off the ball by Thunder coach Mark Daigneault, which helped the 1.98 meter (Six feet, six inch) guard find a rhythm.

In the third quarter, Oklahoma City outscored Minnesota 32-18 with 12 points.

The Thunder’s defense was the one that had the biggest impact on the victory, despite Gilgeous-Alexander raising the bar for offence.

Oklahoma City made 19 turnovers overall, totaling 31 points. Only 10 of the Thunder’s 15 giveaways were redeemed by Minnesota.

Jalen Williams of Oklahoma City finished with 19 points and eight rebounds, while Chet Holmgren had 15 points and seven boards.

The Thunder only managed 34.9 percent from the floor and 15 of 51 (29.4%) from 3-point range while shooting 50 percent from the field and 11 of 21 (52%) from beyond the arc.

Minnesota had 28 points in the first half, with 20 coming from Julius Randle. After going 5-for-6 on 3-point attempts in the first half, Randle made no attempt to shoot beyond the arc in the second half.

Anthony Edwards, a Timberwolves All-Star, finished with 18 points and nine rebounds. In the final seven minutes of the fourth quarter, he only made one attempt, a miss.

Anthony Edwards in action.
In Game 1, Minnesota Timberwolves star guard Anthony Edwards (5-for-10) shot only 5-for-13 from the field.

Local communities vow to fight new Panama Canal reservoir

Although Magdalena Martinez has lived her entire life along the Indio River, a proposed dam to protect the Panama Canal from drought is now threatening to engulf her home.

The 49-year-old is one of many residents who oppose artificial lakes that would feed the crucial interoceanic waterway.

With her husband and five of her 13 children, Martinez describes the threat she and her husband are facing.

“We are unsure of our destination.”

The small village of Martinez’s family has always been a lush mountain village where the locals depend on raising livestock and growing crops like cassava and maize for their income.

The neighborhood vows to stand up for the multibillion dollar global shipping industry’s benefits and refuse to allow the destruction of its homes.

In a canoe-mounted protest last week against the planned dam, which would force thousands of families to relocate, hundreds of villagers took to the Indio River last week.

The Panama Canal Authority (APC), the autonomous public authority overseeing the waterway, made the decision to build the reservoir to combat severe droughts like the one that caused severe ship traffic cuts in 2023.

The canal, which connects the Atlantic and Pacific oceans, is a century-old project that relies on two artificial lakes for drinking water and previous abundant rainfall.

The canal uses a lock system to lift and lower vessels, releasing millions of litres of fresh water each time it transits, primarily for shipping clients from the US, China, and Japan.

The proposed reservoir, which extends over 4,600 hectares (11, 400 acres) to one of the existing lakes, would pass through a tunnel that would span nine kilometers (5, 6 miles).

The ACP’s environmental and social manager, Karina Vergara, said the project “meets a need that was identified a long time ago: it’s the water of the future.”

With an estimated $1.6 billion investment, work on the reservoir is scheduled to start in 2027 and finish in 2032.

About 2,500 people from various villages receive $400 million in compensation and relocation expenses.

Vergara stated that “we have a strong commitment to dialogue and coming to agreements” with the victims.

We’ll regret not building the reservoir, she said, in 15 years.

The project, which has the support of President Jose Raul Mulino, could ultimately affect as many as 12, 000 people, according to civil society organizations. This includes the entire Indio River basin.

The Panama Canal, which spans 80% of the world’s maritime trade, is still vital to Panama’s economy and accounts for 6% of it.

US Supreme Court clears way to end TPS for Venezuelans: What it means?

The United States Supreme Court on Monday allowed President Donald Trump’s administration to revoke the Temporary Protected Status (TPS) granted to hundreds of thousands of Venezuelan immigrants, paving the way for their deportation.

The court reverses a San Francisco-based district judge’s March order to block Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem’s decision to remove temporary protected status from some 348,000 Venezuelans as part of Trump’s crackdown on immigrants.

The Trump administration has justified its deportation over allegations that some of the Venezuelans are members of gangs, although it has not provided any proof to back its claims.

Here is more about what happened.

What is Temporary Protected Status?

TPS grants people living in the US relief from deportation if their home country is affected by extraordinary circumstances such as armed conflict or environmental disasters. An individual who is granted TPS cannot be deported, can obtain an employment authorisation document and may be given travel authorisation. A TPS holder cannot be detained by the US over their immigration status.

The duration of this is granted in increments from six months to 18 months. However, this can be renewed and sometimes has been renewed for up to decades. The US Department of Homeland Security (DHS) secretary can grant TPS to people from specific countries.

Countries that are currently designated for TPS include: Afghanistan, Myanmar, formerly known as Burma (Myanmar), Cameroon, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Haiti, Honduras, Lebanon, Nepal, Nicaragua, Somalia, South Sudan, Sudan, Syria, Ukraine, Venezuela and Yemen.

The programme was enacted in the 1990s under President George HW Bush after migrants from El Salvador arrived in the US, fleeing civil war. TPS does not grant a path to US citizenship.

Former President Biden expanded the programme, granting TPS to individuals from Afghanistan, Cameroon, Ethiopia, Lebanon, Myanmar, Ukraine and Venezuela.

Venezuela was granted TPS in 2021 by the Biden administration. He also expanded the TPS eligibility for people from other countries, including Haiti. In 2020, 10 countries had TPS. By the end of Biden’s time in office, some 17 countries were eligible.

How many people are affected by this?

The Supreme Court decision applies to a group of Venezuelans who arrived in the US in 2023. This means 348,202 Venezuelans living in the US are affected by this, who were registered under former President Biden’s 2023 designation. Close to the end of Biden’s term in office, US officials renewed the status for these individuals until October 2026.

Economic and political turmoil have driven about eight million Venezuelans out of their country since 2014, according to the United Nations. The economic crisis was partly worsened by US sanctions against the government of President Nicolas Maduro.

What did the Trump administration do?

There are about 600,000 Venezuelans in the US with TPS. Shortly after Trump took office in February, Noem revoked TPS for 348,202, who were granted TPS in 2021.

Noem justified the revocations due to gang membership and “adverse effects on US workers”. The DHS has, without evidence, said the Biden administration granted TPS to “gang members” and “known terrorists and murderers”.

The remaining nearly 600,000 Venezuelans have TPS, which was granted in 2021 and is due to expire in September. This means that Noem will decide by July whether to revoke their status.

Noem also revoked TPS granted to 521,000 Haitians,14,600 Afghans and 7,900 Cameroonians. Cameroonians will lose protections in June, Afghans in July and Haitians in August. The recent Supreme Court decision does not apply to these individuals.

As a response, seven Venezuelan migrants alongside the nonprofit National TPS Alliance sued the Trump administration in the San Francisco federal court in February, citing racial discrimination and bias. These plaintiffs are represented by the Center for Immigration Law and Policy at UCLA’s law school, the ACLU Foundation of Southern California and the National Day Laborer Organizing Network.

The San Francisco-based court blocked the attempt to strip the protections granted to Venezuelans in March. The judge said characterization of the migrants as criminals by the officials “smacks of racism”.

What did the Supreme Court rule?

On Monday, the Supreme Court granted an emergency application filed by the Trump administration, which argued that it held the sole authority over immigration disputes such as TPS of Venezuelans.

The ruling was unsigned, and the US Supreme Court did not explain why it sided with the Trump administration. Both of these aspects are common when it comes to emergency appeals.

The court has a 6-3 conservative majority. The only justice who publicly dissented to the ruling was Liberal Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, who has criticised the attack on judges by Trump. In 2022, Jackson was sworn in as the first Black woman to serve on the US top court.

What were the reactions to this?

“Today’s SCOTUS decision is a win for the American people and the safety of our communities,” the DHS posted on X.

“The Biden Administration exploited Temporary Protected Status to let half a million poorly vetted migrants into this country – from MS-13 gang members to known terrorists and murderers.”

Ahilan Arulanantham, co-director of a UCLA immigration law centre and one of the lawyers for Venezuelan migrants, said, “This is the largest single action stripping any group of non-citizens of immigration status in modern US history. That the Supreme Court authorized it in a two-paragraph order with no reasoning is truly shocking.”

“Venezuelans face extreme oppression, arbitrary detention, extrajudicial killings and torture,” Congresswoman Pramila Jayapal said in a statement on Monday.

“Poverty levels are surging, and essentials like electricity, water and medical care are scarce. The dire circumstances in Venezuela make it clear that this is exactly the type of situation that requires the government to provide TPS.”

Israel belongs in Eurovision

Just when you thought Eurovision had reached peak absurdity – with its glitter-drenched cliches, outlandish lyrics, and performances that make your local karaoke night look refined – it sank even lower in 2025. This year, Israel not only participated amid its ongoing assault on Gaza and international law, it nearly won.

In the lead-up to the contest, activists across Europe called for Israel’s exclusion. Seventy-two former Eurovision contestants signed an open letter demanding that Israel – and its national broadcaster, KAN – be banned. Protests, petitions, and campaigns swept across the continent, urging the contest to uphold its supposed values of “European unity and culture” rather than spotlight a state accused of systematically starving and bombing a captive population of two million.

But Eurovision did not listen.

Instead, it handed the stage to 24-year-old Yuval Raphael – a survivor of Hamas’s October 7 attack on the Nova Music Festival – who won the public televote in most countries and placed second overall, edged out only because, unlike the public, most professional juries preferred Austria’s entry.

Understandably, Israel’s surprising near-victory triggered a wave of backlash. With populations that have been most vocal in their criticism of Israel’s actions in Gaza – such as Ireland – supposedly giving the highest marks to Raphael, widespread accusations of vote-rigging emerged. National broadcasters in Spain and Belgium filed formal complaints with the European Broadcasting Union, demanding an investigation into potential manipulation of the televoting system. Meanwhile, The Intercept’s audio analysis revealed that Eurovision organisers had muted audience booing and chants of “Free Palestine” during Raphael’s live performance.

In the aftermath of this year’s contest, the calls for Israel’s exclusion from Eurovision are louder than ever before. Clearly, for many across Europe who love Eurovision – whether for its camp, spectacle, or nostalgic charm – but who also care about international law and Palestinian lives, Israel’s continued inclusion is a moral failure.

And yet, I believe Israel belongs in Eurovision and should stay in the competition going forward. Here’s why.

For one thing, Israel’s continued participation would reflect the reality of European policy. Despite growing public outrage, many European leaders have been unwavering in their support for Israel throughout its devastating campaign in Gaza. While countries like Spain and the Republic of Ireland have called for a reassessment of the European Union’s relationship with Israel, for most of Europe, it’s been business as usual.

In February 2025, despite mounting pressure from human rights groups, European foreign ministers met with their Israeli counterpart and insisted that “political and economic ties remain strong”. A few months later, seven EU countries issued a joint statement calling for an end to what they described as a “man-made humanitarian catastrophe” in Gaza.  But without action, these words rang hollow.

Europe is also divided on whether it would honor the International Criminal Court’s arrest warrant for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Belgium, the Netherlands, Ireland, Lithuania, Slovenia, and Spain indicated they would comply. The United Kingdom, as usual, hedged, saying only that it would “comply with legal obligations under domestic and international law”. Meanwhile, Hungary, under Prime Minister Viktor Orban, flatly refused to enforce the warrant. And among Europe’s largest players – France, Germany, and Italy – the response has ranged from evasive to outright dismissive. France claimed Netanyahu enjoys immunity since Israel isn’t an ICC member; Italy said arresting him would be “unfeasible”; and Germany’s newly elected Chancellor Friedrich Merz even vowed to find “ways and means” for Netanyahu to visit.

Given how European leaders have shown far more enthusiasm for cracking down on Palestine solidarity activists than holding Israel accountable, it feels only fitting that Israel continues to sing and dance on the ruins of Palestinian lives – hand in hand with its European friends.

But this alliance isn’t just political. Those who are promoting it suggest it’s also cultural, and even “civilisational”.

Many Western intellectuals have long cast Israel as an outpost of European values in a supposedly savage region. After October 7, this narrative was renewed with fresh urgency. French public intellectual Bernard-Henri Levy, while insisting he is a “militant defender of human rights”, framed Israel – apartheid and all – as a moral beacon when compared to the usual “others”: Russians, Turks, Chinese, Persians, and Arabs. Their imperial ambitions, he argued, pose a far greater threat to “civilisation” than Israel’s “policy of colonising the West Bank”. He even praised Israel’s “moral fortitude” and supposed concern for civilian life in Gaza – words that have not aged well after 19 months of pure carnage.

American commentator Josh Hammer’s book, Israel and Civilization: The Fate of the Jewish Nation and the Destiny of the West, is even more explicit. For him, Israel is the West’s “agent” in a region plagued by violence and Islamic “terrorism”. Those who support Palestinian rights are, in his words, “anti-American, anti-Western jackals”. UK commentator Douglas Murray echoes the same civilisational framing in the book On Democracies and Death Cults: Israel and the Future of Civilization, calling Israel a bulwark of good in a world of evil.

Israeli leaders have adopted this language, too. Netanyahu declared shortly after October 7 that “Israel is fighting the enemies of civilisation itself”, urging the West to show “moral clarity”. According to this world view, Israel doesn’t just defend itself – it defends the entire Western civilisation.

All this may sound far removed from a song contest. But Eurovision has always been more than sequins and key changes. It’s a projection of “Europeanness” – and “Europe,” as a concept, has always been political. It’s built on a colonial legacy that imagined Europe as enlightened, orderly, and rational – defined in opposition to the supposedly backward, emotional, and irrational non-European “other”.

This legacy justified colonial conquests and the violent suppression of anti-colonial uprisings. Massacres were cast as the price of restoring order; ethnic cleansing, a civilizing mission. Today, that same narrative lives on in how the West frames Israel – as a beleaguered democracy standing bravely against barbarism.

So when people call for Israel to be banned from Eurovision over this year’s vote-rigging allegations, I can’t help but note the irony: that its genocidal campaign in Gaza didn’t cross a red line for Europe – but cheating in a song contest just might.

If Eurovision were to expel Israel now, it would be the harshest penalty the continent has ever imposed on the nation – and it would be not for mass killing, but for meddling with pop music.

And so, yes – I believe Israel should stay in Eurovision.

After all, Europe and Israel deserve each other.

‘Heart bleeds’: Kashmiris grieve children killed on India-Pakistan frontier

Javaid Iqbal, a resident of Srinagar, Indian-administered Kashmir, downloads a photo from his phone. It shows a little girl sporting a pink woollen beanie, a grey trinket slung loosely around her neck – her face beaming in a wide smile.

His daughter, Maryam, 5, who was only recently pictured in the photo, was delighted to pose for the photo. She is no longer with us today.

Maryam was killed on the morning of May 7 when an explosive landed on their home in Sukha Katha, a cluster of some 200 homes in Poonch district of Indian-administered Kashmir, some 20km (12 miles) from the Line of Control (LoC), India’s de facto border with Pakistan in the disputed Himalayan region.

Iqbal, 36, cries out while holding his phone in his chest, “Oh, Maryam.” I can’t bear to lose this, I tell myself.

Maryam was among at least 21 civilians – 15 of them in Poonch – killed in cross-border shelling in Indian-administered Kashmir in early May as the South Asian nuclear powers and historical enemies engaged in their most intense military confrontation in decades. They exchanged missiles and drones for four days before declaring a ceasefire on May 10 and stood on the verge of their fifth conflict.

Even though the conflict continues, a truce has been established, and both countries have launched diplomatic outreach efforts to persuade the world about their narrative in a conflict that dates back to 1947, when the British split the subcontinent and carved its way into India and Pakistan.

But for families of those who lost relatives in the cross-border firing, the tenuous peace along the LoC at the moment means little.

Iqbal yells, “My heart bleeds when I think about how you [Maryam] died in my arms.

The earth shook beneath us, according to the legend.

For decades, residents along the LoC have found themselves caught in the line of fire between India and Pakistan, who have fought three of their four previous wars over Kashmir. Two sizable parcels of the region are under Chinese control, with China also administering the other two parcels. However, Pakistan also claims all of Kashmir, with the exception of parts of the region that are ruled by China, its allies.

In 2003, India and Pakistan agreed to a ceasefire along the LoC that – despite frequent border skirmishes and killings of civilians on both sides – broadly held, and was renewed in 2021.

In Pahalgam, a picturesque resort in Indian-administered Kashmir, gunmen killed 25 tourists and a Kashmiri pony rider on April 22, triggering the most recent chapter of the India-Pakistan-India conflict.

Islamabad refuted the accusations that New Delhi made of Pakistan supporting the gunmen. Since the beginning of an armed rebellion against India’s rule in Indian-administered Kashmir in 1989, New Delhi has accused Islamabad of training and financially supporting the rebels. Islamabad claims that the separatist movement only receives diplomatic and moral support from it.

The Indian military launched missiles at several cities in Pakistan and Pakistan-administered Kashmir on May 7 to condemn the killings of the Pahalgam. India claimed it struck “terror camps” and killed about 100 “terrorists”. More than 50 people were killed, according to Pakistan, the majority of whom were civilians and also had members of the military as victims.

Pakistan fired a lot of shots from across the border. Iqbal says he was jolted awake at about 2am on May 7 by the sounds of artillery shells landing “one after the other, their thuds rattling the earth beneath us”.

He told Al Jazeera, “I made frantic calls to everyone I knew, including police, administration officials, and toll-free emergency numbers like 108, pleading with them to save me and my family.” “But no one arrived,” he said.

He says he huddled his family – his wife, three children and three children of his brother who were with them at the time – in an outhouse abutting their main house, hoping that cinder blocks on top of the structure would make it more resilient to any Pakistani shells.

The explosions continued to occur.

He claims that a shell scurried across the mountains shortly after sunrise, leaving behind a trail of smoke, and causing an explosion close to their shelter. Its splinters hurtled in every direction, blasting through the walls behind which Iqbal and his family had sought refuge.

As he perched his gaze through the murky haze, his focus was on Maryam, whose tiny body was strewn among the debris, which had soaked up her blood.

“I requested assistance from a friend. He alerted the administration, who sent an ambulance, which tried to come near our house, but the continuous shelling forced it to return”,&nbsp, he said, adding that the ambulance attempted to come closer five times but could not.

Maryam was dead by the time the shelling was over and they were able to visit the hospital. Iram Naaz, her sister, was also struck by a splinter in her forehead, and is recovering in the family’s ancestral village in Qasba, close to the LoC.

A ghost town

Sukha Katha received three days of shelling. Today, it appears to be a ghost town, only to experience the ominous silence of strong winds sweeping through the windows and doors of empty homes, with dust and fluttering curtains all over them.

Most residents who fled the shelling haven’t returned.

According to resident Muhammad Mukhar, a 35-year-old resident, “there are about 200 homes here and they are empty because everyone has fled to safety.” Only a few people, including him, remained. “We are just keeping an eye out for thieves. Because things are still uncertain, these townpeople are unlikely to make a comeback soon.

According to Kashmiri political analyst Zafar Choudhary, the villagers still harbor concerns about additional attacks. He says the loss of civilian lives on the&nbsp, Indian side of the border in Poonch&nbsp, is due to the “peculiar” topography of the region, which confers a “unique advantage” to Pakistan.

He claims that Pakistani army posts are perched high on mountain tops, overlooking the civilian habitations there, while the majority of the towns and villages on the Indian side are located down in valleys. The Pakistani side’s impact on civilians would be minimal, even if India retaliated. This makes border towns such as Poonch vulnerable”.

An asphalt road weaves through the forests and ravines of Poonch and Jammu, a town of deteriorating brick and rebar towns in southern India, connecting the plains of Jammu with the towns of Khanetar, which are dotted with life-size advertisements for sodas.

Vihan Kumar, 13, was killed inside the family’s car in this village when a Pakistani shell explosion occurred while they were attempting to flee the firing. &nbsp, The boy died on the spot, his skull ripped open.

Sanjeev Bhargav, Vihan’s father, recalls that “it was a loud sound, and at once my son was in a pool of blood.” Vihan breathed his last at the Poonch district hospital right away. Vihan was the only child of his parents.

The “Naked Dance of Death”

Arusha Khan, a 46-year-old teacher, is battling for his life at the Government Medical College Hospital in Jammu, the second-largest city in Indian-administered Kashmir, about 230 kilometers (140 miles) southeast of Poonch, where his husband, Rameez Khan, is battling for his life after shrapnel punctures the left side of his liver.

They are mourning the loss of their twins – son Zain Ali and daughter Urba Fatima – who died in the shelling of their house on May 7. In April, they had turned twelve.

When the terrified twins called their uncle, Arusha’s brother Aadil Pathan, who was about 40 kilometers (25 miles) away and pleaded with him to save them, they were cowering inside their Poonch home.

“The children were scared to their wits ‘ end”, Arusha’s sister Maria Pathan tells Al Jazeera over the telephone. “Aadil left his car at 5:30 am and drove to their destination an hour later.”

Aadil apparently swung open Aadil’s car door after calling from outside the house. But as soon as the trapped family came out and began to dash in the direction of the car, a shell struck. Urba passed away instantly. According to Maria, Rameez also lost “extremely bloody blood” as a result of his injuries.

“And suddenly, Arusha couldn’t see Zain around”, says Maria. He staggered into a neighbor’s home about 100 meters (300 feet) away because he was hurt. He was just a body on the floor when Arusha rushed to see him. He, too, had died.

In the midst of sobs, Maria declares, “We don’t wish for our enemies what has happened to my sister and her family.”

Attacks on children during these kinds of conflicts between two countries, according to Meenakshi Ganguly, Human Rights Watch Asia deputy director.

“Indiscriminately striking civilian areas is a violation of international humanitarian law”, she says, speaking to Al Jazeera. They would constitute war crimes if such attacks were planned and carried out.

Shamim Ganai, a politician from Poonch, claims the destruction caused by the Pakistani shelling was a “naked dance of death.”

“We weren’t prepared for what we eventually came to experience. No steps were taken to evacuate the residents. He recalls that many people were simply running and carrying chickens and other items in their arms.