Despite the escalation in rhetoric, the unprecedented military buildup of American capabilities in the region, and President Donald Trump's "brinkmanship" policy, contrasted with Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei's statements reflecting a tone of defiance and insistence on responding to American and Israeli threats; the pressing question is: Are we on the verge of an imminent military confrontation between Washington and Tehran? What are the chances of the United States succeeding in changing the political regime in Iran? Conversely, what are the limits of Iran's military response capability? Can Iran target aircraft carriers and American bases in the region? And finally, what are the repercussions of all this on the security and stability of the region and the world?

Anyone who reads the scene with a cool eye, away from media sensationalism, will realize that what is happening is closer to "controlled madness" than to a blind rush towards war. The United States fully understands that any comprehensive war with Iran will not be a quick military picnic, nor will it end with a limited surgical strike. Instead, it could open the doors of the region to strategic chaos extending from the Gulf to the Eastern Mediterranean. The experiences of Iraq and Afghanistan are still fresh in American memory, with the costs in money, reputation, and lives.

As for talk of regime change in Iran, it is a slogan that has been repeated in the corridors of American politics for decades, but it has never turned into an executable strategy. The Iranian regime, despite its internal crises and suffocating sanctions, has proven an extraordinary ability to adapt and endure, relying on a cohesive institutional security and military structure, and an impressive network of regional and international alliances.

Conversely, Iran's capabilities cannot be underestimated. Over the past years, Tehran has developed an advanced missile system and has demonstrated its ability to operate in multiple theaters through its regional allies. While targeting American aircraft carriers or major bases would remain a high-cost and extremely risky option, it is not impossible should an open confrontation erupt. Any direct hit on strategic American interests would certainly mean the region entering a spiral of escalation whose outcomes cannot be controlled.

This is precisely where the danger of the situation lies: if war breaks out, it will not remain bilateral between Washington and Tehran, but will affect Gulf security, threaten the stability of Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon, and perhaps extend its effects to global energy markets, threatening the international economy with a new crisis. Therefore, the precise cost-benefit calculations of both parties make the option of a comprehensive war more likely to be brandished than actually implemented.

In my estimation, Trump will continue to mobilize, threaten, and warn, but he will not launch a military strike that leads to a wide regional war. The man realizes that any major slip could turn the tables on him domestically, especially in light of the political crises and scandals pursuing him, and the unrest and decline in support within his party. Despite the image he tries to project of himself as a president who does not hesitate to use force, he is not at all interested in the "Samson option" that would bring down the temple on himself and his adversaries at home and abroad.

It is more likely that this round of escalation will end in negotiated outcomes related to the Iranian nuclear program, which will be marketed domestically in Washington as a political and security achievement. If this happens, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu will not dare to go it alone into a military confrontation with Iran, because any open war could mean the end of his political future, and perhaps plunge the Hebrew state into an existential dilemma, especially given its escalating international isolation after the Gaza war and the growing global calls for a just solution to the Palestinian issue.

As for Iran, it will not initiate a preemptive strike, nor will it seek to ignite a war it does not need at this stage. However, at the same time, it will not stand idly by in the face of what it considers existential threats. It will continue to develop its deterrent capabilities and strengthen its relations with Russia and China, thereby solidifying its position as a significant regional power within an international system that is gradually leaning towards multipolarity.

Iran, in historical memory, is not an emergent state, but the heir to the Persian Empire that once extended its influence over vast areas of the world. It understands that bowing under American pressure would mean undermining its regional project and international standing. Therefore, it will maneuver, negotiate, and accumulate power assets, without rushing into a comprehensive confrontation.

In conclusion: We are facing a calculated escalation, and fiery rhetoric that serves deterrence calculations more than it paves the way for war. A comprehensive military confrontation will not occur, because its exorbitant cost exceeds the capacity of both parties to bear. The Iranian regime will likely emerge with a greater presence and influence, while Washington seeks to save face through a new agreement or understanding. These are precise calculations for a war that is intended to be threatened, not to happen.

The Quran: Man's Mirror in the Divine Balance

The Divine Revelation as the ultimate definition of man by his Creator

Ever since man began to be aware of his existence, he has faced the most profound question on his journey: Who am I?

This question was not a search for a name, identity, or external description, but rather a search for the underlying truth of his existence: What is his nature? What are his capabilities? What are his limits? And what is the purpose that gives his life meaning?

Man has been able to discover much about the world around him. He understood the laws of nature, explored the depths of matter, built civilizations, and developed tremendous tools that enabled him to influence his surroundings. Yet, despite all this progress, he remained before the most difficult question: Has man been able to know himself as he has known the things around him?

Man tries to know himself while being a part of this self. He studies his mind with his mind, and analyzes himself with tools that are themselves part of his composition, and therefore his knowledge of himself remains limited no matter how much progress he makes. He can know some of his manifestations, but he cannot encompass all his dimensions; because he is not merely a material existence, but a complex being that combines body, mind, soul, will, and meaning.

Hence arises the need for knowledge that comes from outside the boundaries of man, knowledge emanating from the One who created man and knows his reality.

And here comes the Holy Quran.

The Quran is not just a book that offers man a set of rulings or directives, but it is a divine discourse that reveals to man who he is. It is not a definition of man issued by man, but a definition issued by the Creator of man.

For Allah Almighty is the Knower of what He created:

"Does He who created not know? And He is the Subtle, the All-Aware."

Therefore, the Quran represents the highest definition of man by his Creator; because it is a definition not based on limited human observation, but on the all-encompassing divine knowledge of man's reality.

The Quran reveals to man his origin, his nature, his weakness, his capabilities, his responsibility, and his purpose. It does not see him as merely a being living in the world, but as a being with a status and a mission; a being created capable of knowledge, choice, purification, and bearing the trust.

From this perspective, the Quran can be seen as man's mirror in the divine balance.

When man stands before the Quran, he does not see the image he has drawn for himself, nor the image society has made of him, but he sees the image revealed to him by his Creator. He sees that he is honored, yet responsible. Capable, yet limited. Free, yet accountable. He possesses the ability to ascend, but also carries the potential to fall.

But this mirror not only reveals man, but also reveals the nature of the relationship between the Creator and the created.

The Quran is a divine discourse absolute in its source, but descended to a limited human being in terms of his capacity to receive. Therefore, one of the characteristics of this revelation is that it came commensurate with man.

And here the meaning must be understood precisely; it is not meant that the Quran is limited by human boundaries, for Allah Almighty and His speech are far removed from the limits of creatures, but rather that divine wisdom necessitated that the divine discourse reach man in a form that man can receive, understand, and interact with.

For the Creator, glorified be He, knows the nature of the creature He addresses. He knows his capacity for perception, the energy of his mind, the readiness of his heart, and the limits of his endurance. Therefore, the revelation came in a form that addresses man in his language, considers his experience, and opens horizons of knowledge for him without burdening him with what he cannot bear.

Hence, the level of revelation reveals the level of the addressed creature.

That man is addressed by the word of God, required to understand it, and invited to ponder over it, reveals his special status in the divine balance. Man is not merely a material creature, but a creature given the ability to receive and interact with the divine discourse.

And to the extent that Allah Almighty revealed to man through the Quran, the possible limits of human perception are determined. The Quran is the space where absolute divine knowledge met limited human capacity.

Indeed, Allah Almighty did not reveal everything to man, because man cannot bear everything, nor did He withhold from him what he needs, because the purpose of revelation is guidance and the building of man.

This meaning appears in the story of our Prophet Moses (peace be upon him) when he asked to see Allah Almighty:

"My Lord, show me [Yourself] that I may look at You. He said, 'You will not see Me, but look at the mountain; if it remains in its place, then you will see Me.' But when his Lord appeared to the mountain, He made it crumble to dust, and Moses fell unconscious."

So the issue is not the absence of divine power to reveal, but the limits of the creature's receptivity. The limited cannot encompass the absolute, and the creature cannot comprehend the reality of the Creator as it is.

Thus, the Quran reveals two things to man at once: it reveals to him his capacity for knowledge, and it reveals to him the limits of this knowledge.

It grants him the path of approach, but it always reminds him that he is a creature, not absolute.

Therefore, the Quran is the ultimate definition of man by his Creator; it is not all divine knowledge about man, because God's knowledge is limitless, but it is the maximum amount of definition given to man in a form he can receive.

The Quran defines man by his origin so that he does not become arrogant, defines him by his weakness so that he does not despair, defines him by his dignity so that he is not humiliated, and defines him by his responsibility so that he does not live without purpose.

From this, we understand the differences among people in understanding the Quran; the book is one, but the man who stands before it is different. And every person takes from this ocean according to his capacity. The more man ascends in his awareness and purification, the more capable he becomes of seeing himself in this divine mirror.

Indeed, the Quran not only reveals what God wants from man, but it reveals man as he is in God's knowledge.

Therefore, the Quran is not just a book sent to man, but it is the book of man as God knows him.

It is the mirror that the Creator placed before His creature to see his reality, his limits, his destiny, and his purpose in the divine balance.

Man is not complete when he only knows the world around him, but when he knows himself as his Creator has defined him.

If normalization was for decades reduced to the image of a handshake, a trade agreement, or a cultural meeting, then the aggression on Gaza and the accompanying crimes and expansion of settlements in the West Bank revealed that this definition is no longer sufficient to understand the transformations of the Palestinian issue. The question is no longer who shakes hands, but rather how the occupation transformed into a viable reality that reproduces itself? In this sense, normalization is no longer merely a political or cultural act, because that is its superficial or performative level. Rather, it is a process of taming and an integrated structure that reshapes consciousness, economy, and politics. It does not seek to improve the image of the occupier as much as it tries to transform its existence into an ordinary matter, shifting the discussion from ending the occupation to managing it, and from liberation to improving living conditions. Here lies the most dangerous function of normalization, because it makes remaining under occupation a “rational” choice. In this sense, too, there is the normalization of consumption through the creation of dependency and normalcy. The entry of Israeli products into the Palestinian market goes beyond selling goods to selling an idea, making the consumer an agent promoting the presence of the occupation in their home and surroundings. Buying a product becomes a political act that makes the occupier part of your economic life cycle, stripping you of your economic independence and making you a financier of its project. The Oslo process contributed to entrenching this transformation to varying degrees. The interim agreement did not end with a state, and over time it transformed into an administrative and economic system that manages the population more than it confronts the structure of the occupation. As a result, a large part of daily Palestinian life became linked to a system whose keys are controlled by the occupation, through movement, trade, and crossings, or resources, taxes, and the labor market. Therefore, if liberation means disengagement, then normalization has become a condition for survival. Thus, a relationship of dependency arose that made separation more costly over time, and we fell into the trap of rationality, which created an imaginary division between the “rational” Palestinian who accepts this reality and the “irrational” one who rejects it. The matter is not limited to economics or administration, but extends to the psychological and social spheres. A person living in a reality that lacks a political horizon rearranges their priorities in search of individual stability, even if it is at the expense of the national project. Over time, the language of rights transforms into the language of services, and the language of liberation into the language of crisis management, and maintaining a minimum daily life becomes an alternative goal to changing reality. This is not a result of an individual choice as much as it is a reflection of circumstances that produce what sociologists call adaptation to the dominant structure. The most dangerous levels of normalization is borrowing its security lexicon to interpret the Palestinian reality, and using the same terms internally, or adopting its definition of what is “dangerous” and “safe.” In doing so, you surrender to its sovereignty over your consciousness, and it succeeds when it makes its security obsession your daily concern, making you an involuntary guardian of its interests under the guise of maintaining public order. In contrast, the international community played an ambiguous role. Despite the widespread international criticism of the occupation’s policies and legal actions, its mechanisms are still unable to impose a political and legal cost commensurate with the scale of the violations. Instead of addressing the roots, its efforts are directed at containing its humanitarian consequences and preventing its explosion, which creates a paradox that prioritizes crisis management over resolution. Nevertheless, reading normalization as a structure does not mean that reality is an unchangeable fate. This structure can be dismantled if a national vision is available that gradually rebuilds elements of steadfastness, starting with strengthening the national economy and reducing dependency wherever possible, entrenching the Palestinian narrative in the cultural and media sphere, and investing in education and scientific research as long-term tools of resistance, and a critical review of the Palestinian experience away from accusations of treason and sanctification, because those who do not review their mistakes reproduce them.

Dr. Raed Abu Badawiya: The direct experience of an American official with settler violence gives the issue greater weight because it is a personal experience that is difficult to ignore or underestimate its implications.Daoud Kuttab: What happened with Ro Khanna, despite its importance, will not, at the current stage, curb settlers amidst the heated Israeli election atmosphere.Dr. Saad Nimer: Targeting an American political figure sends a message that settlers act with the conviction of their ability to impose their will even on Israel's closest allies.Dr. Saeed Shaheen: The incident is not the first of its kind but falls within a series of attacks that have affected foreign delegations, figures, and American citizens in various capacities.Talal Awkal: The experience of the American congressman may push him to adopt positions and policies less supportive of Israel and settlers and more understanding of the reality experienced by Palestinians.Dr. Fadi Jumaa: The discussion about settlements and settler violence now relies on direct observation by members of Congress, which may change the nature of the debate within Washington.Ramallah - Exclusive to "Al-Quds" - The detention of US Democratic Congressman and potential presidential candidate Ro Khanna by armed settlers during his visit to Zanuta village south of Hebron, marks a significant turning point that brings the issue of settler attacks in the West Bank back into the spotlight, as this time the incident involved a high-ranking American official.Writers, political analysts, specialists, and university professors, in separate interviews with "Al-Quds", confirm that the incident goes beyond being a fleeting field incident, as it reflects the growing audacity of settlers and the expanding scope of their attacks. It may also push for a broader discussion within the United States regarding the implications of settlements and violence in the West Bank on American interests and relations with Israel.While they expect the incident to add momentum to criticisms and calls for stricter measures against settlers, they believe that its practical impact will remain limited unless accompanied by political pressure and effective measures to stop the attacks and put an end to settlement expansion.An Indicator of Important ShiftsDr. Raed Abu Badawiya, Professor of International Law and International Relations at the Arab American University, confirms that what happened to the American congressman and potential Democratic presidential candidate for the 2028 elections, Ro Khanna, during his visit to Zanuta village south of Hebron, should not be treated as merely a friction between settlers and a foreign delegation, but rather as an indicator of the transformations that have occurred in the West Bank in the nature of the relationship between the Israeli state and the settlement movement.Abu Badawiya explains that the settlers' behavior in this incident reflects a high level of confidence, as they did not act as an outlaw entity, but rather as capable of imposing a fait accompli, given their confidence in official protection or tolerance, or their ability to override state authority in some cases.The Incident Involves a High-Ranking FigureAbu Badawiya points out that the political importance of the incident is not limited to its details, but is also linked to the identity of the person who was subjected to it, as the narrative comes from a US Congressman, not from a Palestinian or a human rights organization whose testimony can be questioned.Abu Badawiya emphasizes that the direct experience of an American official with settler violence gives the issue greater weight within the United States, because it moves it from the framework of reports and accusations to a personal experience that is difficult to ignore or underestimate its implications.Abu Badawiya believes that the incident also reveals that settler violence is no longer just a local issue related to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, but has begun to affect the interests of Israel's allied countries, which may lead to expanding the circle of international attention to this phenomenon.A New Element in the Path of Pressure on SettlersRegarding the possibility that the incident could help curb settlers, Abu Badawiya explains that it may add a new element to the increasing pressure on the settlement movement, but it alone will not be enough to bring about a radical change, because policies do not change due to a single incident, but as a result of the accumulation of facts and their impact on the perception of decision-makers.Abu Badawiya believes that the incident may become an additional reference within Congress and the US administration to prove that settler violence no longer threatens only Palestinians, but has become a challenge to regional stability and may affect American interests, which may give momentum to calls for imposing sanctions on settlers involved in violence, and tightening oversight on the use of US military aid.Abu Badawiya stresses that the actual impact of the incident will remain linked to Washington's willingness to move from statements of concern to exercising real political pressure on the Israeli government, considering that its importance lies in adding new evidence that is difficult to ignore in the growing American debate about the limits of unconditional support for Israel and its responsibility to curb settler violence.Continuation of Extremist ApproachWriter and political analyst Daoud Kuttab explains that what happened to prominent US Congressman and potential presidential candidate for the Democratic Party, Ro Khanna, is of great importance, not because the incident is unprecedented, but because this time the target is a high-ranking American political figure, which gives the incident political dimensions that go beyond the usual attacks targeting Palestinians or foreign visitors.Kuttab believes that the incident reflects the continuation of the extremist approach practiced by groups of settlers, along with members of the occupation army, considering that targeting an American figure at this level may draw greater international attention to the nature of the settlement movement's practices in the West Bank.The Incident and the Israeli Election AtmosphereAccording to Kuttab, the incident, despite its importance, will not, at the current stage, curb settlers, amidst the heated Israeli election atmosphere, where political competition is fierce, and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu continues to seek to remain in power and expand his base of supporters to avoid prosecution, which pushes him to attract various forces that support him, including pro-settlement currents.Kuttab believes that any serious attempts to limit the influence of settlers may be postponed until after the elections, when the composition of the new coalition government and the nature of the forces participating in it become clear.Settlers Do Not Distinguish Between Palestinian or ForeignerDr. Saad Nimer, Professor of Political Science at Birzeit University, confirms that the detention of US Congressman and potential Democratic presidential candidate Ro Khanna during his visit to the West Bank sheds unprecedented light on the nature of settler behavior, their ideas, and the practices they carry out against Palestinians.Nimer believes that targeting an American political figure sends a clear message that settlers do not distinguish between Palestinian or foreigner, and that they act out of conviction of their ability to impose their will even on Israel's closest allies.The Nature of the Ideology Governing the Settlement MovementNimer explains that the incident reveals a mentality based on the belief that settlers represent the "chosen people," and that everyone must submit to their will, including the United States, which is Israel's biggest supporter.Nimer points out that this incident reflects the nature of the ideology governing the settlement movement, noting that if this is the method used with an American congressman, then what Palestinians experience daily is even harsher.Nimer explains that this conviction is not new, citing previous statements by Israeli officials who called for disregarding the American position, considering that this is consistent with the mentality behind settler behavior in the West Bank.Direct Targets for SettlersNimer points to the attack on the CNN crew during their coverage in the West Bank, saying that settlers attacked the team with stones, sticks, and knives, despite their clear identity as American journalists, which reflects that anyone who tries to document what is happening in the West Bank may become a direct target of settler attacks, regardless of their nationality or status.Nimer believes that these incidents may expose settler policies to American and international public opinion, thereby strengthening popular criticism of Israel if they receive widespread media coverage within the United States, but he rules out that this will affect the official American position, given the continued political support provided by American administrations to Israel.Nimer stresses that American policy, especially during the era of US President Donald Trump, provided clear support for Israel by recognizing Jerusalem as its capital, moving the US embassy there, and recognizing Israel's sovereignty over the Golan, as well as statements calling for Israel's expansion, considering that these policies reflect continued official support for the settlement project.Official Israeli Policy Supporting SettlementNimer emphasizes that the problem is not limited to settler groups, but is linked to an official Israeli policy that supports and protects settlements, with the participation of state institutions and the army.Nimer believes that any measures limited to imposing sanctions on a limited number of settlers or some settlement organizations remain insufficient, stressing that responsibility lies with the Israeli government, which provides political and security cover for the continuation of settlements and attacks in the West Bank.Escalation of Encroachment Driven by Racist IdeologyDr. Saeed Shaheen, Professor of Political Communication at Hebron University, confirms that what happened to US Congressman and potential Democratic presidential candidate Ro Khanna, comes in the context of escalating Israeli encroachment driven by a racist ideology adopted by the Israeli government, with the aim of implementing its expansionist plans to seize Palestinian lands, create an environment that expels Palestinians, and prevent any voice that seeks to expose or confront the violations in the West Bank.He explains that the incident is not the first of its kind, but falls within a long series of attacks that have affected foreign delegations and figures, in addition to American citizens in various capacities, citing previous incidents that included American activist Rachel Corrie, journalist Shireen Abu Akleh, media crews including CNN, and foreign solidarity activists, leading up to the Ro Khanna incident.Shaheen stresses that these facts reflect the indifference of settlers and the occupation forces that provide them with protection to any foreign delegations or figures, pointing out that this occurs under policies and directives adopted by Israeli officials, and also criticizes the position of the US Ambassador to Israel, Mike Huckabee, considering that he does not provide sufficient protection even for American citizens.Continued International SilenceShaheen affirms that the continued international silence regarding serious violations in the West Bank, and the absence of accountability and punitive measures against perpetrators, contribute to the escalation of attacks, in the absence of the application of international humanitarian law.Regarding the repercussions of Ro Khanna's detention, Shaheen believes that the incident will not cause embarrassment or concern for the current Israeli government, because it feels it has political cover from the administration of US President Donald Trump.Shaheen points out that the crimes committed by settlers in the West Bank have reached unprecedented levels, yet they are not met with any effective international action to deter them, which encourages the continuation of attacks, even when targeting official or parliamentary figures or foreign delegations.Long History of Settler PracticesPolitical writer and analyst Talal Awkal believes that the incident of the detention of US Democratic Congressman and potential presidential candidate, Ro Khanna, by armed Israeli settlers with American-made rifles, during his visit to Zanuta village south of Hebron, before his release after the intervention of occupation forces and Israeli police, represents a remarkable development that may have political repercussions beyond the incident itself, especially at the level of American positions on settlements.Awkal explains that what happened to Khanna is not an isolated incident or the first of its kind, but rather comes within a long series of prohibitions, harassments, and insults practiced by settlers, often under the eyes of the occupation army, pointing out that these practices do not exclude anyone, whether a political official, diplomat, human rights activist, journalist, or foreign national.Lack of Immunity for Officials and Foreign VisitorsAwkal points out that previous facts confirm the absence of any effective immunity for foreign officials and visitors, citing the way Israeli authorities dealt with American journalist Tucker Carlson, as well as the incident of the occupation army firing at a European diplomatic delegation that tried to visit Jenin to see the field conditions.Awkal believes that the experience of the American congressman may push him to adopt positions and policies less supportive of Israel and settlers, and more understanding of the reality experienced by Palestinians.Awkal believes that the incident raises questions about whether international officials must be directly exposed to such violations in order to realize the extent of suffering experienced by Palestinians for decades.Awkal affirms that what happened will contribute to expanding and deepening the increasing shifts within the Democratic Party and American society towards the Palestinian issue, likely strengthening calls for stricter measures and sanctions against settlers, amidst increasing international criticism of the occupation and settler practices in the West Bank.Increasing Settler Confidence in Their CrimesDr. Fadi Jumaa, Professor of Political Science at the Arab American University, confirms that what happened to US Congressman and Democratic Representative Ro Khanna, his detention by armed settlers during his visit to the West Bank, cannot be read as a separate security incident, but rather comes in the context of a continuous scene witnessed in the West Bank for years, which escalated unprecedentedly after the events of October 7, 2023, with increasing settler violence and the expanding scope of their attacks against Palestinians.He explains that field developments in recent months have shown a significant increase in the level of settler confidence in what they do, which has pushed them to carry out more audacious practices, in parallel with the acceleration of settlement expansion and the displacement of Palestinians, especially in the areas south of Hebron, the Jordan Valley, and Masafer Yatta, pointing out that these manifestations have also begun to extend to other areas such as Jenin.Jumaa stresses that what gives the incident special importance is that the person who was detained is not a Palestinian activist, journalist, or member of a local delegation, but a US Congressman representing Israel's most prominent ally, considering that this reflects the level of confidence with which settler groups are operating, to the extent that they did not hesitate to intercept an American delegation while carrying weapons, in a scene resembling gang practices, but it occurs with a feeling of existing cover that allows such actions.A Significant Shift Within the American Democratic PartyJumaa emphasizes that the American congressman's narrative, in which he stated that the intervention of Israeli forces was not immediate, gives the incident an additional dimension, as the delayed intervention allowed settlers to continue detaining the delegation for 90 minutes, which reflects the nature of the field environment in which these groups operate.Jumaa believes that the incident may represent a significant shift within the American Democratic Party, explaining that the discussion about settlements and settler violence previously relied primarily on reports from human rights organizations and diplomatic documents, but today, members of Congress are witnessing these events directly, which may change the nature of the debate within Washington, because personal experience is more impactful than written reports.An Important Incident, But It Does Not Curb Their ViolenceIn his assessment of the likelihood that the incident will contribute to curbing settler violence, Jumaa believes that it may add new momentum to political pressure, but it alone will not be enough to bring about actual change.Jumaa points out that the United States and a number of European countries have recently imposed sanctions on some settlers, and issued reports addressing attacks and forced displacement in the West Bank, but these measures have not led to tangible results on the ground.Jumaa notes that what distinguishes this incident is that the affected party is a US Congressman, which may give it greater weight within decision-making circles in Washington, and may be used in discussions related to American political and economic support for Israel, but he rules out that this alone will curb settlers.Jumaa stresses that stopping settler attacks fundamentally requires an Israeli political decision, considering that the incident may constitute a turning point in the evolution of American discourse towards what is happening in the West Bank, but it will not be enough to change settler behavior unless there is political will within Israel, which is more complex than to be decided by a single incident, no matter its political and media importance.

With the completion of the semi-finalists in the exciting and controversial World Cup, boasting a record of seven historic titles, the competition intensifies, and the 'adrenaline' levels rise among fans in the stands and in living rooms open to screens; living rooms that have become an integral part of the stadiums, ablaze with their clamor, emotions, and expressions of astonishment and amazement on the faces of followers driven by the passion of the game, and those exhausted by undeserved losses, just as happened to the Egyptian national team against the Tango dancers. As the competitions approach their final chapters, I made sure to follow them with my family, where quick services and generous logistical supplies are provided by my beloved wife; she who has no interest in football, but is keen to monitor the reactions of her husband and children, especially the beloved daughters who have caught the passion for following the game by contagion, and in this beautiful 'gathering' that adds an atmosphere of joy and applause for goals, especially if they are scored by Arab feet. This scene takes me back to the 1986 World Cup, when I wrote an article titled 'My Mother and the World Cup'; she – may God have mercy on her – knew the names of the stars of that era as she knew the names of her children: Maradona, Zico, Socrates, and Platini. I remember she cried bitterly then for the Moroccans' loss to the Germans in the round of 16, and she also felt pain for the injury of the Algerian goalkeeper Nassereddine Drid during the fierce confrontation with the Spaniards. My mother preceded VAR technology by decades; she would vehemently protest against players' hidden fouls that escaped the referees' eyes, but she rejoiced at 'Maradona's divine hand' that scored a goal against the English net in the quarter-finals of the tournament, and she liked the opinion of the philosophical Brazilian coach 'Santana' in his call to abolish penalty shootouts and replace them with replaying matches... (to be continued).

The Israeli war of extermination in Gaza has gone beyond merely being a war targeting land and people, or a mere military attempt to impose new realities through killing, destruction, starvation, and displacement, to a deeper and more dangerous level. This reveals a shift in the nature of Zionist strategy itself, from the concept of conflict management strategy that governed Israeli policy for decades, to an attempt to engineer Palestinian disintegration and reshape the Palestinian condition, serving goals that transcend the military moment, towards re-formulating the conditions of Palestinian political and social existence. This transformation cannot be understood in isolation from the accumulated contradictions facing the Zionist project; for the continuation of military superiority has not produced a historical resolution, just as the ability to control has not translated into an ability to end the presence of the Palestinian people or overcome their cause. After decades of occupation and settlement, and despite the military power and widespread political support Israel possessed, especially from Washington and its orbit, the Palestinian remained present as a national identity and a political and historical actor, just as the Palestinian cause remained present in global consciousness. Hence, the transition from an attempt at resolution to an attempt at disintegration to ensure resolution does not reflect an excess of power as much as it reveals a strategic dilemma for the Zionist project. When power fails to produce political surrender, the reliance shifts to exhausting the bearer of the cause itself; i.e., the Palestinian society, by weakening the conditions of its cohesion, undermining its institutions, distorting its collective consciousness, and deepening its internal contradictions and transforming them into an alternative to confrontation with the occupation and the colonial control system. Here, we must pause at the expansion of phenomena of exaggerating and igniting secondary differences and their transformation into a state of media infighting that fills the public space, especially in light of the decline of common ground and the absence of a leadership that possesses a unifying vision and mutual trust with its people and with society, to always keep the compass facing strategies of extermination and displacement. The concept of “engineering disintegration” does not merely mean benefiting from the reality of Palestinian division, but rather refers to an attempt to transform this division into a permanent path that reshapes Palestinian reality from within. What is required is not only to prevent political unity, but to weaken the ability to produce meaningful national unity, so that Palestinians become preoccupied with managing their internal crises more than their ability to confront the project that generated and invested in these crises. This strategy comes in the context of a broader dilemma facing the Zionist project itself. A number of researchers, including Israeli historian Ilan Pappé, have argued that the Zionist project faces a structural crisis that could threaten its continuation in its current form. This does not necessarily mean an imminent collapse, but rather indicates that the contradiction between the logic of permanent control and the impossibility of ending Palestinian existence poses deep historical questions about its future. From this perspective, policies of displacement, fragmentation, annexation, settlement, and prevention of reconstruction can be understood not only as tools for controlling the present, but as attempts to shape the future, by weakening the party that represents the most fundamental historical challenge to the Zionist project, which is the continued existence of a Palestinian people who possess a national identity, a collective memory, and an inalienable political right. The Palestinian division has become more than just a reality from which Israel benefits; it has become a functional element in a broader strategy. Israel realizes that the minimum level of Palestinian unity, politically, institutionally, and socially, is capable of re-presenting the Palestinian cause as the cause of a people struggling for freedom and self-determination, rather than as an internal conflict between competing Palestinian forces. However, the deeper danger lies not only in political division, but in the attempt to transfer it to the level of dismantling the national and social fabric. The Zionist project does not target institutions and leaders only, but targets the entire unifying national sphere; through displacement, geographical fragmentation, prevention of reconstruction, acceleration of settlement and annexation, and weakening the bonds that make Palestinians one people despite the multiplicity of their locations. Hence, one can understand the attempts to fuel regional, familial, and factional tensions, deepen the loss of trust among components of society, and push the Palestinian situation towards something more dangerous than division: towards internal erosion. For when partial identities take precedence over national identity, and when shared pain turns into an additional field for competition and division, the occupation will have achieved one of its most dangerous goals; not only controlling the land, but weakening the ability to produce a common meaning for the future. Societies are not only defeated when they are militarily defeated, but when they lose their collective sense of the unity of their destiny, their ability to overcome their differences, and their right to produce a unifying project. Therefore, disintegration is not just a fleeting political state, but a historical process that can reshape consciousness and social relations if not confronted. Confronting this strategy does not begin only with ending the division, nor is it sufficient to call for national unity as a mere moral slogan, but it begins with rebuilding the foundation that gives unity its meaning, which is the Palestinian national idea. For the national project, no matter how important it may be, is not the origin of the story; rather, it is the political and institutional expression of a deeper idea that preceded its emergence and gave it its legitimacy; the idea of one Palestinian people, with the right to self-determination, and capable of overcoming attempts to uproot and fragment it. It was the Palestinian national idea that prevented the Nakba from turning Palestinians into mere groups of refugees separated from their homeland and their cause, and this can be considered the first founding of this idea. The second founding was represented by the emergence of the contemporary national movement and its institutions and representative frameworks that restored the Palestinian people's presence as a historical actor, and which now seems to be exhausting its role. Today, the profound transformations imposed by the war of extermination necessitate a third founding of the Palestinian national idea; a founding that does not negate the previous experience, but rather draws its lessons and rebuilds the national sphere on more solid foundations; partnership instead of exclusion, democracy instead of monopoly, citizenship instead of tribalism, and popular legitimacy instead of de facto legitimacy. The real challenge is not only to rebuild the national project, but to protect the idea that gives it life and meaning. Political projects can falter or be reshaped, but if the unifying national idea erodes, the ability to rebuild becomes more difficult. The Zionist strategy has shifted from conflict management to engineering Palestinian disintegration, because ending the cause by force is no longer possible, and because the continued existence of a Palestinian people united in their identity, consciousness, and rights represents the deepest historical challenge to the project based on exclusion and domination. Therefore, the priorities of this stage are not limited to resisting the occupation or rebuilding the national project, but begin with re-founding the Palestinian national idea itself; the idea that makes Palestine the cause of a people, not just a disputed land, and unity a historical necessity, not a fleeting political option. The battle today is not only over Gaza or the West Bank, nor only over the form of the coming political system, but over the meaning of Palestine itself; will it remain the cause of one people carrying a historical project of liberation, or will it turn into a set of fragmented issues managed by the realities imposed by the occupation? And if the occupation seeks to engineer disintegration, the historical response must be to rebuild unity on a new basis; popular legitimacy, national partnership, inclusive citizenship, and a leadership entrusted with the great Palestinian pain and sacrifices, as well as with the national future and destiny. The national idea is what gave birth to the national project, and it alone is capable of renewing it and protecting it from erosion, and transforming Palestinian steadfastness from mere survival into a historical force capable of creating freedom, justice, and complete national independence.

By: Dr. Said Sabri, International Economic and Financial Consultant – Member of the International Authority for Transformation and Digital Economy – General Secretariat At the beginning of 2026, the Palestine Monetary Authority and the Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics projected the Palestinian economy to grow by 4.1% to 4.5%. However, just six months later, the same official data revealed a contraction of 8%, and a decline in per capita GDP to only $545. Between these two figures lies not just a statistical gap, but the story of an economy changing faster than forecasts can keep up. Forecast based on assumptions, not actual recovery The scenario on which this forecast was built was not a prediction of fundamental improvement, but an assumption of "the continuation of existing conditions without significant changes" — the persistence of movement and crossing restrictions, the continued limited activity in Gaza within the scope of humanitarian aid, with a large portion of the workforce being unable to access the Israeli labor market. In other words, it was a marginal growth calculated from a very low base after Gaza's contraction exceeded 80% in 2024. The problem is that even this modest forecast did not hold up against the first-quarter data, as the West Bank economy alone recorded an 8% decline, despite being the area least directly affected by the war. This means that the contraction is no longer confined to the most devastated sector, but has extended to the economy that was supposed to lead the recovery. Are we still talking about one Palestinian economy? Today, the Palestinian economy is no longer a single economy in the practical sense, but rather two economies that differ in activity structure, price levels, labor market, poverty rates, and even growth and contraction dynamics. The inflation rate in Palestine recorded sharp fluctuations over the past year, reaching an annual increase of 10.5% overall for 2025, but with a stark disparity between regions: near-complete stability in the West Bank (-0.11%), compared to a shocking increase in Gaza of 21.93% due to scarcity of goods and the collapse of supply chains. The same applies to the labor market: unemployment reached 28.7% in the West Bank at the end of 2025, compared to over 80% in Gaza, and to poverty: 11.5% in the West Bank compared to 63.6% in Gaza. This disparity means that talking about "one Palestinian economy" has become a misleading simplification; what happens in the West Bank does not necessarily reflect what happens in Gaza, which calls for a review of the statistical presentation methodology itself, so that data for the two regions are presented separately instead of being merged into a single national figure that may conceal more than it reveals. The Cause Gap: Why the Scenario Didn't Materialize? The difference between forecast and reality does not reflect an error in statistical methodology as much as it reflects a change in the variables themselves. While the report assumed relative stability in restrictions, the following months witnessed an escalation in the withholding of clearance funds, which constitute about 70% of public revenues, and the continuation of restrictions on their transfer for more than a year, in addition to the exacerbation of the banking liquidity crisis associated with the accumulation of the shekel. The industrial production index, a direct operational measure away from aid-funded consumption, also recorded an additional decline of 1.15% in May 2026, which documents that the contraction is a continuous trend, not a transient event in one quarter. This gap is referred to in economic literature as "economic forecast error," meaning the difference between expected and actual results, a gap that usually widens in economies exposed to repeated political and security shocks. The impact of the contraction is not limited to a decline in production, but extends to the private sector's reluctance to invest and a sharp decline in fixed capital formation amid political and security uncertainty. This is also reflected in the banking sector, where liquidity pressures increase, credit risks rise, and financing appetite declines, transforming the crisis from an economic slowdown into a mutually reinforcing financial and economic contraction cycle. This means that the effects of the crisis will not stop in 2026, but will extend to the productive capacity of the Palestinian economy for subsequent years, because deferred investment today turns into lost productive capacity tomorrow. A recurring pattern in fragile economies The gap between forecasts and results is not exceptional in fragile and conflict-affected economies, where growth forecasts are frequently revised as field conditions change. However, the specificity of the Palestinian case lies in the fact that political and financial variables change at a faster pace than traditional models can absorb, making forecasts susceptible to being overtaken within a few months. Why is this gap important for decision-makers and donors? The difference between an official forecast and actual reality may seem like a purely technical matter, but it carries a deeper meaning: official scenarios are used as a basis for public budget planning and designing international support programs. When the baseline forecast is higher than reality by a margin of nearly 12 percentage points, any planning based on it becomes susceptible to funding and implementation flaws from day one. When international funding plans are built on a scenario that assumes gradual recovery, while quarterly data reveal continued contraction, a funding gap becomes a natural consequence of this disparity, and not just a shortage in the amount of aid provided at conferences like the recent donor conference in Brussels. This gap is not only measured theoretically; the public debt, which exceeded $15.4 billion, reflects how an unmonitored funding gap has turned into accumulated borrowing borne by future generations. Conclusion: The importance of a critical reading of official figures This analysis does not question the professionalism of the Palestine Monetary Authority or the Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics, as both operate within internationally recognized scientific methodologies, and economic forecasts are by nature probabilistic, based on assumptions that can change, especially in an economy operating under political constraints beyond its control. The Palestinian economy needs not only greater funding, but also an early economic warning system that updates forecasts quarterly, and provides decision-makers and donors with a picture closer to reality. When conditions change faster than measurement tools, data updating becomes part of crisis management, not just a routine statistical task. And in an economy that changes so rapidly, the flexibility of forecasts becomes part of good economic governance, not just a technical matter. The most dangerous gap is not between forecast and reality, but between policies built on figures that reality has already surpassed.

The draft law being discussed by the Israeli Knesset to restrict the call to prayer (adhan) via loudspeakers is stirring a wide wave of controversy, not only because it relates to a religious manifestation, but also because it raises a legal problem that transcends the boundaries of domestic legislation to the scope of international human rights law. The issue is not about a means of announcing the time for prayer, but rather about enacting legislation that affects one of the most prominent religious and cultural manifestations deeply rooted in Palestinian society, which necessitates its evaluation in light of the rules of international human rights law, international humanitarian law, and the rules for the protection of cultural heritage. The adhan is considered part of the historical identity of Palestine and has been linked to daily life in its cities and villages for centuries preceding the establishment of the State of Israel, to the extent that it has become an element of collective memory and the civilizational landscape that reflects the specificity of the place and its cultural and religious diversity. Therefore, targeting it with legislation that imposes restrictions on its raising not only sparks political controversy but also raises a legal question about the extent to which this legislation complies with Israel's international obligations. International human rights law includes many conventions that guarantee freedom of religion and belief, foremost among them the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights of 1966, Article (18) of which states that everyone shall have the right to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion, including the freedom to manifest his religion and to perform his religious practices individually or collectively, publicly or privately. The Human Rights Committee, in its General Comment No. (22), affirmed that this right includes religious rituals, practices, and symbols, and that any restrictions imposed on it must be interpreted narrowly and must not affect the essence of the right or empty it of its content. Article (27) of the same Covenant also protects the right of religious groups to maintain their identity and practice their religious traditions without discrimination. International protection does not stop at the limits of international human rights law but extends to the rules of international humanitarian law. Articles (43) and (46) of the Hague Regulations of 1907 oblige the occupying power to respect public life, beliefs, and religious practices in the occupied territory, while Articles (27) and (58) of the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949 affirm the need to respect the beliefs of the population and enable religious leaders to perform their mission. Occupation, no matter how extensive its powers, does not transfer sovereignty to the occupying power, nor does it grant it the authority to reshape the religious or cultural identity of the occupied territory or change its civilizational features. The International Court of Justice enshrined these principles in its advisory opinion on the legal consequences of the construction of a wall in the occupied Palestinian territory in 2004, when it affirmed the continued applicability of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights to the occupied Palestinian territories alongside the rules of international humanitarian law. The Court then returned, in its advisory opinion issued on July 19, 2024, regarding the legal consequences arising from Israel's policies and practices in the occupied Palestinian territory, to affirm that all legislation and measures taken by the occupying authority are subject to international law oversight, and may not affect the rights of the Palestinian population or change the legal, demographic, or cultural character of the occupied territory. Consequently, any legislation targeting a religious manifestation deeply rooted in Palestinian society raises suspicion of its inconsistency with the principles affirmed by the Court regarding the prohibition of changing the legal, demographic, or cultural character of the occupied Palestinian territory. In addition to its religious status, the adhan represents one of the elements of the intangible cultural heritage of the Palestinian people, as it has become, over hundreds of years, part of the identity of the place and its historical memory. The UNESCO Convention of 2003 for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage emphasizes the importance of protecting practices and traditions that express the identity and continuity of communities, which enhances the cultural value of the adhan as an inherited historical legacy, and not merely a means of announcing the time for prayer. The seriousness of the draft law lies not only in its impact on the exercise of a religious right but also in its affecting one of the basic components of the religious and cultural identity of the Palestinian people, which raises a conflict with the rules of international human rights law, international humanitarian law, and international principles that protect cultural heritage. Therefore, the legitimacy of this legislation is not measured by its approval within the Knesset, but by the extent of its compliance with Israel's binding international obligations. National legislation, regardless of the authority that issues it, does not acquire its legitimacy in international law merely by being approved domestically, but by the extent of its compliance with the state's international obligations. Therefore, any law that targets a religious and cultural symbol that has been linked to the history and identity of Palestine for hundreds of years does not remain an internal legislative matter, but becomes a subject of accountability under the rules of international law, which oblige the occupying power to respect freedom of religion, preserve cultural identity, and refrain from taking any measures that would change the religious or civilizational character of the occupied territory. * Professor of Constitutional Law at the Faculty of Law, University of Jordan.

Not all forms of occupation are imposed by tanks, nor are all maps drawn on negotiation tables. There is an occupation that advances with slow steps, almost unseen, yet it leaves a deeper impact than the clamor of wars. It is what has become known as "soft settlement," where the goal is not merely to control the land, but to reshape it politically, culturally, and historically, until the new reality becomes familiar, and objection to it becomes more difficult over time.This transformation is no longer just a political description, but has become a clear approach in managing the conflict. Alongside settlement expansion, there is an acceleration of road construction, infrastructure development, investment in archaeological sites, and the establishment of tourism projects in the occupied territories, within a policy that goes beyond the urban dimension to an attempt to solidify a political narrative on the ground. Recent reports reveal the expansion of this trend in the West Bank and Jerusalem, with its implications for the geographical and demographic reality.Jerusalem, naturally, is the most expressive place of this transformation. It is not just a city contested by politics, but a city that holds a religious and human memory difficult to separate from its present. Therefore, any change affecting its landmarks, holy sites, or demographic composition does not remain a local matter, but turns into an issue affecting human heritage and international law alike. The recent measures witnessed at Al-Aqsa Mosque, including restrictions imposed on some religious figures, come within a broader context that raises increasing concern about the city's future and identity.What distinguishes soft settlement is that it does not seek a quick victory, but rather to create a permanent reality. It relies on the factor of time, and on the ability of gradual change to transform temporary realities into facts that are difficult to reverse. This is the most dangerous paradox; as time itself becomes a tool of conflict, and getting used to the new scene becomes part of solidifying this reality.In contrast, the international community faces a test that has been repeated for decades. International law rejects settlement in occupied territories, and UN resolutions affirm its illegality, yet the gap between legal texts and the reality on the ground remains wide. The question that arises is not about the absence of positions, but about the absence of mechanisms capable of translating those positions into a tangible impact that preserves what remains of trust in the international legal system.Nevertheless, history is not written by force alone. The features of the land may change, but collective memory is not easily rephrased. National identity is not measured by the number of buildings or street names, but by the ability of its people to preserve their narrative, transmit it to generations, and defend it against attempts of obliteration and marginalization. Therefore, the preservation of Jerusalem does not begin with defending its stones, but begins with protecting its meaning, and with the belief that it does not belong to one generation, but is a human heritage shared by memory and history.The most dangerous aspect of soft settlement is that it does not impose itself all at once, but infiltrates the details of life until, after years, it appears to be the only possible reality. Therefore, confronting it is not with seasonal reactions, but with a long-term vision based on law, strengthening the steadfastness of the Palestinian people, preserving the historical narrative, and preventing time from becoming a partner in perpetuating injustice.Jerusalem, in the end, is not just a border issue, nor just a headline in the news. It is a constant question about justice, and about the world's ability to protect the values it has committed to. And between a reality imposed by force majeure, and a right supported by international legitimacy, the bet remains that history does not always favor the strongest, but may also favor those who continue to defend their right patiently, and cling to their identity despite all attempts to erase it.

In wars, the last battle is not the one that ends with a ceasefire, but the one that begins after it! Today, as discussions accelerate regarding "the day after" arrangements in Gaza, the debate is no longer limited to reconstruction or aid management, but has extended to the political and legal references that will define the shape of the Palestinian cause in the next phase.In this context, an announcement published by the "Peace Council" on its X account in early July 2026, stating that "there is no place for UNRWA in New Gaza," sparked a wide debate that went beyond the future of an international agency to a deeper question related to the nature of the system intended to be built in Gaza after the war, and the references that will manage the Strip and the issue of Palestinian refugees.This coincided with media reports discussing meetings held in Cyprus to explore arrangements for civil administration, reconstruction, and governance in the post-war phase, which gave this discussion a political dimension beyond the humanitarian and service framework.The importance of this development lies not in the statement itself, but in its timing and context. Gaza is entering a phase where the relationship between administration and legitimacy, between relief and rights, and between humanitarian institutions and the political framework under which they operate, may be redrawn. Hence, the real question becomes: Is the search for more efficient tools to manage the Strip, or for a reformulation of the references associated with the Palestinian cause since the Nakba?In principle, there can be no objection to any discussion calling for the development of the performance of international institutions or the enhancement of transparency and oversight over them. UNRWA, like any international institution, is not above evaluation and review. But there is a big difference between reforming a UN institution and replacing or marginalizing it in a highly sensitive political context.UNRWA was established by United Nations General Assembly Resolution 302 (IV) of December 8, 1949, to provide relief and works services to Palestinian refugees until a just solution to their plight is reached. The General Assembly has renewed its mandate repeatedly, most recently until June 30, 2029. The agency has affirmed in its official statements that its mandate is based on a mandate issued by the General Assembly, and that any development of its work must be within this UN framework.Therefore, ending UNRWA's mandate is not a decision that any state or political initiative possesses, but rather remains within the purview of the United Nations General Assembly. However, the problem raised today is not about legally ending the mandate, but about the possibility of reducing the agency's role on the ground or replacing it with alternative arrangements. No new administrative arrangements entail the abrogation of the legal status of Palestinian refugees or the international obligations associated with them, unless a UN resolution is issued changing the existing legal framework.Supporters of establishing new structures to manage Gaza may believe that the next phase requires institutions more capable of leading reconstruction, and more connected to concepts of governance, development, and sustainability, and that the transition from relief management to development management represents a necessity imposed by the nature of the next phase.In contrast, opponents of this view believe that UNRWA's specificity lies not in the nature of the services it provides, but in its being one of the institutions whose existence is linked to an international resolution reflecting the continued recognition of the Palestinian refugee issue, and that any decline in its role may affect the political and legal dimension of the issue, even if its legal mandate remains in place.Hence, the discussion is no longer about a specific institution, but about the reference that will manage the "day after" phase. Will reconstruction be an extension of existing international legitimacy, or the beginning of building a new model that reallocates roles and competencies differently?These developments also reveal a shift in the nature of international discussion. In many conflict areas, the international community tends to reform existing institutions and enhance oversight over them, while the debate in the Palestinian case takes on an additional dimension related to the future of the institution itself. The positions of the United Nations and a number of donor countries also reveal that the international discussion is not only between maintaining UNRWA or abolishing it, but between reforming it and preserving its mandate on the one hand, and reviewing its working mechanisms on the other, to ensure the continued provision of services without prejudice to the legal framework on which it is based.The impact of these transformations does not stop at UNRWA, but extends to the structure of the Palestinian political system. If new administrative arrangements are established independently of existing Palestinian and international references, the discussion may shift from the reconstruction of Gaza to the redistribution of roles of legitimacy and representation, a development that will have repercussions extending beyond the Strip to the entire Palestinian cause.In contrast, preserving international legitimacy does not mean rejecting reform or freezing institutions. Rather, the real challenge lies in combining the development of humanitarian work tools with the preservation of the legal and political references that govern the Palestinian refugee issue.Hence, the Palestinian approach to "the day after" arrangements should not be limited to following the details of reconstruction or aid management, but must stem from an integrated political and legal vision that ensures the presence of national and international references in any future formula for managing Gaza. The issue is not about a specific institution, but about the framework that will govern the relationship between reconstruction and national rights, and the ability of the Palestinian political system to protect this framework, based on national constants and the role of the Palestine Liberation Organization as the legitimate and sole representative of the Palestinian people.Discussions in the next phase are likely to shift from the question of UNRWA's future itself to a broader question: Who will manage the refugee file? And what will be the political and legal reference on which Gaza's institutions will be based after the war? At that point, the discussion will not be about who provides services, but rather about who has the legitimacy to manage one of the most complex issues of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.The real challenge is not choosing between maintaining UNRWA or replacing it, but ensuring that reconstruction does not become a path that redefines the Palestinian cause away from the foundations approved by international legitimacy, or that improving administration becomes an entry point for weakening political and legal rights that still enjoy international recognition.Therefore, the most important question in the next phase may not be: Who will manage Gaza after the war? But: Will reconstruction remain a means to strengthen Palestinian rights, or will it gradually transform into a framework that redefines the Palestinian cause itself? The answer to this question will not only determine the future of UNRWA, but may also shape the features of the next phase of the entire Palestinian cause, and determine whether the post-war phase will be an entry point for strengthening international legitimacy, or the beginning of a reformulation of the foundations on which the Palestinian cause has been based for more than seven decades.

The Israeli settlement project in the West Bank, known to Palestinians as the occupied West Bank, began after the June 1967 war, when Israel imposed its control over the area. Since then, successive Israeli governments have established hundreds of settlements and outposts as part of continuous expansionist policies that have received political, economic, and security support. Recent estimates indicate that the number of settlers in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, ranges between 500,000 and 780,000 settlers, distributed among 150 to 192 official settlements, in addition to hundreds of outposts. Settlement has become one of the most complex and influential issues in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, due to its connection to legal, demographic, economic, security, and political dimensions. The position that settlements are illegal enjoys broad international consensus, based on international humanitarian law, specifically Article (49) of the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949, which prohibits the occupying power from transferring parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies. In this context, the International Court of Justice, in its advisory opinion issued in 2024, considered the continued Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories illegal and demanded that Israel cease and dismantle settlement activities. UN Security Council Resolution 2334 of 2016 also stipulated that Israeli settlements in the occupied Palestinian territories have no legal validity and constitute a flagrant violation of international law. In contrast, Israel rejects this legal description and considers the West Bank “disputed territory” rather than “occupied territory,” based on its own legal and political interpretations and internal reports, most notably the Levy Report issued in 2012. However, these positions are not recognized by the international community, which still considers settlement a fundamental obstacle to any political settlement based on the two-state solution. On the ground, settlement has brought about profound changes in the geographical and demographic map of the West Bank. Human rights reports indicate that settlements and their associated infrastructure directly or indirectly control vast areas of Palestinian land, especially in the Jordan Valley, the vicinity of Jerusalem, and major settlement blocs such as “Gush Etzion” and “Ma'ale Adumim.” Recent years, particularly between 2023 and 2026, have also witnessed a noticeable acceleration in settlement expansion through the construction of new housing units or through the legalization of outposts that were previously considered illegal even under Israeli law. Bypass roads and closed military zones have contributed to increasing the isolation of Palestinian communities, especially in Area (C), which constitutes about 60% of the West Bank's area and is under full Israeli control. This reality undermines Palestinian geographical contiguity, making the establishment of an independent and geographically contiguous Palestinian state more difficult and complex, and limiting the chances of success for any future political settlement. Economically and socially, settlement expansion has led to the confiscation of vast areas of agricultural land and water resources, which has limited Palestinian economic development opportunities. Palestinians also face severe restrictions on construction, movement, and access to their agricultural lands, while settler attacks on Palestinian villages and communities have escalated in recent years, in some cases leading to the displacement of entire families and communities from their homes. Settlement has also contributed to weakening Palestinian productive sectors, especially agriculture and industry, and increased levels of economic dependence on the Israeli economy. On the Israeli side, despite what supporters of settlement see as political and security gains, the settlement project imposes significant financial and security burdens. Protecting settlements and securing access roads requires allocating huge military and security resources, in addition to continuous government support for infrastructure, services, and housing. A number of experts believe that many settlements rely heavily on government subsidies, which makes their economic sustainability debatable if this support declines in the future. Supporters of settlement believe that the presence of settlements, especially in high and strategic areas, provides security depth for Israel and contributes to strengthening its defensive capabilities. However, a number of Israeli military experts, including retired generals, believe that the continuation of the occupation and settlement expansion contribute to fueling tension and violence, drain security and military resources, and complicate Israel's strategic environment. Politically, settlement is seen as one of the most prominent obstacles to any serious negotiation process. Every new settlement expansion reduces the chances of reaching a settlement based on the two-state solution, and pushes towards a more complex political reality that may move towards a one-state, binational model, or to patterns of separation and discrimination that some international human rights organizations have described as closer to an apartheid system. Settlement has gone beyond being an issue related to land or borders, to become a project that reshapes the demographic and political reality in the occupied Palestinian territories. Despite repeated international condemnations, its continuation reflects influential political and ideological balances within Israeli society and decision-making institutions. Therefore, achieving sustainable peace requires a radical solution to this issue, either through a genuine freeze of settlement, or through negotiated arrangements that guarantee Palestinian rights and preserve security for all parties. Settlement remains one of the most prominent challenges to international law and the prospects for peace in the region, as the continued settlement expansion threatens to erode the possibility of reaching a just political settlement, and increases the likelihood of escalation and instability. Therefore, any serious approach to the future must be based on respect for Palestinian national rights and international legal obligations, as only just political solutions can break the cycle of conflict that has lasted for decades.

The Ansar Allah group (Houthis) announced this Monday evening the execution of a large-scale military operation targeting Abha International Airport, located in the south of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. The group clarified that this attack comes as a direct response to the airstrikes on Sanaa International Airport, holding Riyadh fully responsible for the consequences resulting from the continuation of aerial military operations.

For his part, the Houthi military spokesman, Yahya Saree, stated in a recorded statement that the missile force and drone air force targeted the airport with a mix of ballistic missiles and suicide drones. Saree issued a strong warning to civilian airlines, urging them to avoid flying in Saudi airspace, and linked the cessation of attacks to the lifting of the blockade imposed on the capital Sanaa airport.

In contrast, sources from the Saudi-led military coalition reported that air defenses were able to detect and engage hostile targets in the southern region of the Kingdom. The sources confirmed that the defense systems intercepted ballistic missiles launched from Yemeni territory towards civilian targets, noting the continued military vigilance to protect Saudi airspace from any cross-border threats.

In a related context, the internationally recognized Yemeni government revealed the motives behind the bombing of Sanaa Airport, where the Ministry of Defense confirmed in an official statement that targeting the runway was an emergency measure to prevent an Iranian plane from landing. The government accused the Houthi group of insisting on violating Yemeni sovereignty by allowing Iranian aviation to enter without prior coordination or adherence to established inspection procedures.

Concluding the field developments, informed sources mentioned that the Iranian plane, which was the focus of tension, later managed to land in Hodeidah port, which is under Houthi control. Reports indicated that the plane was carrying a number of wounded and stranded individuals, in addition to a Yemeni delegation that had participated in the funeral ceremonies of Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei in Tehran.

The Yemeni armed forces carried out a military operation targeting Abha International Airport with a number of ballistic missiles and drones in response to the criminal aggression.

The European Commission officially announced from Brussels, the Belgian capital, the launch of a massive initial funding package under the name 'Team Gaza Initiative,' valued at up to one billion US dollars (approximately 900 million euros). This step aims to strengthen the resilience of the Palestinian people and support early recovery efforts in the Strip, which is suffering from widespread destruction due to the ongoing war. The initiative is based on comprehensive damage assessments conducted in cooperation with the United Nations and the World Bank.

The new financial package focuses on addressing the severe collapse of essential services, with top priority given to projects for rehabilitating severely damaged water and sanitation networks. The initiative's implementation plans also include removing massive quantities of rubble and solid waste accumulated in residential areas, in addition to working on reactivating vital systems in the health, energy, and agriculture sectors to ensure the continuity of food and medical supplies for the population.

During the second donor group meeting, which included 65 countries and international organizations, the EU Commissioner for the Mediterranean, Dubravka Šuica, affirmed that the primary goal is to build a better future for Palestinians. Šuica stressed the necessity of suitable field and security conditions that ensure these aids and funds reach their beneficiaries within the Strip without obstacles, noting that this support represents a broad international message of solidarity.

Despite the importance of this fund, official sources acknowledged a huge funding gap, as the announced one billion dollars represents only a small fraction of the actual needs, which reports estimated at about 71 billion dollars over the next decade. Major financial institutions such as the World Bank and the European Investment Bank are participating in this international alliance, along with a long list of countries including Germany, France, Spain, Japan, and the United Kingdom, with Australia and Canada expected to join soon.

In a related context, additional contribution agreements worth 41.7 million euros were signed to support the Palestinian Authority's budget, raising the total provided by the European Union through the 'PEGASE' mechanism since 2008 to approximately 3.8 billion euros. These international movements are in line with Security Council Resolution 2803 and within the framework of a comprehensive Gaza peace plan that seeks to end humanitarian suffering and establish stability in the region.

Our goal is clear: to help build hope, resilience, and a better future for the Palestinian people, and we now need field conditions that allow support to reach the population.

The southern parts of the town of Yahmar Al-Shaqif in the Nabatieh Governorate witnessed a large-scale bombing operation carried out by the Israeli occupation army in the Safita area on Monday evening. Local sources reported that the explosion was so massive that it caused significant cracks and fissures in the surrounding mountainous heights, with its echo reverberating widely across southern villages.

The field escalation was not limited to the Safita area but extended to the town of Kafrtibnit, part of the Nabatieh district, where occupation forces carried out a similar bombing as part of their ongoing military operations. These explosions were accompanied by intensive sweeping operations with machine guns targeting the town of Majdal Zoun, coinciding with artillery shelling that hit the Wadi Hassan area.

Politically, all eyes are on the Italian capital, Rome, where Lebanese President Joseph Aoun expressed his aspirations that the sixth round of negotiations would constitute a real starting point for the withdrawal of occupation forces. Aoun affirmed that Lebanon awaits practical steps that will lead to the deployment of the Lebanese Army in all areas evacuated according to international understandings.

Rome negotiations are scheduled to begin on Tuesday and Wednesday under direct American sponsorship, to complete what was achieved in the previous five rounds hosted by Washington. This round aims to establish precise executive mechanisms for the framework agreement signed on June 26, which outlined the broad lines for ending the Israeli military presence.

The 'framework agreement' signed between Beirut and Tel Aviv stipulates a phased Israeli withdrawal starting from two experimental areas, as a first step towards a full withdrawal from occupied Lebanese territories. However, the agreement still lacks a specific timetable, as the occupation authorities link the implementation of the withdrawal to the Lebanese Army's ability to impose full security control.

President Aoun stressed in his statements the necessity of supporting the Lebanese military institution and providing it with the necessary equipment to enable it to perform its national duties amidst harsh economic conditions. He pointed out that the Lebanese Army proves its readiness despite the challenges, emphasizing that extending national sovereignty is the supreme goal that the Lebanese state seeks at this stage.

In a message addressed to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Aoun affirmed that military force would not achieve security for the people of Israel, and that true stability stems from recognizing rights. He added that continuing the path of aggression completely contradicts any talk of peace, warning that wars only lead to deepening crises and displacement.

The Lebanese President called on the American administration, specifically President Donald Trump, to exert serious pressure on the Israeli side to adhere to what was agreed upon in Washington. He clarified that Lebanon seeks to benefit from the current international desire to achieve comprehensive calm, ensuring the full restoration of Lebanese rights without any compromise on sovereignty.

Basic Lebanese demands in the Rome negotiations, in addition to military withdrawal, include the return of displaced persons to their villages, the return of prisoners, and the recovery of the bodies of detained martyrs. The Lebanese side also stresses the need to begin reconstruction plans for areas destroyed by the ongoing Israeli aggression for months.

On the ground, previous reports revealed continued Israeli violations through low-altitude drone flights over the capital Beirut, and the dropping of incendiary bombs on hills in the town of Kafr Rumman. These breaches pose significant challenges for the international oversight committee to ensure the preservation of the fragile ceasefire understandings reached through international efforts.

Regarding the army's diplomatic moves, Lebanese Army Commander General Rudolph Heikal met with a number of Western ambassadors to discuss ways to enhance the capabilities of the armed forces. These meetings come at a time when Beirut rejects Israeli proposals aimed at testing the army's capabilities in certain areas of influence, considering this an interference in sovereign affairs.

Official statistics issued by the Lebanese Ministry of Health indicate the extent of the humanitarian tragedy, with the death toll since the start of the aggression in March 2026 exceeding 4322 martyrs. The number of injured has also surpassed 12,000 people, while more than a million displaced persons continue to live in difficult conditions away from their destroyed homes.

In contrast, reports speak of Lebanese fears that the occupation will backtrack on its commitments due to escalating regional tensions between Washington and Tehran, which could hinder the Rome negotiations. Beirut insists that implementing the outcomes of the Washington negotiations is the only way to avoid the region sliding into a wider, undesirable confrontation.

President Aoun concluded by affirming that Lebanon will not give up an inch of its south, and that the signing of any final agreement must include an explicit Israeli pledge of no ambitions in Lebanese lands or resources. The Lebanese bet remains on what the coming hours in the corridors of the Italian capital will yield in terms of concrete results.

War will not achieve security, and stability can only be achieved through negotiation and the recognition that continued aggression only leads to more destruction.

A state of security tension prevailed in the southern and southeastern provinces of Iran following successive explosions that rocked several coastal and border cities. Official sources reported that four missiles fell in the outskirts of Konarak city, in Sistan and Baluchestan province, amid a state of alert in the region. This shelling coincided with intense US fighter jet activity observed in the city's airspace, raising questions about the nature of the ongoing military operations.

In the strategic Hormozgan province, reports varied regarding the nature of the explosions that occurred east of Bandar Abbas city, with initial reports indicating four violent explosions. While Iranian state television did not definitively determine the nature of these sounds, field sources suggested they might have resulted from air defense systems intercepting unknown drones attempting to penetrate the airspace, or from external projectiles targeting sites in the city's vicinity.

For its part, media sources close to Iranian decision-making circles reported six additional explosions distributed between the Konarak and Chabahar areas, indicating an expansion of the targeting scope. These developments come amid close monitoring of military movements in the region, especially with the increasing frequency of security incidents affecting Iranian infrastructure and border areas in recent hours.

Regarding naval movements, sources revealed the targeting of a number of ships described as 'violating' in the waters of the Strait of Hormuz, the most important shipping lane for global energy trade. The sources did not disclose the identity of the parties that carried out the attack or the nature of the targeted ships, but the incident further complicates the field situation amid mutual threats between Tehran and Washington regarding freedom of navigation and control over waterways.

This series of explosions and air and naval movements comes at a very sensitive time, as the world awaits the start of the blockade announced by the US Navy on Iranian ports. This blockade is scheduled to come into effect tomorrow evening, Tuesday, raising the likelihood of direct confrontation in the region, amid the insistence of international parties to impose strict restrictions on Iranian commercial and military movements.

It is not yet clear whether the sounds of the explosions were caused by enemy projectiles or by Iranian air defenses intercepting drones.

The US Central Command announced, on Monday evening, the launch of a new round of intensified air attacks against targets inside Iranian territory, for the third consecutive day. These direct military operations come based on explicit instructions from President Donald Trump, amid unprecedented tension in the region following the collapse of previous understandings between the two parties.

The US President confirmed in preemptive statements that the armed forces would carry out strong and decisive strikes against Iranian facilities in the coming hours. Trump justified this escalation by accusing Tehran of reneging on its commitments contained in the recently concluded memorandum of understanding, stressing that the United States would not tolerate protecting its interests and the security of international navigation.

For its part, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard took a major escalatory step by announcing the complete closure of the Strait of Hormuz to maritime navigation until further notice. This decision came after a night that witnessed a violent exchange of shelling between Washington and Tehran, which threatened to halt global energy supplies passing through this strategic waterway.

US military sources explained that the strikes, which began at 4:45 PM Eastern Time, accurately targeted military infrastructure. The targets included surveillance and monitoring systems, drone launch platforms, in addition to missile capability depots used by Tehran in its naval operations.

In contrast, local media in Iran reported violent explosions shaking Kish Island, located in the Arabian Gulf south of the country. This coincided with the Revolutionary Guard's announcement of the success of its air defenses in intercepting and shooting down a US 'MQ-1' drone that was flying in the region's airspace, reflecting the extent of the direct field engagement.

On the political front, Trump used his 'Truth Social' platform to announce the re-imposition of a comprehensive naval blockade on Iran, affirming that the Strait of Hormuz would remain accessible to all international vessels. The US decision excluded Iranian vessels or those belonging to entities cooperating with Tehran, in an attempt to tighten the economic and military noose on the Iranian regime.

Washington claims that these attacks come in self-defense and as a deterrent to Iranian movements that targeted commercial vessels in international waterways. The US administration believes that undermining Iranian military capabilities is the only way to ensure the safety of global trade and prevent continuous attacks on tankers in the Strait of Hormuz.

In a counter-reaction, Iranian forces launched shelling operations targeting what they described as military facilities belonging to the US army located in the territories of neighboring Arab countries. These attacks, according to reports from those countries, resulted in civilian casualties and caused severe damage to some vital non-military facilities.

Ibrahim Zulfiqari, spokesman for the 'Khatam al-Anbiya' central headquarters, stressed that his country would not allow any American interference in the affairs of the Strait of Hormuz under any circumstances. Zulfiqari warned that the Iranian armed forces would deal firmly with any vessel attempting to cross the strait without prior approval or adherence to the routes specified by Tehran.

Field data indicate that the region has entered a dark tunnel of open confrontations, as Tehran considered the recent military operations as evidence of its readiness for confrontation. With the continuation of US air strikes, international circles are awaiting the extent of the parties' ability to contain the situation before it slides into a comprehensive regional war.

These strikes will continue to inflict heavy losses on Iranian forces and undermine their ability to attack innocent civilians and commercial vessels in the Strait of Hormuz.

UN sources reported that the Hamas movement faces direct accusations of obstructing the distribution of vital humanitarian aid in the Gaza Strip, exacerbating the living crisis suffered by civilians amidst the ongoing war. Ramiz Alakbarov, Deputy Special Coordinator for the United Nations for the Middle East Peace Process, explained that these practices have disrupted the delivery of life-saving supplies and undermined the ability of international organizations to operate in the field.

The sources stated that humanitarian organizations were forced to suspend their operations last Saturday after armed individuals stormed a food distribution point in the northern areas of the Strip. This intrusion included a physical assault on two truck drivers inside a warehouse belonging to the World Food Programme, raising serious concerns about the safety of aid workers.

The UN official described these developments as more than isolated incidents, considering them part of an escalating pattern characterized by intimidation, violence, and attempts to target humanitarian operations. Alakbarov affirmed that such actions put the lives of aid workers at direct risk and limit the access of support to civilians facing extremely harsh humanitarian conditions throughout Gaza.

In response, the Hamas movement promptly and completely denied these accusations through a statement issued by its media office on Monday. The movement stated that what happened was not an assault or obstruction of humanitarian work, but rather a security measure aimed at enforcing the law and protecting aid from illegal exploitation operations that had been recently detected.

The movement clarified that its security forces acted based on reports and intelligence information indicating the presence of smuggled materials hidden inside UN aid packages. It noted the seizure of quantities of cigarettes and mobile phone components that had been secretly introduced, asserting that its intervention at the 'Abu Rashid' distribution center in Jabalia camp was solely to address these violations.

These tensions come at a time when nearly two million Palestinians are experiencing forced displacement as a result of intensive Israeli military operations that began in October 2023. The majority of the displaced are living in dilapidated tents and shelters within a narrow coastal strip, amidst severe restrictions on the entry of goods and basic necessities by Israeli forces controlling all crossings.

On the political front, international efforts to reach a ceasefire agreement remain stalled without achieving a real breakthrough to end the suffering of the population. Negotiations are faltering over fundamental issues, including the withdrawal of Israeli forces from the Strip and the disarmament of factions, amidst continued Israeli control over more than 60% of Gaza's area.

These incidents are not isolated, and they are absolutely unacceptable, reflecting an increasingly dangerous pattern of intimidation, violence, and obstruction.

Washington's Message

Washington – Said Arikat – 7/14/2026

In an unprecedented escalation of its stance on the International Criminal Court (ICC), the US State Department announced the launch of a comprehensive government campaign aimed at undermining the court and isolating it diplomatically, considering it a "direct threat to American sovereignty." This move comes at a time of escalating confrontation between Washington and the court, against the backdrop of the latter's pursuit of American officials and military personnel, as well as its investigations related to US allies, foremost among them Israel.

US State Department spokesperson, Tommy Pigott, stated that the US administration has launched "a broad campaign led by the State Department, with the participation of various government institutions, to dismantle the threat posed by the International Criminal Court to American sovereignty," emphasizing that "all diplomatic, political, and economic options are on the table to ensure that the court cannot target the United States or its citizens."

According to a State Department official who spoke on condition of anonymity, the campaign is not limited to imposing more pressure on the court, but also includes a wide-ranging diplomatic effort targeting member states of the Rome Statute, which established the court, with the aim of persuading them to withdraw from it and cease any financial or political support for the international judicial institution.

The official explained that the Secretary of State, his deputy, US ambassadors, and senior administration officials have already begun intensive contacts with governments around the world to rally international support against the court and work to isolate it politically, thereby preventing it from exercising its jurisdiction over American officials or soldiers.

The US administration, according to the same official, is considering a wide range of escalatory measures, including imposing travel bans and revoking visas for court officials and those working with it, expanding economic sanctions to include institutions and individuals cooperating with it, in addition to exerting direct pressure on governments that continue to support or cooperate with the court.

The official also explained that Washington is calling on non-member states of the court, such as the United States, to use their diplomatic influence to join this campaign, while demanding that countries hosting US military bases or relying on the US security umbrella declare their explicit rejection of the court's jurisdiction to prosecute American officials and military personnel.

The State Department indirectly warned that countries that continue to rely on US security support, while at the same time refusing to oppose the court, may face "increased scrutiny" in their relations with Washington, a reference interpreted by observers as implying the possibility of using political or economic pressure tools to force those countries to reconsider their position.

In statements with an unprecedented tone, Pigott considered the International Criminal Court to be "seeking to transform into a global body above states," accusing it of attempting to impose an "illegitimate legal system" on the United States, and said that his country "does not recognize the authority of international bureaucrats seeking to undermine America's more than 250-year history of self-governance," emphasizing that "American sovereignty is not and will not be negotiable."

This campaign reflects a shift from a policy of defending the American position towards the court to an offensive strategy aimed at reducing its influence and international standing. Instead of merely rejecting the court's jurisdiction, the US administration seeks to weaken it institutionally by reducing its base of supporting countries and drying up its funding sources, which may limit its ability to continue its investigations.

This move comes in the context of escalating tension between Washington and the International Criminal Court, especially after the court issued arrest warrants against high-ranking figures in international conflicts, and the accompanying increase in concerns within the US administration about the possibility of expanding the scope of investigations to include American officials or close allies of the United States.

Diplomats believe that the American campaign may place many European allies in a complex equation, as most of them are members of the International Criminal Court and consider it one of the fundamental pillars of the international legal system, while their security and military relations with the United States are largely dependent, which may make them vulnerable to increased pressure in the coming period.

The American campaign reveals a deeper conflict than just a legal dispute with the International Criminal Court; it reflects a competition between two visions of the international system. The first, adopted by Washington, grants the national state absolute sovereignty over its citizens and institutions, while the second believes that the most serious crimes should not remain immune from international accountability, regardless of the nationality of their perpetrators. Hence, the current confrontation does not target the court alone, but touches upon the future of international criminal justice and the limits of the authority of multilateral institutions in the face of major powers that refuse to submit themselves to independent international justice.

American pressure will not be limited to the court alone, but will extend to a wide network of allies who find themselves caught between their international legal obligations and their strategic interests with Washington. European countries, in particular, have supported the court since its establishment as one of the most important institutions of the international system after the Cold War, while at the same time relying on the American security umbrella. This contradiction is likely to create divisions within the Western bloc and make the court issue a new test for the balance of Western alliances and the future of the rules-based international order.

If Washington succeeds in persuading a significant number of countries to withdraw from the court or reduce their financial and political support for it, this could open the door to a redefinition of the relationship between international law and the balance of power. If the campaign fails, the United States may find itself facing an international institution that has gained greater momentum as a result of the pressures placed upon it. In both cases, the current confrontation appears to be an indicator of a new phase in which the competition between the logic of political power and the logic of international institutions is increasing, amidst growing questions about the future of the global legal system and its ability to withstand geopolitical pressures.

The fragile Memorandum of Understanding between the United States and Iran has entered a dark tunnel, with de-escalation efforts now in jeopardy following renewed hostilities and mutual accusations of reneging on commitments. US President Donald Trump explicitly announced the end of the preliminary ceasefire agreement, stating that Tehran does not respect the understandings reached recently.

Tensions escalated with hints from the US administration about the possibility of imposing military control over the Strait of Hormuz, the most important waterway for global energy trade. This escalation puts an end to short-term hopes that emerged with the signing of a 14-point Memorandum of Understanding last month, which aimed to stop the war and open maritime passages.

For its part, Tehran quickly blamed Washington for the crisis, with Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Ismail Baqaei accusing the United States of pushing the agreement to the brink through continuous violations. Iran believes that recent American moves represent a retreat from promises made during indirect negotiation rounds sponsored by regional parties.

The Strait of Hormuz stands out as a focal point for both field and legal conflict, as Tehran interprets the terms of the memorandum as an acknowledgment of its right to fully manage the waterway. In contrast, Washington completely rejects this interpretation, asserting that the agreement obliges Iran to facilitate the safe passage of commercial vessels without imposing any restrictions or fees.

The field witnessed a practical translation of this dispute, as Iranian forces fired on commercial ships, claiming they deviated from approved routes, leading to the renewed closure of the strait. The US Navy responded by confirming that the southern shipping lanes remain open, warning against any attempts to disrupt the flow of global oil and gas.

The economic crisis returned to the forefront after Washington's decision on July 7 to cancel Iranian crude export licenses, which Tehran considered a fatal blow to Article 10 of the agreement. The memorandum had promised broad exemptions, including banking and insurance services, as a lifeline for the Iranian economy, which has been exhausted by long-standing sanctions.

The frozen assets file further complicated the scene, especially concerning six billion dollars held in Qatari accounts. While Tehran insists on its absolute right to dispose of these funds, US Vice President J.D. Vance announced that Washington and Doha would oversee their expenditure to ensure they are used only for humanitarian goods.

Regionally, Iran linked the stability of the agreement to the situation in Lebanon, with Iranian Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf considering Israeli military operations in southern Lebanon a violation of the spirit of the understandings. Tehran believes that the ceasefire must be comprehensive to include the fronts where its allies have been engaged since last March.

Pakistani mediation is striving to defuse the explosion, with Islamabad issuing urgent appeals to both parties to return to the negotiating table and fulfill their signed commitments. However, the absence of direct communication channels and mutual distrust make the mediators' task almost impossible at present.

Political analysts pointed out that the ambiguity surrounding the drafting of the Memorandum of Understanding was a major reason for its rapid collapse, as thorny issues such as the nuclear program were left for later stages. This interpretive vacuum allowed each party to adopt a narrative that served its political and field interests at the expense of regional stability.

The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace believes that the memorandum is facing an existential crisis that requires an urgent secondary agreement to restore order. Experts affirmed that the fragility of the agreement reflects the depth of fundamental differences that previous meetings failed to address, making the region vulnerable to a new wave of military escalation.

History repeats itself in the eyes of observers, as the current situation recalls Trump's previous withdrawal from the nuclear deal in 2015, reinforcing Iranian suspicions towards any American promises. This legacy of distrust casts a shadow over any future attempt to build a sustainable security framework in the Gulf region.

Amidst these developments, the fate of international navigation in the Strait of Hormuz remains suspended between Iranian threats of closure and American vows of military control. This waterway, through which a fifth of global energy supplies pass, represents the fulcrum in any potential confrontation that could transcend the boundaries of political conflict into a direct clash.

In conclusion, it appears that the sixty-day deadline set by the memorandum for reaching a final agreement will pass without any significant diplomatic breakthrough. With no specific dates for new negotiation rounds, attention is turning to the field, which is now dictating the pace of stalled politics.

Trump: The preliminary agreement is over because Iranian officials are not adhering to what they negotiated, and we will control the Strait of Hormuz.

Official sources in Venezuela reported a tragic increase in the death toll from the two devastating earthquakes that struck the country on June 24th. According to a statement released by the President of the National Assembly, Jorge Rodríguez, the documented number of fatalities as of Monday stood at 4,561 people, reflecting the scale of the humanitarian catastrophe still afflicting the country.

Official reports clarified that the number of injured reached approximately 16,740, a toll that is subject to change as relief operations continue. These new figures update the previous count, which had stopped at 4,490 fatalities, indicating the retrieval of more victims from under the rubble of collapsed buildings in recent hours.

Regarding the missing persons file, Venezuelan authorities are still refraining from announcing final figures, despite shocking international estimates. The United Nations had estimated the number of missing at around 50,000 people immediately after the disaster, while other local and international estimates suggest that the number may approach 10,000 missing whose fate remains unknown.

The capital Caracas and the neighboring state of La Guaira were hit by two violent tremors measuring 7.2 and 7.5 on the Richter scale, separated by only 39 seconds. This rapid and sudden succession turned entire high-rise residential complexes into piles of rubble, doubling the difficulty of rescue operations and reaching survivors in the initial moments.

Government data indicates that the number of affected people who lost their homes or were directly impacted has exceeded 20,000. Specialized rescue teams from within Venezuela, in cooperation with international missions, are working around the clock to retrieve trapped bodies, under complex field conditions and widespread destruction that affected essential infrastructure in the stricken areas.

In terms of material losses, the government confirmed that more than 850 buildings and vital facilities were damaged by the violent earthquakes. Among these facilities, 190 buildings completely collapsed, posing enormous challenges for authorities in reconstruction efforts and housing thousands who have become homeless under these harsh circumstances.

The updated death toll on Monday reached 4,561 fatalities, with the number of injured remaining at approximately 16,740.

Pressure has escalated within the US Congress for the administration of President Donald Trump to disclose the results of military investigations related to an airstrike that targeted a girls' school in Iran. Senator Kirsten Gillibrand led a group of Democratic lawmakers in an explicit call for the US military to reveal the facts associated with the attack that occurred on February 28th.

In an official letter addressed to the US administration, the lawmakers emphasized the necessity of informing Congress and the public about the details of what transpired in the Iranian city of Minab on the first day of military operations. The group, comprising over 20 members, stressed the importance of presenting a clear plan to ensure that such catastrophic errors are not repeated in the future.

Reports from informed sources indicate that an initial internal investigation conducted by the US military in early March showed that US forces are the likely perpetrators of the raid. Despite these indications, the US Department of Defense remains cautious in its statements, asserting that investigations are still ongoing and have not yet concluded.

For their part, Iranian officials stated that the airstrike resulted in the deaths of at least 175 female students and faculty members, describing the incident as a war crime. This incident, if US responsibility is proven, would be the largest in terms of civilian casualties since the bombing of the Al-Amiriyah shelter in Iraq in 1991.

In previous testimony before the relevant authorities, Admiral Brad Cooper, head of Central Command, described the investigation as extremely complex. Cooper attributed this complexity to the geographical location of the school, which is situated next to an active cruise missile base belonging to the Iranian Revolutionary Guard.

Intelligence data suggests that those responsible for identifying military targets may have relied on outdated and inaccurate information when planning the raid. The school's website records showed that it is located in a security-sensitive area, which increased the likelihood of error in distinguishing between military and civilian targets.

Despite legislative demands, President Donald Trump publicly expressed doubts about the possibility of accurately determining responsibility amidst the military chaos that accompanied the beginning of the war. Trump previously stated that he had not seen conclusive evidence to make him believe that the missile that hit the school was American, questioning narratives that hold his military responsible.

In their letter, the lawmakers responded that the US military bears a legal and moral obligation to take all possible precautions to protect civilians in conflict zones. They affirmed that the department owes it to the victims' families and the American people to provide a transparent and convincing explanation for the failures that led to this human tragedy.

Addressed to Secretary of War Pete Hegseth and Admiral Cooper, the letter demanded that an unclassified copy of the final investigation results be delivered within a week. Lawmakers believe that withholding information from the public and parliament weakens accountability and undermines trust in US military operations abroad.

In a related context, a Pentagon official confirmed that the department is aware of the parliamentary interest in this issue but refuses to provide updates before all aspects of the technical investigation are completed. Military sources insist that the United States does not intentionally target civilians and that operations are managed according to strict protocols to minimize collateral damage.

This crisis highlights the challenges faced by the US administration in justifying civilian casualties during major armed conflicts. Observers fear that procrastination in revealing the facts will increase internal political tension, especially with the Democratic Party's insistence on exercising its oversight role over the executive branch.

Lawmakers concluded their letter by emphasizing that transparency is the only way to rectify structural flaws in targeting operations. They stressed that presenting a comprehensive reform plan is no less important than revealing the identity of those responsible for launching the missile that destroyed the Minab school.

There is no justification for withholding an unclassified report about what happened, what went wrong, and what the department is doing to prevent its recurrence.

The US Central Command announced the launch of a new wave of military attacks against targets deep inside Iran, which began at 4:45 PM Eastern Time. These operations come as part of the third consecutive night of direct military escalation, in a move that reflects unprecedented tension in the region.

In a related context, US President Donald Trump revealed during a media interview that Tehran will face violent and intense military strikes in the coming hours and tomorrow. Trump confirmed that he officially notified Congress of the resumption of combat operations, stressing at the same time that the option of reaching a political agreement with the Iranian regime is still on the table despite the drums of war.

On the ground, media sources reported loud explosions in the coastal city of Bandar Abbas in southern Iran. While local authorities confirmed hearing the explosions, they have not yet determined the nature of the targets hit or the extent of the resulting damage, amid a state of security and military alert in the region.

Iran will be subjected to strong strikes today and tomorrow, but reaching an agreement is still possible.

The Yemeni capital, Sana'a, was subjected today, Monday, to a series of violent airstrikes that targeted vital facilities at Sana'a International Airport. Field sources reported that at least four raids hit the airport premises, while warplanes continued to fly in the skies, raising a state of widespread security alert in the city controlled by the Houthi group.

For his part, the military spokesman for the Houthi group announced that the raids directly targeted the airport's infrastructure, considering this attack a dangerous shift in the course of the conflict. The group confirmed through its media platforms that this operation effectively means the end of the de-escalation phase that was prevalent, vowing that this targeting will not pass without a deterrent military response in the near future.

In contrast, the Ministry of Defense of the internationally recognized Yemeni government clarified that the military operation was precise and targeted. The ministry indicated in a statement that the bombing targeted the airport runway to prevent an Iranian plane from landing, stressing that the move came to protect national sovereignty and prevent the arrival of unauthorized shipments to the armed group in Sana'a.

In a related context, the Yemeni Minister of Information directed direct accusations at the Houthi group of detaining a plane belonging to the International Committee of the Red Cross inside the airport. The minister explained that the group refuses to allow the plane to take off, and is detaining its pilot and co-pilot, which further complicates the humanitarian and human rights scene in light of the recent military escalation witnessed in the country.

This field escalation comes at a time when diplomatic efforts are suffering from a state of stagnation, as the government continues to carry out its duties from the interim capital, Aden. These raids raise international concerns about the return of comprehensive confrontations, especially after the Houthis' explicit announcement of stopping work on previous truce agreements, which puts the region before open scenarios of confrontation.

Targeting Sana'a Airport will not pass without retaliation and punishment, and we officially announce the end of the de-escalation phase.

Washington's Message

Washington – Said Arikat – 7/13/2026

The confrontation between the United States and Iran entered a new phase of escalation after US President Donald Trump announced on Monday the re-imposition of what he described as an "Iranian blockade," preventing Iranian ships from entering or leaving the Arabian Gulf, while keeping the Strait of Hormuz open to other commercial and international vessels.

Trump said in a post on the "Truth Social" platform that the Strait of Hormuz "is open and will remain open, whether Iran agrees or not," stressing that all countries will enjoy the right to "fair and open use" of the strait, with the exception of Iran.

The US President announced that the United States will, from now on, become the "guardian of the Strait of Hormuz," indicating that his administration will impose a 20 percent fee on shipments crossing the strait, as compensation for the costs incurred by Washington to provide security and protect navigation in this vital maritime passage.

In a phone interview with "Fox News," Trump went further, announcing that the United States "is managing the Strait of Hormuz," and that US forces will protect and perhaps operate it, adding that his country "should receive financial compensation" for this mission.

These American statements came hours after military tension escalated in the Gulf, where Iran reiterated that it had closed the Strait of Hormuz following a new wave of American strikes targeting Iranian military sites, leading to increased fears about the security of one of the world's most important maritime passages, through which about a fifth of global oil trade passes.

The Central Command of Khatam al-Anbiya Headquarters, the highest joint military command body in Iran, responded by rejecting any American role in managing the strait, stressing that any attempt by US forces to cross without Iran's approval "will be met with a strong response." It also warned regional countries against cooperating with the United States, considering any support for Washington as an "act of war against Iran," and threatening that any expansion of the war would affect all countries in the region.

In contrast, Germany called for an immediate return to negotiations and a resumption of the ceasefire, expressing concern about Iranian attacks on commercial vessels and emphasizing the need to ensure freedom of navigation and the resumption of international shipping traffic through the Strait of Hormuz.

This escalation comes at a time when the interim agreement signed by Washington and Tehran last month faces an unprecedented crisis. The agreement aimed to reopen the strait and halt military operations, in exchange for resuming negotiations for sixty days to reach a broader understanding on the nuclear file and security issues. However, the renewed military strikes and mutual escalation practically threaten the collapse of the agreement and a return to the logic of open confrontation.

Trump's statements reflect a remarkable shift in the American approach, as the discussion is no longer limited to protecting international navigation but has extended to declaring a direct American role in managing one of the world's most sensitive maritime passages, which Tehran views as an infringement on its sovereignty and the security balances in the Gulf.

While Washington insists on its right to protect international trade, Iran considers the Strait of Hormuz to be within its immediate security environment, and that any attempt to impose external management on it represents a crossing of red lines, which portends further military and political escalation in a region considered a major artery for global energy markets.

Trump's statements reveal a shift in American policy from protecting freedom of navigation to attempting to impose a new strategic reality in the Gulf, granting Washington a permanent role in managing the Strait of Hormuz. If these statements are translated into practical measures, they will raise broad legal and political questions about the legitimacy of one country managing an international waterway, and will also increase the likelihood of military friction with Iran, which considers the strait part of its national security. This means that any miscalculation could turn the current crisis into a regional confrontation that is difficult to contain.

The imposition of American fees on ships crossing the Strait of Hormuz also represents an unprecedented precedent in the management of international maritime passages, as it links the provision of security with the imposition of a financial charge on global trade. This step, if implemented, could provoke objections from major trading powers and energy-importing countries, which may see it as an infringement on the principle of freedom of navigation. It could also push many countries to seek alternative security arrangements or enhance multilateral maritime cooperation away from the unilateral dominance of any international power.

Perhaps the most dangerous aspect of the current escalation is that it comes at a time when the interim agreement between Washington and Tehran provided a window, however limited, for resuming the diplomatic path. Today, however, the exchange of military strikes, the re-closure of the Strait of Hormuz, and mutual threats are all indications that the logic of military deterrence has once again taken precedence over the logic of negotiation. If this path continues, the region may enter a long phase of crisis management instead of resolution, with direct implications for energy markets, the global economy, and Gulf security.

On July 13, 1985, the world witnessed an extraordinary event where music was not just entertainment, but a resounding humanitarian cry. Over 160,000 people gathered at Wembley Stadium in London and John F. Kennedy Stadium in Philadelphia, while more than a billion viewers were glued to their screens to watch the largest live broadcast in history at the time.

The event was named 'Live Aid' and was primarily aimed at raising funds to combat the devastating famine that struck Ethiopia. It was not just a concert, but an ambitious attempt to transform celebrity fame into an effective relief tool, and a window through which the world could see a humanitarian crisis that had long remained in the shadows.

The musical marathon lasted for 16 continuous hours, with major stars performing alternately on two stages separated by the Atlantic Ocean. The organizers succeeded in breaking geographical barriers, as the event provided a unique opportunity to raise awareness among vast numbers of people about the necessity of acting to eliminate hunger in Africa.

The concert remains present in collective memory, especially with the legendary performance of the band 'Queen' led by Freddie Mercury. History also recorded the journey of artist Phil Collins, who used a Concorde aircraft to cross the ocean and appear on both the London and Philadelphia stages on the same day, embodying the slogan 'one world'.

Behind these lights, Ethiopia was suffering from a famine that extended between 1983 and 1985, where drought factors intertwined with armed conflicts. The policies of Mengistu Haile Mariam's government, including forced population displacement and restrictions on economic activities, contributed to an unprecedented exacerbation of the humanitarian catastrophe.

The spark for action began when Irish musician Bob Geldof watched television reports showing the tragedy of the hungry in northern Ethiopia. Geldof collaborated with Midge Ure to produce the song 'Do They Know It's Christmas?', which brought together Britain's most famous artists and achieved amazing popularity, paving the way for the larger concert.

Donations poured in generously during the broadcast hours, with the final tally exceeding 100 million British pounds. This financial success proved that the viewer can transform from a passive follower of news to an active contributor in responding to major international crises.

'Live Aid' established a new model for humanitarian work driven by stardom and television imagery, where artists attract the public, who in turn pressure governments. This formula later became a common approach in confronting earthquakes, epidemics, and natural disasters around the world.

Despite its success, the concert faced sharp criticism regarding the way Africa was portrayed as a helpless continent awaiting a Western savior. Ethiopian voices were absent from the main platforms, and an entire continent was reduced to the image of 'hungry Africa', which distanced complex political factors from the core of public debate.

Long-standing questions were raised about the fate of the funds and ensuring their delivery to those in need under an authoritarian military rule. Despite claims that the money was used to buy weapons, subsequent investigations and official apologies from media institutions confirmed that there was no evidence to prove the diversion of aid for military purposes.

In 2005, Bob Geldof returned to organize 'Live 8', but this time with a political goal of pressuring the G8 leaders. The aim was to demand the cancellation of debts for poor countries and an increase in aid, recognizing that poverty requires radical political decisions, not just food shipments.

Experts believe that it is difficult to replicate the 'Live Aid' experience in the current era due to audience fragmentation across digital platforms and algorithms. However, the equation set by the concert still stands, with artists' social media accounts being used to mobilize rapid humanitarian support.

The famines and wars did not end after the lights of the Wembley stage went out, but the concert left a lasting institutional legacy. The 'Band Aid' charitable trust is still registered and active in Britain, providing annual grants of millions of pounds to combat poverty and disease in Africa.

In conclusion, 'Live Aid' remains a lesson in the limits and power of human empathy simultaneously, confirming that popular culture can move mountains. But it also reminds us that true aid requires understanding political contexts and involving those affected in shaping their future away from tutelage.

Live Aid proved that the public is not entirely helpless in the face of a disaster in a distant country, and that popular culture can impose a humanitarian issue on the media and governments.

US President Donald Trump announced today, Monday, the immediate and comprehensive return of the naval blockade on Iran, in an escalatory step aimed at tightening the economic and military noose on Tehran. Trump indicated that the United States would begin imposing financial fees of up to 20 percent on all goods shipped through the strategic Strait of Hormuz.

The US President justified this decision by stating that his country had protected the international shipping lane for more than five decades without receiving financial compensation, while Iran was the biggest beneficiary of the revenues. Trump affirmed that US forces would take effective control of the strait to ensure what he described as 'navigation security' in exchange for these new fees.

Trump revealed the behind-the-scenes of marathon negotiations that took place on Sunday and lasted for about 11 hours with the Iranian side, but they ended in failure. He claimed that Tehran backed out of a draft agreement that was ready for signing, noting that the Iranians had violated nearly ten previous agreements with his administration during past periods.

In contrast, the Iranian response was swift and firm through the 'Khatam al-Anbiya' headquarters, the supreme joint military command, which affirmed that it would not allow Washington to interfere in the administration of the Strait of Hormuz. The Iranian statement stressed that any American attempt to regulate transit traffic outside the routes specified by Tehran would be met with fierce military resistance.

The Iranian military command issued a strong warning to the countries of the region, considering that any cooperation with American moves would be classified as a hostile act and direct war against Iran. Tehran clarified that the scope of the conflict would not remain confined if confrontation erupted, but its sparks would reach all countries that facilitate the tasks of the US army.

For its part, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard warned that American intervention in the waterway seriously threatens the stability of global oil supplies. The Revolutionary Guard affirmed in press statements that Tehran's authority over the Strait of Hormuz is a geographical and military reality that cannot be bypassed or subjected to external dictates.

On the ground, Iranian medical and official sources reported casualties as a result of a wave of attacks launched by US forces at dawn on Monday on sites in Khuzestan and Isfahan provinces. According to initial reports, four people were killed and 14 others injured in strikes that targeted vital facilities and residential areas in the cities of Mahshahr, Abadan, and Na'in.

Local sources quoted the Deputy Governor of Khuzestan, Waliullah Hayati, as saying that one of the American shells hit an irrigation water pumping station in the city of Mahshahr, killing a security officer. The city of Abadan also witnessed another shell fall, killing two people and injuring three others in the most violent field escalation in months.

In Isfahan province in the center of the country, local authorities confirmed that one person was killed and seven others injured in an attack that targeted the district of Na'in before dawn today. These strikes come within what Washington described as a new wave of attacks in response to the targeting of commercial ships in international waterways in recent days.

Iran's response to the American shelling was not delayed, as Tehran announced the implementation of missile strikes targeting positions and concentrations of American forces in several Arab countries. The Iranian missile barrages included military bases and facilities in Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, and Jordan, in response to the attacks that targeted Iranian territory.

The region has been in a state of maximum military alert since the start of the American-Israeli aggression against Iran in February of this year. International fears are growing of the situation sliding into a comprehensive regional war that could lead to a complete closure of the Strait of Hormuz, which would cause a global economic catastrophe and a crazy rise in energy prices.

Observers believe that Trump's announcement of imposing fees for passage in Hormuz represents a precedent in international maritime law and could lead to a direct clash with major oil-importing powers. Diplomatic efforts by some regional parties to de-escalate continue, but the language of military escalation and mutual threats remains dominant in the current scene.

We will control the Strait of Hormuz and charge fees for guarding it. We have protected the strait for more than 50 years for free while the Iranians got all the money.

The Yemeni Ministry of Defense announced today, Monday, the execution of a strike targeting Sana'a International Airport runway, as a preemptive measure to prevent an Iranian plane from landing in the capital, which is under the control of the Houthi group. The ministry confirmed in an official statement that this move comes within the framework of protecting national sovereignty and preventing any unauthorized aerial violations.

In contrast, the Houthi group announced that the Iranian plane later managed to land at Hodeidah Airport, located on the Red Sea coast in the west of the country. The group indicated that this development represents an effective end to the de-escalation phase that the country witnessed during the past period, holding the government responsible for the repercussions.

The Minister of Transport in the Houthi government clarified that the plane that landed in Hodeidah was transporting a number of wounded and sick Yemenis and those stranded abroad, in addition to what he described as the 'official delegation of the Republic of Yemen'. Media outlets affiliated with the group broadcast scenes documenting the moment the plane arrived at the runway amidst security measures.

For his part, the head of the Yemeni Presidential Leadership Council, Rashad Al-Alimi, accused the Houthi group of systematically undermining peace opportunities and rejecting all international initiatives aimed at stabilizing the country. Al-Alimi stressed that the group continues to implement external agendas that harm Yemeni and Arab national security alike.

Al-Alimi directed the Yemeni armed forces to raise combat readiness to its maximum level, calling for full vigilance to confront any emergency. He also demanded that all necessary measures be taken to prevent the recurrence of what he described as Iranian and Houthi violations of Yemeni sovereignty, affirming that the state will not tolerate protecting its airspace.

Despite the warning tone, Al-Alimi indicated that he does not seek to expand the scope of direct military confrontation at the present time, considering that being drawn into escalation is an Iranian goal par excellence. He explained that the government is trying to avoid sliding into a comprehensive war that serves Tehran's regional interests and increases the suffering of the Yemeni people.

In a related context, the General Authority of Civil Aviation issued an urgent circular to close all Yemeni airports to air traffic completely until further notice. This decision comes as a precautionary measure in light of escalating security tensions and fears of targeting vital facilities.

Field assessments indicate that the Yemeni scene is heading towards a new round of armed conflict, as observers believe that the targeting of Sana'a Airport may be followed by a military response from the Houthi group. Expectations are growing for the resumption of missile attacks and drone strikes that had stopped for a relatively long period.

Informed sources reported that the most likely scenario in the coming hours is the return of mutual shelling between the warring parties, which brings back memories of the harsh years of war. Analysts believe that the Houthi group may target vital facilities in response to what it considered a government escalation supported by the coalition.

Sources also suggested that the upcoming wave of escalation may include a return of threats to international navigation and ships in the Red Sea, which may necessitate a broad international response. These developments are considered a major setback for the diplomatic efforts led by regional and international parties to stabilize the truce.

Observers of Yemeni affairs believe that the Houthi group's priority in responding may be directed towards Saudi territory, which officials in the group hinted at after the incident. This possibility opens the door for direct intervention by coalition forces, which could bring the conflict back to square one and end hopes for a political settlement.

The situation in Yemen remains dependent on the coming hours and the ability of international parties to contain the situation before it fully explodes. While the government insists on its right to protect its sovereignty, the Houthis see the targeting of airports as a clear declaration of the return of a comprehensive war that could burn everything in its path.

It was directed not to expand the scope of the confrontation to achieve the goal that Iran seeks, which uses Yemen as a card in its regional conflict.

Diplomatic preparations are accelerating for the sixth round of Lebanese-Israeli negotiations in the Italian capital, Rome, amidst a field atmosphere charged with continuous violations. Informed sources reported that Israeli aggressions in southern Lebanon have not ceased, with drones continuing to carry out scattered raids and drop sound bombs to terrorize civilians returning to their destroyed villages.

On the official level, Lebanon stresses the necessity of adhering to what was agreed upon in the previous Washington negotiations, especially regarding the comprehensive Israeli withdrawal timeline. Beirut demands the deployment of the Lebanese Army in border areas and the activation of what are known as 'experimental zones' as a first step towards restoring full sovereignty over the occupied territories.

In contrast, data from Beirut indicates clear Israeli procrastination in implementing these entitlements, as the occupation has so far refused to specify the names of the villages that will be included in the first phase of the withdrawal. The Israeli government is also evading setting a clear timeline for the redeployment process, raising doubts about its true intentions regarding sustainable calm.

The Lebanese state insists that the 'experimental zones' be villages still under direct occupation, to ensure the complete withdrawal of Israeli forces from them before the entry of Lebanese Army units. This vision aims to create a security model that allows for the return of displaced residents and paves the way for expanding the scope of withdrawal to include all disputed border points.

For its part, the Lebanese Army assured the International Monitoring Committee on the Ceasefire of its full readiness for immediate deployment in any area evacuated by the occupation forces. However, the Israeli side is trying to impose new conditions outside the framework of understandings, including demanding that the Lebanese Army enter certain areas to test its ability to deal with the field reality there, which was met with a categorical Lebanese rejection.

In the context of diplomatic activity, a high-level American military delegation continues its meetings with the army leadership in Beirut to follow up on the technical details of the security understandings. These meetings coincide with intensive political contacts aimed at overcoming obstacles before the start of the Rome round, amid international hopes of containing the escalation and preventing the region from sliding into a wider confrontation.

A state of extreme caution prevails among decision-makers in Lebanon, fearing an Israeli reversal of existing understandings, exploiting the regional tension between Washington and Tehran. Political sources believe that the pressure exerted by the American administration on Tel Aviv has not yet translated into tangible practical steps on the ground, especially regarding the timeline for military withdrawal.

Lebanese sources confirm that American pressure on Israel has not yet achieved practical results, neither in terms of defining the experimental zones nor in setting a timeline for their implementation.

Tehran issued a strong warning to the United States, asserting that it would not adhere to the existing memorandum of understanding unless Washington fulfilled its reciprocal commitments. This stance comes amidst a field escalation, the most severe since the ceasefire agreement came into effect last April, threatening the collapse of fragile diplomatic channels between the two parties.

Ismail Baqaei, spokesman for the Iranian Foreign Ministry, affirmed that his country would adopt the principle of reciprocity in implementing international obligations. Baqaei clarified during a press conference that Tehran would not hesitate to backtrack on its steps if the other party continued to shirk its responsibilities, noting at the same time that mediation channels remain active in an attempt to contain the situation.

On the ground, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard announced the complete closure of the Strait of Hormuz until further notice, preventing the passage of any vessel through this strategic waterway. The Iranian military command justified this measure by the necessity of stopping what it described as American interventions, especially after a ship was detected taking an unauthorized route and was directly targeted.

In contrast, US President Donald Trump downplayed the significance of the Iranian announcements, asserting that the Strait of Hormuz remains open to global commercial navigation. The United States insists on ensuring freedom of navigation in the passage through which a large percentage of global energy supplies pass, rejecting Iranian conditions that impose prior coordination for transit.

Regarding shipping traffic, ship tracking data revealed a sharp and unprecedented decline in the number of tankers that crossed the strait in recent hours. The company 'Kepler' recorded the passage of only six ships on Sunday, the lowest number observed in over a month, reflecting the growing concern among international shipping companies.

The ships that risked crossing included the massive Iranian oil tanker 'Humanity' loaded with two million barrels, in addition to a Kuwaiti tanker carrying petroleum derivatives. It was noted that most of these tankers resorted to turning off their transponders to avoid detection or targeting amidst escalating security tensions.

Technical reports also indicated a complete absence of LNG tankers from the strait over the weekend, a dangerous indicator of the impact on supply chains. Only one tanker belonging to the UAE's 'ADNOC' company left the region heading towards India, amidst close monitoring of naval movements in the Gulf.

Militarily, the US Central Command announced a series of concentrated airstrikes against targets inside Iranian territory. US forces used precision-guided munitions to strike dozens of sites, a move described as a response to ongoing threats to navigation and American interests in the region.

For its part, the Revolutionary Guard revealed the implementation of nighttime naval interception operations that led to the detention of two unidentified vessels inside the strait. Military sources explained that the detention operation was carried out by disabling the ships' electronic systems, which raises concerns about the strait turning into a direct technical and military confrontation arena.

Every time the other party fails to fulfill its obligations, we will fail to fulfill ours... We will continue to operate in this manner.

Israeli violations of the ceasefire agreement in the Gaza Strip continued, as medical and field sources reported the martyrdom of a Palestinian and the injury of three others, including a child, in separate attacks launched by the occupation forces on Monday. These field developments come amid the continued systematic violations of the agreement in force since October 10, 2025, which threatens the fragile calm that residents are trying to cling to.

In details of the aggression, an Israeli drone launched an airstrike targeting an inhabited house in the Birkat Al-Lawz area in Al-Maghazi camp in the central Gaza Strip. The direct shelling resulted in the martyrdom of a child who was inside the house, while the explosion caused extensive material damage to the surrounding properties, amid a state of panic among citizens in the crowded camp.

Coinciding with the Al-Maghazi raid, Israeli army forces opened fire with their machine guns towards citizens' homes in Al-Tuffah neighborhood, east of Gaza City. Medical sources at the Baptist Hospital stated that ambulance crews transported three wounded, including a child, who were injured by occupation bullets while they were near their homes, and their injuries were described as varied.

Official data issued by the Ministry of Health in Gaza indicates that the extent of Israeli violations since the signing of the ceasefire agreement has reached record levels, with about 1,100 martyrs and more than 3,500 injured. These figures confirm that the occupation has not adhered to the terms of the truce, continuing to target civilians in various governorates of the Strip on a daily basis.

It is worth noting that the Gaza Strip has been experiencing an unprecedented humanitarian catastrophe since the start of the genocide war in October 2023, which has left more than 73,000 martyrs and 173,000 injured. The ongoing military operations have also led to the destruction of nearly 90% of the infrastructure and civilian facilities, making large areas of the Strip uninhabitable due to the lack of medical and relief capabilities.

An Israeli drone targeted a house in the Birkat Al-Lawz area in Al-Maghazi camp in the central Gaza Strip, which led to the martyrdom of a child.