Areas of southern Lebanon witnessed a fierce wave of Israeli airstrikes this Saturday morning, heavily concentrated on Iqlim al-Tuffah and Jezzine district. Field sources reported more than ten raids targeting various points, including the Qatrani area and Wadi Barghaz, leading to a dense rise of smoke plumes covering the skies of the targeted areas.

The aerial operations extended to the vicinity of Blat town in Marjayoun district, in addition to a series of concentrated raids between the towns of Rihan and Sajed. This bombing coincided with intensive low-altitude flights by Israeli warplanes over the Beqaa regions in the east of the country, causing a state of anxiety and anticipation among the public.

For its part, the Israeli occupation army announced that its attacks targeted what it described as 'terrorist infrastructure' belonging to Hezbollah, pointing to the striking of missile launch platforms and underground tunnel openings. The military statement claimed that these operations aim to prevent the party from restoring its military capabilities or rearming to ensure the removal of any future threat.

In a related context, media sources confirmed the targeting of eight military headquarters belonging to the 'Radwan Force,' which represents Hezbollah's elite forces, with precise strikes deep in the south. These moves come within the framework of a declared Israeli strategy to limit the party's ability to launch widespread attacks if regional conditions deteriorate.

On the other side of the border, settlement councils in northern Israel issued urgent warnings to residents about the need to be prepared to hear loud explosions resulting from air force activity. These warnings reflect the scale of the ongoing military operation and the expectation of potential reactions from the Lebanese side to the continuous escalation.

In a remarkable field development, news reports revealed the start of a joint Israeli-American attack on Saturday morning, a step indicating high-level military coordination between the two parties. This move came after reinforcements of American fighter jets arrived at Israeli bases in preparation for confronting any escalatory scenarios in the region.

Israeli political circles link these raids to the escalating tensions with Tehran, as Tel Aviv places its attacks in a preemptive context to prevent Hezbollah from intervening. Through these strikes, Israel seeks to send a clear deterrent message that any involvement of the party in a regional conflict will be met with a devastating military response.

Current data indicate that the region has entered a new phase of direct confrontation, especially with the involvement of American forces in the ongoing operations. International circles are cautiously monitoring the repercussions of this joint attack and its impact on the stability of the northern front and the possibility of it sliding into an all-out war.

It is worth noting that Israel had repeatedly threatened to target the Lebanese state and its vital facilities if Hezbollah decided to engage in any military confrontation between the United States and Iran. Today's raids confirm the seriousness of these threats in light of the unprecedented military buildup witnessed in the region.

We will not allow Hezbollah to rebuild its strength or rearm, and we will continue to work to remove every threat.

The Israeli Minister of Security announced this Saturday morning the launch of a preemptive military operation targeting Iranian territory. This announcement coincided with field reports of violent explosions and rising smoke plumes from the center of the capital, Tehran, in a dramatic development that portends a widespread regional confrontation.

Media sources reported that sirens blared in wide areas within Israel, while the Home Front Command issued new and strict instructions to settlers, in anticipation of any retaliatory action that Tehran or its allies in the region might launch. These developments come at a time when American military buildup in the Middle East has reached its peak, reflecting coordination or preparation for comprehensive war scenarios.

On the ground, informed sources confirmed that the explosions in Tehran caused a state of major security alert, while the nature of the targets hit by the Israeli attack remains unclear at this moment. This attack follows a series of mutual threats and conflicting indications about the possibility of reaching a diplomatic de-escalation, which appears to have collapsed in favor of direct military escalation.

Israel launched a preemptive attack against Iran.

Amnesty International confirmed that since last December, Israeli authorities have begun an unprecedented escalation in their settlement activities in the occupied West Bank, including East Jerusalem. In a recent report, the organization clarified that these moves come through a package of systematic decisions aimed at entrenching the annexation of Palestinian territories and imposing them as a fait accompli on the international community.

Recent Israeli steps included issuing tenders for the construction of new settlement units, approving the establishment of additional settlements, and significantly expanding existing ones. The organization also monitored legal and administrative measures related to registering vast areas of Palestinian land under the name 'state lands' for easy control later.

The report highlighted a tender issued on December 10 for the construction of 3,401 housing units in the strategic 'E1' area located east of occupied Jerusalem. This plan aims to expand the 'Ma'ale Adumim' settlement and geographically connect it to East Jerusalem, threatening to sever the geographical contiguity of the West Bank.

The international organization warned that the implementation of this settlement project would inevitably lead to the division of the West Bank into two separate parts, undermining any chance of establishing a contiguous Palestinian state. This expansion would also lead to the forced displacement of many Bedouin Palestinian communities that have resided in that area for many decades.

For her part, Erika Guevara-Rosas, an official at Amnesty International, stated that Israel is disregarding all UN resolutions and the legal opinion issued by the International Court of Justice. She pointed out that the continued settlement expansion represents a blatant challenge to international law and contributes to entrenching an 'apartheid' system that stifles the lives of Palestinians.

In terms of numbers, the Israeli Security Cabinet recently approved plans to establish 19 new settlements, bringing the number of settlements approved over the past three years to 68. These figures reflect an alarming acceleration in the pace of land seizure compared to previous periods.

Current statistics indicate the presence of about 210 official settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, inhabited by approximately 750,000 Israeli settlers. These settlement blocs act as tools for military and civilian control over natural resources and the remaining geographical areas for Palestinians.

The organization quoted Israeli human rights sources as saying that 2025 alone saw the establishment of 86 new settlement outposts, most of which took on a pastoral or agricultural character to control vast areas of pastures. These outposts are usually accompanied by an escalation in settler attacks against Palestinian farmers to intimidate them and force them to leave.

In a dangerous administrative development, the Israeli Civil Administration announced last January the allocation of 694 dunams of land in the towns of the northern West Bank as state lands. This was followed by a government decision to allocate 244 million shekels to transfer land registration powers in Area 'C' to the Israeli Ministry of Justice, a step that paves the way for changing the legal status of the West Bank.

On the ground, human rights organizations condemned an attack carried out by masked settlers on activists in the village of Qusra in the northern West Bank using sticks and sharp tools. The assault resulted in two people being injured and taken to the hospital, amid complete silence from the Israeli security forces present in the area.

Human rights sources described these attacks as organized 'state violence' and 'terrorism' practiced under official cover to accelerate land seizure operations. These attacks fall within a broader strategy aimed at tightening the noose on the Palestinian presence in areas classified as 'C' and emptying them of their original inhabitants.

International and local organizations concluded that the escalation in the pace of settlement coincides with legislative changes that grant settlers broad powers in planning, construction, and water. These data confirm that the current Israeli government is moving forward with a plan for the de facto annexation of the West Bank, ignoring all international warnings about the repercussions of this policy.

Israel continues to brazenly expand settlements, defying international law and entrenching an apartheid system that destroys the lives of Palestinians.

The American capital, Washington, witnessed the launch of the first meeting of the Peace Council established by President Donald Trump, amidst regional and international anticipation for the outcomes of this new entity. Despite Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's announcement of Tel Aviv's joining this council, he chose not to personally attend the inaugural discussions.\n\nPolitical assessments suggest that Netanyahu's absence may stem from his desire to avoid public appearances alongside leaders of countries with strained relations with Israel, such as Turkey and Qatar. It appears that mutual diplomatic sensitivities prevented direct participation of the Israeli leadership in these foundational sessions.\n\nNadav Tamir, CEO of J Street, considered the establishment of this council a fundamental shift in the structure of the international arena and regional crisis management. He explained that Trump's ambitions go beyond merely rebuilding the Gaza Strip to designing a new and more effective international framework.\n\nTamir believes that the council seeks to work in parallel with the United Nations, focusing on more flexible and limited membership executive mechanisms to ensure rapid achievement. The first meeting raises serious questions about the ability of this body to maintain a long-term ceasefire in Gaza.\n\nAnalytical sources confirmed that the fundamental question is not about the council's ability to replace the United Nations, but rather how to integrate different international mechanisms to achieve stability. The council has the potential to create regional momentum and diplomatic movement that is essential for both the Israeli and Palestinian sides at this stage.\n\n The author emphasized the necessity of not putting Israel in a position to choose between different international arenas, but rather to move intelligently in all available paths. Joining a strong regional alliance will contribute to empowering reconstruction efforts and ensuring regional stability under legitimate international cover.\n\nTamir explained that the current moment represents a unique historical opportunity, and the Israeli leadership must seize it instead of missing it under internal pressures. This requires a deep understanding of the geopolitical shifts brought about by the recent war in the Gaza Strip and their repercussions on Israeli national security.\n\nThe Israeli diplomat called for the urgent international and regional situation to be translated into a clear and defined political path that cannot be reversed. This path must ultimately lead to the establishment of a demilitarized Palestinian state that ensures the integration of all parties into the new Middle East system.\n\nThe analysis indicated that what is happening in Gaza is no longer a local matter, but its repercussions are echoing throughout the region and affecting major global policies. The establishment of the Peace Council is an explicit recognition of the need for radical solutions that go beyond the temporary security palliatives adopted in past decades.\n\nTamir warned against "putting spokes in the wheels" of the proposed political arrangements, urging the Israeli government not to shy away from its historical obligations. The world today is moving as one towards strengthening regional stability on the basis of a two-state solution as the only sustainable option.\n\nThe article affirmed that the movements, both within the Peace Council and in the corridors of the United Nations, are heading in one direction: ending the conflict through a comprehensive political settlement. This settlement alone is capable of achieving the lasting peace that the peoples of the region desire, away from repeated cycles of violence.\n\nIsraeli circles express muted concerns about the nature of the role Trump will play through this council, especially regarding imposing his political will on the Gaza issue. There is a growing conviction that Washington may impose specific projects that require Tel Aviv to make fundamental and painful concessions.\n\nThe Peace Council represents the beginning of a new chapter in regional diplomacy, where economic interests intertwine with security and political arrangements. Israel finds itself facing a real test of balancing its relations with the American administration and its right-wing vision for managing the conflict with the Palestinians.\n\nIn conclusion, Tamir concludes that international pressure will not stop at de-escalation, but will push towards final and comprehensive solutions. Recognition of a Palestinian state has become an integral part of any future vision proposed by the international community, including close allies in Washington.\n\nThe establishment of the council expresses widespread recognition of what is happening in Gaza, as it does not remain in Gaza, but resonates throughout the region and beyond.

Mahmoud Fatafta: These claims are baseless and come within the context of the raging Israeli war on everything Palestinian, especially the agricultural sector.

Jamal Al-Deek: The Israeli defamation of Palestinian agricultural products represents a new stage in attempts to control the land and weaken citizens' attachment to it.

Abbas Melhem: These allegations are probably aimed at imposing the application of Israeli food law on the West Bank as part of escalating steps towards gradual annexation.

Munjed Abu Jaish: The primary goal of these allegations is to exert additional pressure on farmers, especially in Area C, where agricultural activity is concentrated.

Salah Haniyeh: Baseless claims that are not based on scientific foundations and aim to cause anxiety among consumers by promoting the idea that vegetables contain substances that may cause serious diseases.

Majdi Abdullah: Food safety files may be used as a competitive pressure tool, especially during seasons when competition for agricultural products is high.

Ramallah - Exclusive to "Al-Quds" -

At a time when the Palestinian agricultural sector is struggling to play an essential role in supporting the local economy, Israeli claims have emerged about the presence of pesticide residues in Palestinian vegetables, which has sparked a wide discussion about the objectives of these claims and their potential repercussions on farmers and markets.

Officials and agricultural specialists confirm, in separate interviews with "Al-Quds", that Palestinian agricultural production is subject to regular monitoring procedures and laboratory tests according to approved standards, while agriculture constitutes a main source of income and job opportunities, especially in rural areas and those classified as "C", which makes any targeting of this sector have direct economic and social effects, in addition to the existence of Israeli political goals in targeting the agricultural sector to impose a reality that pushes towards land migration to control it.

They believe that the recent Israeli campaign may have economic and political dimensions that go beyond the issue of food safety, as it is feared that it will lead to weakening consumer confidence in local products, and imposing restrictions on exports, which may negatively affect farmers, vegetable prices, and the stability of the Palestinian agricultural sector.

Agriculture: Israeli claims are baseless

The official spokesperson for the Palestinian Ministry of Agriculture, Mahmoud Fatafta, denies the validity of Israeli claims about the presence of toxic pesticide residues in Palestinian vegetables exported to Israeli markets, considering that these claims come within the context of the raging Israeli war on everything Palestinian, especially the agricultural sector, which represents one of the most important elements of citizens' steadfastness in their land.

Fatafta explains that the agricultural sector is continuously exposed to attacks by the occupation and settlers, as it is an extension of the Palestinian presence in the land, especially in the Jordan Valley, Masafer Yatta, and various agricultural areas, where agriculture is an essential means for farmers to remain on their lands.

Fatafta points out that Israeli attacks have varied between preventing access to agricultural lands, uprooting trees, preventing grazing in natural pastures, and confiscating and stealing sheep, but they have not deterred farmers from continuing their work, which prompted the occupation to target Palestinian agricultural products and try to undermine their reputation in local and international markets.

The political nature of these claims

Fatafta clarifies that Palestinian agricultural products have entered Israeli markets for many years without similar claims being recorded, noting that raising this issue came during a session of the Knesset Health Committee led by an extremist Knesset member, which reinforces the political nature of these claims, aimed at causing confusion and fighting the Palestinian economy, especially in light of declining job opportunities and agriculture being considered one of the most important remaining sources of income for citizens.

Strict monitoring procedures

Fatafta stresses that agricultural pesticides circulated in the Palestinian market are subject to strict monitoring procedures, and their entry is through crossings subject to Israeli control and Israeli approvals, which means that Palestinian agricultural products pass through a complex system of inspection and procedures, whether when introducing agricultural inputs or when exporting products.

Fatafta points out that the Ministry of Agriculture adopts a scientific system for monitoring pesticides through the Scientific Committee for Agricultural Pesticides, which is the authorized body to permit pesticides and their circulation, and which includes experts from universities, the private sector, and relevant ministries.

Reducing the number of permitted pesticides

Fatafta explains that the committee conducted scientific reviews that led to a reduction in the number of pesticides permitted for circulation in the Palestinian market from 538 pesticides to about 198 pesticides only, with the aim of enhancing the safety of agricultural products and eliminating any substances that may have an impact on human health.

Official requirements for export

Fatafta explains that the marketing or export of Palestinian agricultural products is subject to official requirements that include a certificate of origin, a health certificate, and import or export permits, which are mandatory documents without which no shipments can be passed.

Economic war linked to competition

Fatafta considers that what is happening represents an economic war linked to the competition between Palestinian and Israeli agricultural products, pointing out that Palestinian products have succeeded in reaching about 50 global markets directly and about 70 markets indirectly, and what is happening is a systematic Israeli attack aimed at harming Palestinian agricultural products.

Fatafta confirms that the Ministry continues to conduct periodic tests through its teams, in cooperation with other regulatory bodies such as the Ministry of Health, the Customs Police, and specialized agencies, to ensure the safety of agricultural products.

Fatafta stresses that there are no products designated for one market over another, as vegetables are produced from the same farms with the same water, pesticides, and fertilizers, whether for the local, Israeli, or international market.

Fatafta calls on citizens and the media to adopt the Ministry of Agriculture as an official reference regarding the safety of agricultural products, emphasizing the Ministry's keenness to protect the national economy and enhance citizens' confidence in local products, noting that Palestinian farmers are making great efforts to preserve their lands and continue agricultural production, especially in the Jordan Valley and threatened areas.

A broader incitement policy

The Secretary-General of the Palestinian Farmers' Union, Jamal Al-Deek, believes that Israeli claims about the presence of toxins in Palestinian vegetables fall within a broader incitement policy targeting everything Palestinian, including people, land, and agricultural products, stressing that these claims come within the framework of the continued siege policy imposed on the Palestinian people and attempts to intensify it.

Al-Deek explains that the incitement against Palestinian agricultural products represents an extension of the siege philosophy adopted by Israel in its dealings with the Palestinian people and Palestinian land, pointing out that the agricultural sector constitutes one of the main remaining outlets for Palestinians, which pushes the occupation to intensify pressure on farmers to force them out of the production and agricultural work cycle.

Attempts to empty the land of its owners

Al-Deek indicates that these policies essentially seek to empty the land of its owners, because leaving the land, in the Israeli concept, brings the Zionist project closer to achieving its goals.

Distinguished Palestinian product

Al-Deek confirms that Palestinian agricultural products are distinguished by their quality, special identity, and unique flavor, and enjoy a good reputation in global markets, pointing out the existence of official bodies and specialized laboratories that work responsibly and seriously to monitor the quality of agricultural products and ensure their safety, which enhances the confidence of Palestinian consumers in them.

Al-Deek clarifies that targeting Palestinian agriculture is not limited to field restrictions, but also includes controlling land and restricting farmers and herders in the Jordan Valley, hills, and Palestinian countryside, considering that Israeli defamation campaigns against Palestinian agricultural products represent a new stage in attempts to control the land and weaken Palestinians' attachment to it.

Al-Deek stresses that the goal of these claims is primarily political, calling on agricultural institutions and official bodies to present a clear vision that enhances the identity of Palestinian agricultural products and strengthens citizens' confidence in them, affirming the ability of Palestinians to protect their land and agricultural products and preserve them.

Attempts to undermine food security

The Executive Director of the General Union of Palestinian Farmers, Abbas Melhem, explains that what Israeli media reported about the presence of toxic pesticides in Palestinian vegetables exported to Israel falls within attempts to target the Palestinian agricultural sector and undermine food security, stressing that these claims come within the context of continuous policies aimed at weakening farmers and questioning the quality of Palestinian agricultural products.

Melhem explains that the Union is accustomed to dealing cautiously with narratives issued by the occupation, considering that these claims fall within "destructive steps" for the agricultural sector, in parallel with settler attacks aimed at displacing farmers from their lands.

Attempts to damage the reputation of agricultural products

Melhem points out that farmers who remain in the production cycle are subjected to attempts to damage the reputation of their products, leading to economic losses and weakening this vital sector.

He explains that Palestinian food products are subjected to strict monitoring standards, especially regarding the use of chemical pesticides, noting that the Union works with farmers to gradually transition from a production pattern based on chemicals, even within permitted limits, to a safe, environmentally friendly, and climate-adapted production pattern that relies on minimizing the use of chemical materials or eliminating them, and returning to traditional farming methods that were prevalent in the time of ancestors.

Opportunity to develop safe agricultural production patterns

Melhem clarifies that raising these issues constitutes an opportunity to refocus on developing safe agricultural production patterns, stressing that agricultural institutions play a continuous awareness role with farmers to enhance adherence to health and environmental standards and improve the quality of locally produced food.

Melhem stresses the need for specialized regulatory bodies, including the Ministries of Agriculture, Health, and Environment, to play their role in monitoring the nature of agricultural production and ensuring its compliance with specifications.

Melhem points out that refuting Israeli claims requires publishing the results of laboratory tests and highlighting the work of Palestinian laboratories, scientific committees, and consumer protection associations, calling on the Israeli side to present any scientific results it claims to possess instead of making general accusations.

Exaggerated and unrealistic claims

Melhem stresses that portraying Palestinian products as contaminated with chemicals is exaggerated and unrealistic, affirming that Palestinian agricultural production as a whole falls within acceptable standards despite limited individual violations sometimes related to non-compliance with safety margins or excessive use of pesticides.

Melhem points out that these individual violations do not reflect the reality of the agricultural sector, questioning the logic of claims that describe a large percentage of Palestinian food as contaminated, noting that the continued consumption of these products without widespread harm confirms the inaccuracy of these claims.

Applying Israeli food law to the West Bank

Melhem draws attention to the possibility of political objectives behind these claims, including an attempt to impose the application of Israeli food law on the West Bank as part of escalating steps towards gradual annexation, considering that raising the issue of food safety may be used as a pretext to impose Israeli laws on the Palestinian agricultural sector without coordination with Palestinian authorities.

Pushing consumers to be more cautious in choosing products

Melhem points out that these claims may push consumers to be more cautious in choosing products and perhaps turn to direct purchases from farmers, but he rules out a clear impact on prices given the high demand during the month of Ramadan.

Melhem affirms that the health of the Palestinian citizen is a fundamental priority, calling for strengthening agricultural and health control as a necessary step to ensure the quality of Palestinian products, while stressing that Palestinian agricultural production as a whole is still within an acceptable and good level in terms of safety and quality.

Claims lacking scientific basis

The Director-General of Agricultural Relief, Munjed Abu Jaish, confirms that the claims recently circulated by Israeli media regarding the presence of toxins or high levels of pesticides in Palestinian vegetables lack scientific basis, pointing out that they were not based on documented laboratory test results or official reports that can be relied upon, which makes them technically inaccurate claims.

Abu Jaish explains that the majority of locally produced Palestinian vegetables comply with the laws and instructions issued by the Palestinian Ministry of Agriculture, which regulate the use of pesticides and agricultural fertilizers, stressing that issuing judgments regarding the safety of agricultural products requires accurate laboratory analyses before reaching any conclusions.

Additional pressure on farmers

Abu Jaish suggests that the primary goal of these claims is to exert additional pressure on farmers, especially those working in areas classified as "C" according to the Oslo Agreement, where a large part of Palestinian agricultural activity is concentrated.

Abu Jaish points out that the continuation of such measures or the promotion of these claims may hinder the development of the Palestinian agricultural sector and affect farmer support programs, noting that a large percentage of Palestinian vegetables are marketed domestically, which makes farmers vulnerable to the impact of any restrictions or media disruption on export movement.

Developing the agricultural sector to confront

Abu Jaish clarifies that confronting these pressures requires developing the Palestinian agricultural sector and raising the level of farmers' adherence to approved specifications, stressing that adherence to approved agricultural standards benefits local consumption and supports export opportunities.

Abu Jaish confirms that the Ministries of Agriculture and Economy continuously monitor and control agricultural production, and do not allow unauthorized pesticides to enter the Palestinian market, noting that some pesticides may sometimes leak from settlements.

Encouraging organic farming

Abu Jaish stresses that Agricultural Relief works to support farmers through safe farming programs, including applying Global GAP and Pal GAP standards, in addition to encouraging organic farming, affirming that a large number of farmers adhere to these standards, which enhances the safety of local agricultural products.

Abu Jaish expresses his confidence in the safety of Palestinian agricultural production, calling on consumers to be reassured about the quality of local vegetables, and at the same time pointing out that these claims may negatively affect prices if export restrictions are imposed, as a decline in marketing to the Palestinian interior will lead to an increase in the quantities offered in the West Bank and a sharp drop in vegetable prices, which will result in direct losses for farmers.

Defining permitted substances

The head of the Palestinian Consumer Protection Association, Salah Haniyeh, believes that what was circulated in the Israeli media regarding the presence of "toxins" or high levels of pesticides in Palestinian vegetables comes within the context of a broader war targeting Palestinian land and the agricultural sector, pointing out that these claims complement field measures that began with preventing farmers from accessing their lands and closing large areas, especially in Tubas and the Jordan Valley, leading to attempts to displace Bedouin communities, and ending with an attempt to question the quality of Palestinian agricultural products.

Haniyeh explains that the Palestinian Ministry of Agriculture imposes strict control over the use of agricultural pesticides, and clearly defines permitted and prohibited substances, noting that this control has significantly developed since 2010 after a period that witnessed excessive use of pesticides, which prompted the competent authorities to regulate the sector and ban many dangerous substances.

Haniyeh confirms that the level of strictness in the use of pesticides in the Palestinian market exceeds that in the Israeli market, affirming that the pesticides permitted in Israel are almost double compared to what is permitted in Palestine, and that Palestinian standards largely comply with international standards.

Causing anxiety among Palestinian consumers

Haniyeh points out that Israeli claims also aim to cause anxiety among Palestinian consumers by promoting the idea that local vegetables contain substances that may cause serious diseases, stressing that these claims are baseless and not based on scientific foundations, and that the recent statement by the Ministry of Agriculture clarified the monitoring and rationalization procedures and penalties imposed on violators.

Haniyeh draws attention to smuggling operations of Israeli agricultural products and attempts to flood the Palestinian market with spoiled or expired products.

Individual violations

Haniyeh explains that the Palestinian market is not entirely free of violations, as there are limited individual violations such as some farmers using pesticides coming from settlements and not circulated in the Palestinian market, but these cases have been dealt with through awareness campaigns and monitoring procedures in cooperation between the Consumer Protection Association, the Ministry of Agriculture, the Farmers' Union, and the Peasants' Union, stressing that these violations have not affected consumer confidence in local products.

Haniyeh calls for strengthening control by taking periodic samples of agricultural products, especially those coming from the Israeli market, to ensure their safety and create a safe market that inspires confidence, emphasizing the importance of agricultural extension workers in the fields and strengthening control within central vegetable and fruit markets.

Haniyeh points out that the Israeli media campaign may temporarily affect farmers, especially if it impacts exports to the Israeli market.

Halting exports and a sharp drop in prices

Haniyeh believes that the possibility of Israel resorting to halting exports due to these claims will lead to a local surplus of vegetables and a sharp drop in prices, causing direct losses to farmers, stressing that the primary goal of these claims is to weaken the Palestinian farmer and negatively affect their ability to withstand and produce.

Food safety files as a competitive tool

Agricultural expert Engineer Majdi Abdullah believes that the claims circulated by Israeli media about the presence of toxins or pesticide residues in Palestinian vegetables exported to the Israeli market are incorrect.

Abdullah confirms that the Palestinian agricultural sector is subject to a strict technical and scientific monitoring system supervised by the Ministry of Agriculture according to approved standards. Abdullah points out that the Ministry denied these claims, explaining that the products circulated in the Israeli market are the same as those circulated locally, which reflects the keenness of official bodies on the safety of the Palestinian consumer first.

Abdullah explains that food safety files may sometimes be used as a competitive tool, especially during seasons when competition for agricultural products such as strawberries, peppers, and various vegetables is high.

Safety period

Abdullah points out that any agricultural sector in the world may witness limited individual cases related to non-compliance with what is known as the "safety period," which is the period that must elapse after spraying the pesticide before consuming the crop, noting that some pesticides such as "Confidor" may have a safety period of about 45 days.

Abdullah confirms that pesticides in Palestine are not allowed to be circulated unless they are officially registered, with recommended doses, safety periods, and pesticide residue limits specified.

A system of control

Abdullah clarifies that the monitoring system includes several levels, including pesticide registration, agricultural extension carried out by Ministry of Agriculture engineers to guide farmers on doses, safety periods, and not mixing incompatible pesticides, in addition to laboratory tests conducted on random samples before export according to technical and European standards.

Abdullah points out the existence of a tracking system through which agricultural products pass through approved packing stations, so that each farm has a record showing the pesticides used and the product's path.

Abdullah calls for refuting Israeli claims through transparency and publishing the results of official laboratory tests and the percentages of compliant and non-compliant samples, in addition to conducting joint tests or using internationally recognized laboratories and requesting detailed technical reports from the claiming parties, along with documenting adherence to safety periods and highlighting quality certificates such as "Global GAP" if available, emphasizing the need to adopt a scientific discourse based on numbers and analyses.

Abdullah confirms that if violations exist, they are very limited individual cases that may result from ignorance, error, or haste in harvesting before the end of the safety period or using incorrect doses, noting that the Ministry of Agriculture is working to intensify periodic tests, support pesticide residue analysis laboratories, strengthen agricultural extension, and tighten penalties for violators.

Claims with potential economic impact

Abdullah confirms that these claims and rumors may have a potential economic impact on farmers, but he stresses that the Palestinian farmer possesses the necessary experience and awareness to use pesticides according to principles, and that violating cases remain individual and cannot be generalized, considering that farmers are keen on product safety because they are the first consumers of it within Palestinian society.

Republican Senator Thom Tillis expressed his strong surprise at the assignment of the most complex foreign policy files to Jared Kushner and Steve Witkoff, questioning the usefulness of their leadership in peace talks with international powers such as Russia and Iran. Tillis pointed out that the two men clearly lack deep experience in international diplomatic affairs, in addition to bypassing the constitutional procedures of gaining Senate approval.

Tillis affirmed in press statements that managing hot files such as the ongoing violence in the Gaza Strip and the war in Ukraine, in addition to escalating tensions with Tehran, should not be left in the hands of figures who have not undergone official scrutiny. While acknowledging Kushner and Witkoff's success in the world of finance and business as brilliant negotiators, he stressed that diplomatic work and national security require entirely different standards.

The Republican Senator described placing Kushner and Witkoff at the head of these high-stakes negotiations as 'senseless' in the current political context. He explained that confining geographically and politically diverse files to only two individuals raises many questions about decision-making mechanisms within the US administration, especially in the absence of parliamentary accountability for their international actions.

In a related context, criticism was not limited to the Republican side, as Democratic representatives in Congress expressed their concerns about Kushner's growing role given his limited background in foreign policy. Democrats raised questions about conflicts of interest, especially regarding the investments of Kushner's company 'Affinity Partners,' which received massive funding from sovereign wealth funds in the Gulf region.

For their part, Senator Elizabeth Warren and Senator Chris Murphy led a campaign to warn against the overlap between Steve Witkoff's business interests and diplomatic duties. These warnings came after Witkoff's statements in which he confirmed his separation from his private company before assuming his duties as a special envoy for former President Donald Trump, which observers consider insufficient to dispel concerns.

On the ground, sources reported that Kushner and Witkoff were in Geneva, Switzerland, last Thursday for what were described as sensitive negotiations with the Iranian side. These talks aim to reach a new deal regarding Iran's nuclear program, a step that could determine the path of military escalation or de-escalation in the region in the coming period.

The round of negotiations included meetings with Omani officials, as Muscat plays the traditional mediator role between Washington and Tehran in thorny issues. These moves come at a sensitive time when the world awaits the nature of the decisions the US administration may take regarding potential missile strikes or a return to comprehensive diplomacy.

It is questionable to negotiate peace in Ukraine, or the Iranian situation, or Gaza, and for it to be the same two people; this makes no sense to me.

US President Donald Trump hinted at the possibility of what he described as a "friendly takeover" of Cuba, indicating that the US administration is closely monitoring the situation there. Trump clarified in statements to reporters before departing the White House for Texas that Secretary of State Marco Rubio is managing this file at very high levels, confirming that the Cuban government is seeking negotiations due to immense economic pressures.

The US President described Cuba as a "failed state" lacking basic resources such as money, oil, and food, considering that change has become an urgent necessity for the island, which has been suffering for decades. Trump added that Washington is receiving signals about Cuba's desire for American assistance, which opens the door to new scenarios for dealing with the communist regime there in light of its current crisis.

In contrast, the Cuban government quickly denied the existence of any official high-level negotiations with the American side, although it did not definitively deny reports of unofficial contacts. Press reports circulated about secret meetings between officials close to Secretary of State Marco Rubio and the grandson of former Cuban leader Raul Castro, in an attempt to open channels of communication away from traditional diplomatic frameworks.

Media sources indicated that these meetings took place on the sidelines of the Caribbean regional group conference in St. Kitts and Nevis, where the American side is seeking to explore opportunities for political change in Havana. These moves come at a time when economic pressures on Cuba have increased after Washington's decision to cut most vital oil supplies that were reaching the island, leading to an exacerbation of living crises.

On the ground, recent days have witnessed a dangerous security escalation after four Cuban exiles were killed and six others injured by Cuban forces while sailing in a Florida-registered boat. Although Havana accused the boat of firing on one of its patrols, Marco Rubio denied any involvement of the US government in this operation, confirming that it was not an official move by Washington.

Trump's recent statements reflect a tougher stance towards Cuba, as observers believe that the current US administration is seeking to exploit the island's economic collapse to impose a new political reality. The question remains about the nature of the "friendly takeover" that Trump referred to, and whether it will take an economic or political character that ultimately leads to the end of the decades-long communist rule.

"Perhaps we'll do a friendly takeover of Cuba, they're negotiating with us now because they're in big trouble and they have nothing."

February 28, 2026

News Analysis

Washington, D.C. — As U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio prepares to visit Israel Monday, American diplomacy faces a familiar test: whether Washington intends to confront policies carried out by its closest Middle Eastern ally or continue managing their consequences through carefully calibrated language. Officially, Rubio’s trip aims to reinforce a Gaza ceasefire and coordinate regional strategy, including joint U.S.-Israeli positioning toward Iran. In practice, the visit risks reaffirming a diplomatic narrative that masks continuing violence while political and territorial realities move steadily in Israel’s favor.

Since October 11, Western governments have repeatedly described conditions in Gaza as a ceasefire. Increasingly, however, the term functions less as an objective description than as a political designation. Hundreds of Palestinians have reportedly been killed and thousands injured during this supposed pause amid recurring strikes, armed confrontations, and near-daily military incidents. Traditionally, a ceasefire implies a meaningful suspension of organized violence. What exists instead resembles a managed lowering of intensity sustained by diplomatic terminology rather than by verifiable restraint on the ground.

The language serves important political purposes. Labeling the situation a ceasefire reduces international urgency and shields Israel from mounting diplomatic pressure while allowing Washington to claim progress without exercising meaningful leverage. Israel retains operational freedom while avoiding the costs associated with an openly declared war. The United States, meanwhile, preserves the appearance of mediation without confronting policies that undermine de-escalation. Diplomacy, in this framework, becomes an instrument for stabilizing narratives rather than changing realities.

Gaza is only one dimension of the current moment. The more consequential transformation is unfolding in the occupied West Bank, where settlement expansion and de facto annexation have accelerated under the cover of war. Israeli monitoring organizations report record settlement approvals, legalization of previously unauthorized outposts, and infrastructure projects integrating settlements permanently into Israel’s administrative and economic systems. These measures increasingly resemble long-term territorial consolidation rather than temporary wartime adjustments.

Successive U.S. administrations — Republican and Democratic alike — have formally opposed settlement expansion while consistently avoiding enforcement mechanisms that might alter Israeli calculations. Statements of concern are issued with regularity, yet military assistance continues uninterrupted, diplomatic protection at international forums remains reliable, and political consequences remain absent. Over time, this gap between rhetoric and action has ceased to be a contradiction and instead become a policy signal: opposition without cost functions as tacit acceptance.

This permissive environment extends beyond settlement construction to violence carried out by extremist settlers against Palestinian communities. Human rights organizations and Israeli watchdog groups have documented repeated attacks on villages, farmland, and civilian infrastructure, often occurring near Israeli security forces and followed by limited investigation or accountability. Particularly striking are incidents involving Palestinian Americans, cases that theoretically warrant heightened U.S. intervention yet rarely produce sustained diplomatic pressure. The inconsistency reinforces perceptions that American protection is contingent on political convenience rather than citizenship or principle.

For Palestinians, these patterns deepen the conviction that international law is applied selectively. For Israeli hardliners, they confirm that expansion and coercive measures remain strategically sustainable. The resulting dynamic reflects not policy confusion but policy prioritization: preserving strategic alignment with Israel consistently outweighs enforcement of stated American commitments to human rights and negotiated conflict resolution.

Israeli leaders have adapted effectively to this reality. Maintaining the language of restraint and negotiation preserves Western legitimacy even as territorial consolidation advances incrementally. The ceasefire framework plays a central role by projecting moderation internationally while allowing irreversible changes to deepen locally. Under these conditions, diplomacy manages perception while structural outcomes proceed largely unchecked.

Meanwhile, humanitarian conditions in Gaza continue to deteriorate. Large portions of the territory remain uninhabitable, civilian infrastructure functions only partially, and aid delivery faces persistent political and administrative restrictions. Legal battles over humanitarian access — including court interventions preventing limits on relief organizations — underscore how basic assistance has itself become contested political terrain. That humanitarian operations increasingly depend on judicial intervention illustrates the erosion of norms governing civilian protection during conflict.

For Rubio, the challenge is therefore analytical as much as diplomatic. American policymakers traditionally treat ceasefires as entry points toward negotiations. Yet repeated cycles of large-scale violence followed by partial pauses suggest a different function: ceasefires increasingly operate as mechanisms for managing indefinite conflict while territorial realities evolve elsewhere. Stability, in this context, risks becoming another term for prolonged impasse under unequal conditions.

The credibility costs for the United States are growing. Across much of the Global South, Washington’s reluctance to impose consequences for settlement expansion contrasts sharply with its forceful invocation of international law in other conflicts. Allies may publicly support U.S. framing for strategic reasons, but broader global audiences increasingly interpret American policy as selectively principled — a perception that weakens Washington’s diplomatic authority far beyond the Israeli-Palestinian arena.

Israel continues to justify extensive military operations and territorial control as necessary for security. Yet sustainable security cannot rest indefinitely on military dominance, territorial expansion, or the normalization of civilian suffering under prolonged occupation. Nor can American diplomacy retain credibility while distinguishing between violations it condemns rhetorically and those it accommodates strategically.

Rubio’s visit therefore represents more than routine alliance management. It is a test of whether U.S. policy still treats settlement expansion and annexation as genuine obstacles to peace or merely as inconvenient developments to be managed rhetorically. Genuine diplomacy would align American leverage — military assistance, diplomatic backing, and political legitimacy — with stated legal commitments rather than subordinating them to short-term strategic alignment.

If Washington continues describing ongoing violence as ceasefire and structural annexation as temporary drift, it risks helping entrench a one-state reality defined by unequal rights and permanent instability. The question Rubio ultimately carries to Tel Aviv is not how to preserve the appearance of calm, but whether the United States is prepared to confront the consequences of policies it has long enabled. Until that question is addressed directly, ceasefire diplomacy will remain less a pathway to peace than a language designed to defer accountability.

Washington — Saeed Erikat – 27/2/2026

News Analysis

The anticipated visit of US Secretary of State Marco Rubio to Israel from March 2-3, 2026, reflects an American attempt to reset the course of regional policy in the Middle East, amidst the ongoing repercussions of the Gaza war and escalating fears of expanding regional tensions.

According to the US State Department, Rubio will discuss a range of issues with Israeli officials, most notably Iran's regional influence, tensions on the northern border with Lebanon, in addition to ongoing efforts to implement the 20-point peace plan proposed by President Donald Trump for the Gaza Strip. Although the visit is presented within a routine diplomatic framework, its timing reveals a sensitive transitional phase in US strategy towards the region.

From War Management to Engineering the Political Phase

Nearly two years after the war that altered political and security balances in the Middle East, Washington appears to be moving from a phase of crisis containment to an attempt to formulate long-term arrangements for the post-conflict phase. Rubio's visit comes in the context of this shift, as the US administration seeks to develop a practical vision for the political and security management of Gaza after the war.

The American peace plan, whose full details have not yet been revealed, is based on linking reconstruction with new security measures and different governance arrangements aimed — according to American officials — at preventing the Strip from returning to cycles of repeated military confrontation.

However, this approach reflects an old problem in American diplomacy: reconstruction requires political legitimacy, while legitimacy itself remains hostage to sovereign and security issues that have not yet been resolved. Therefore, observers believe that Rubio's mission is not aimed at achieving an immediate diplomatic breakthrough as much as it aims to unify the American-Israeli vision on what can be considered a realistic path for the next phase.

Iran and the Regional Deterrence Equation

Iran's regional role is expected to be central to the talks. Washington believes that Tehran's support for its allies in the region is a key factor in the continuation of instability, while Israel considers the Iranian presence near its borders to be the most prominent long-term strategic threat.

Accordingly, Rubio's visit carries a dual dimension: reaffirming the American commitment to Israel's security, and at the same time attempting to adjust the deterrence equation to prevent the region from sliding into a wider confrontation. The main challenge for Washington is to deter escalation without reaching a comprehensive direct confrontation.

The danger of this balance is highlighted by the increasing tensions on the Lebanese-Israeli border, where intermittent clashes raise fears of a limited conflict turning into a multi-front war. In this context, American diplomacy seems closer to managing risks than to resolving the roots of the conflict.

Rubio's visit reveals a deeper shift in American strategic thinking. Instead of seeking a comprehensive settlement — as was the case in previous stages of American diplomacy — Washington today tends towards a gradual approach based on first stabilizing the situation, through deterrence, regional cooperation, and economic reconstruction.

This approach reflects lessons learned from past failures, where major initiatives often clashed with political realities that could not be overcome by theoretical agreements alone. However, the gradual approach also carries clear risks, as it could turn into permanent crisis management instead of resolution.

Reconstructing Gaza, without a convincing political horizon for Palestinians, could create a fragile stability that does not address the deep causes of the conflict. Moreover, the multitude of international and regional mediators today reduces the United States' ability to monopolize the role of the main mediator, as it did in past decades.

Test of American Influence

The visit also represents a test of the actual extent of American influence in affecting Israeli decisions, especially given the complexities of internal politics on both sides. In the past, a close strategic partnership was sufficient to translate diplomatic coordination into tangible political changes, but today this ability is more constrained by intertwined internal and regional factors.

It is likely that the success of the visit will not be measured by major announcements, but by its ability to prevent deterioration: containing escalation on the northern front, maintaining security coordination, and keeping the Gaza reconstruction process ongoing pending more mature political conditions.

In conclusion, Rubio's visit reflects a shift in the nature of the American role in the Middle East — from a maker of major settlements to a manager of complex balances. While Washington seeks to remain an indispensable player in the region, the question remains open as to whether crisis management policy can truly produce lasting stability, or if it merely postpones potential future explosions.

Recently, the drumbeat of war in the Middle East has been escalating, with American military reinforcements off the Iranian coast reaching unprecedented levels of readiness. It seems that the chasm between Washington and Tehran is widening, making diplomatic solutions a distant option, as each side adheres to its rigid positions on outstanding issues.

Observers believe that the American negotiator has become more rigid in demanding concessions, considering that any flexibility at the present time might be interpreted as a free retreat in front of the adversary. In contrast, the Iranian regime finds itself in a tight corner it has not experienced for decades, as its internal legitimacy and external pressures are subjected to severe tests that could destabilize it.

Recalling the experience of the invasion of Iraq casts a dark shadow over the current scene, as facts have proven that wars are not just a military stroll, no matter how imbalanced the balance of power. The fall of the Iraqi regime previously led to a reshaping of the regional sphere in a way that produced geopolitical disasters, and the peoples of the region paid heavy prices for their security and stability.

There are no real signs of progress in negotiations on the horizon, as the United States cannot retreat without achieving gains commensurate with the size of its military buildup. Similarly, the Iranian regime refuses to make fundamental concessions on ballistic missile and nuclear programs, as they represent essential pillars for its survival and the continuity of its political project.

A fundamental question arises in Arab circles about the shape of the region the day after the fall of the Iranian regime, and whether the new equations will serve stability or increase the intensity of chaos. Despite widespread criticism of Tehran's regional policies and its interventions in Arab affairs, a complete collapse of the regime could open the gates of hell for everyone.

Analyses suggest that the Iranian regime, which possesses a deeply rooted institutional and security structure, will not fall easily without a long-term war of attrition. If it feels an existential threat, it may resort to a retaliatory policy targeting neighboring countries and vital interests in the region, especially given the difficulty of direct access to fortified American targets.

Threatening to close vital waterways, such as the Strait of Hormuz and Bab al-Mandab, represents an economic nightmare for Arab countries that rely on these routes to export their energy. Tehran is likely to use its proxies in the region to carry out these threats, putting global trade and Arab national security in the eye of the storm.

There are serious fears that the overthrow of the regime could lead to the dismantling of the Iranian state and its transformation into warring cantons, a scenario whose impact could extend to other countries in the region. This geopolitical fragmentation will create a state of security vacuum that will only benefit powers aspiring to dominate the resources of the Middle East.

Talk of war coincides with the emergence of declared Israeli ambitions to expand its regional influence, exploiting the state of weakness and fragmentation that may afflict its neighbors. Experts believe that weakening major regional powers paves the way for the implementation of settlement and expansionist projects that transcend the current geographical borders of occupied Palestine.

Even if a new Iranian regime emerges, expectations indicate that it may be a creation of international powers, making it a tool in the hands of external axes rather than a stable neighbor. There is a fear of forming new alliances that include 'post-mullah' Iran with powers such as India, placing the Arab world between the jaws of a strategic pincer.

Reproducing the cycle of wars and attrition in the region will only lead to further squandering of wealth and the loss of the future of coming generations. The zero-sum competition between regional powers has proven its failure to achieve security, but rather contributed to deepening the sectarian and political divisions that have ravaged the body of the Arab nation.

Cold political calculations impose on Arab capitals the necessity of acting to prevent a slide towards a comprehensive military confrontation whose outcomes are unknown. The goal must be to preserve the state entity and prevent chaos, while working to modify the behavior of the Iranian regime through diplomatic channels and measured pressures.

Any change imposed by external military force often ends in counterproductive results, as previous experiences in the Arab region and its surroundings have shown. Therefore, Arab interests dictate avoiding being drawn into projects that may appear outwardly to be salvation from an enemy, but inwardly carry the seeds of comprehensive destruction.

In conclusion, the bet remains on the awareness of Arab peoples and regimes of the necessity of protecting their collective security away from sharp international polarizations. For a war on Iran, if it occurs, will not be just a passing event, but will be an earthquake that will redraw the map of the region in a way that may not serve Arab interests for many decades.

Cold calculations compel Arabs to press to prevent war, because the catastrophic results will ultimately serve expansionist projects in the region.

Concerns are escalating in Israeli circles about strategic shifts in the digital infrastructure map of the Middle East, where submarine communication cables are the backbone of the global digital economy. Currently, more than 95% of intercontinental data traffic passes through these physical cables, giving countries that host landing points significant political influence and huge economic returns.

Sources reported that recent years have witnessed the inauguration of advanced cable systems that have changed the routes of information flow between Europe, the Gulf states, and India. Google's 'Blue-Raman' system stands out as one of the most important of these projects, connecting the European continent to Israel via the Mediterranean, then extending south towards Saudi Arabia to India, forming a vital route that bypasses total reliance on passing through Egyptian territory.

Through these projects, Israel seeks to strengthen its position as an indispensable link in the regional system, especially with the planning of the 'Centurion' project. This system aims to connect India and the Gulf to the Mediterranean via Tel Aviv, contributing to the distribution of operational risks and an unprecedented increase in data transfer capacity between Asia and Europe.

However, recent Saudi trends have raised widespread concern, as Riyadh is seriously considering an alternative route that passes through Syrian territory instead of Israel. This shift, if implemented, would mean excluding Tel Aviv from the strategic 'data corridor', raising questions about the political and security motives behind this sovereign Saudi decision.

Observers believe that the Saudi desire for control is the primary driver of this trend, as Riyadh seeks to avoid technical dependence on any other regional entity. The more Israel's position as a data transit hub strengthens, the greater the likelihood of it becoming an influential party in Gulf information security, which Saudi Arabia prefers to avoid by building independent infrastructure.

The second reason for the potential change is related to the current political timing and the increasing tensions between Tel Aviv and Riyadh regarding multiple regional issues. This climate pushes towards reducing friction in sensitive infrastructure areas and searching for alternatives that may include rapprochement with Turkey through its influence in northern Syria to secure alternative routes.

Despite its political feasibility, the Syrian route raises complex technical and operational questions due to the instability of the security environment there compared to current routes. Nevertheless, it seems that Saudi Arabia's strategic incentive outweighs the technical obstacles in an attempt to draw a new digital map that does not necessarily pass through Israeli ports.

In contrast, Israel relies on its strategic partnership with Greece and Cyprus in the Eastern Mediterranean to confront these shifts. This cooperation may deepen in the fields of energy and security, with talks of establishing a joint military force aimed at protecting marine infrastructure and ensuring the stability of data and energy flow in the region.

Sources indicate that Israel is required to leverage its relations with Athens to prevent a change in cable routes, considering that the success of the Syrian route would represent a commercial victory for Turkey. The current competition is not limited to underwater cables; it is a fierce struggle over who holds the keys to digital flow in the Middle East in the coming decades.

Israel's loss of centrality in these projects means a decline in its role from 'a country through which the world passes' to merely 'a country connected to the world'. In an era entirely dependent on artificial intelligence and cloud computing, the speed of information flow directly translates into indispensable political influence and economic power.

Reports confirm that the East-to-Mediterranean Data Corridor (EMC) project, which brings together Saudi Arabia and Greece, represents a real testing ground for these balances. If Riyadh succeeds in imposing a route that bypasses Tel Aviv, it will reshape geopolitical alliances in the region based on shared digital interests.

Israeli experts warn that a slowdown in diplomatic action could lead to a long-term strategic loss, as cable extension decisions determine connectivity routes for decades. The loss is not limited to direct financial returns but extends to include the loss of important security and technical leverage in confronting regional powers.

The question remains about Tel Aviv's ability to offer technical or security incentives that deter regional parties from seeking alternatives. The digital conflict has become no less important than traditional military conflicts, as data represents the 'new oil' that every country seeks to control its transport pipelines.

In conclusion, the Saudi trend represents a clear message about new foreign policy priorities that place strategic independence above purely commercial considerations. With continued technological development, the Eastern Mediterranean region will remain an arena for competition between major projects seeking to define the boundaries of the new digital world.

Determining the controlling entity of the data flow center is not a technical matter but a strategic one that will define the connectivity map for decades to come.

Washington – Said Arikat – 2/27/2026

A new poll conducted by Gallup, one of the leading public opinion research organizations in the United States, has revealed a historic shift in American attitudes towards the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. Its results show that, for the first time since regular measurements began in 2001, Americans are now more inclined to sympathize with Palestinians than with Israelis, an indicator reflecting a gradual and profound change in the American political and social mood.

According to the poll published on Friday, 41% of Americans said they sympathize more with Palestinians, compared to 36% who expressed greater sympathy for Israelis. Although the difference does not carry definitive statistical significance, it represents a clear turning point compared to 2025, when Israelis enjoyed a comfortable lead of 46% versus 33%.

The importance of these results lies in ending a pattern that lasted for more than two decades, during which Israelis maintained a consistent lead in sympathy rates within the United States, recording an average lead of 43 percentage points from 2001 to 2018. However, the gap began to gradually narrow since 2019, even before the outbreak of the recent Gaza war, indicating that the current shift is not the result of a single event, but rather cumulative changes in American public opinion.

A portion of Americans still maintain a neutral stance; 4% said they sympathize equally with both sides, 9% sympathize with neither, while 10% expressed no definite opinion.

After the Gaza War and the Impact of the Ceasefire

The poll comes after a year full of political and military developments, most notably the ceasefire agreement that came into effect in October 2025 through American mediation. The first phase included the exchange of Israeli hostages for Palestinian prisoners, while the current phase focuses on the reconstruction of the Gaza Strip and long-term security arrangements, amidst mutual accusations of truce violations.

Although wars often reinforce traditional American sympathy for Israel, the poll results suggest that the recent war may have accelerated an existing trend, rather than creating it from scratch.

Independents Lead the Political Shift

Detailed data reveals that independent voters were the decisive factor in this shift. 41% of them said they sympathize more with Palestinians compared to 30% with Israelis, a remarkable shift compared to previous years when Israel had the upper hand among them.

As for Democrats, they have solidified their shift that began in 2023, with 65% expressing greater sympathy for Palestinians compared to only 17% for Israelis, reflecting an ideological change within the party base, especially among progressive and youth currents.

In contrast, Republicans remain more supportive of Israel, with 70% expressing sympathy for Israelis compared to 13% for Palestinians. However, this percentage represents the lowest level of Republican sympathy for Israel in nearly two decades, indicating that the shift — though slower — is no longer limited to one party.

Deepening Generational Gap

One of the most prominent features of the poll is the clear age divide. The results showed that 53% of Americans between 18 and 34 years old sympathize more with Palestinians, the first time this position has formed a majority within this age group. In contrast, only 23% of young people expressed greater sympathy for Israelis, the lowest level ever recorded.

The 35-54 age group also witnessed a significant shift, with 46% saying they lean towards Palestinians compared to 28% for Israelis, after the equation was almost the opposite just one year ago.

As for older Americans, Israelis still maintain a lead among them with 49% compared to 31% for Palestinians, but this represents the narrowest margin recorded since 2005, suggesting that the shift is gradually extending across generations.

Change in the Image of Both Sides

In addition to political sympathy, the poll observed a change in the general image of both sides among Americans. The positive view of Israel declined to 46%, approaching its historical lows, while the positive view of the Palestinian territories rose to 37%, the highest percentage recorded to date.

For the first time, independents' positive view of both sides was equal at 41% for each, due to a significant decline in Israel's rating since 2023 compared to a gradual improvement in the image of Palestinians.

Among Democrats, the Palestinian territories have had a more positive image than Israel since 2025, while Republicans remain more positive towards Israel despite a decline in their support over the past two years.

Continued Support for the Two-State Solution Despite Polarization

Regarding political solutions, the poll showed that 57% of Americans support the establishment of an independent Palestinian state alongside Israel within the framework of a two-state solution, a percentage close to the highest level recorded by Gallup since 2003.

This option enjoys broad support among Democrats (77%) and a majority of independents (57%), while Republican support declined to 33% after sharp fluctuations since the Gaza war, reflecting the widening partisan gap on the conflict.

It is noteworthy that American support for the two-state solution far exceeds the levels of support among Israelis and Palestinians themselves according to recent international polls, highlighting the disparity between American public opinion and the political reality on the ground.

The shift in Gallup's results reflects a change in the narrative that has governed Americans' understanding of the conflict for decades. New generations no longer view the conflict exclusively from the perspective of strategic alliances or Cold War memory, but rather through concepts of justice, human rights, and inequality. With the expansion of information sources beyond traditional media, the Palestinian narrative has become more present in the American public sphere, gradually leading to a cognitive rebalancing that does not necessarily mean a decline in support for Israel as much as it means a multiplicity of perspectives.

Despite the importance of the popular shift, its immediate impact on American policy may remain limited due to the stability of institutions and strategic alliances. However, American political history shows that major shifts often begin in public opinion before reaching decision-making centers. As new generations enter the electoral process, politicians may find themselves facing voters less receptive to traditional policies and more inclined to link foreign aid to human rights standards, which may reshape American discourse towards the conflict over the next decade.

A group of United Nations human rights rapporteurs expressed their strong condemnation of the continued detention by Egyptian authorities of citizens who participated in pro-Palestine events. Human rights sources confirmed that these condemnations came after widespread violations were monitored against peaceful demonstrators since the outbreak of the wave of protests in 2023.

A team of experts from the international organization sent an official communication to the Egyptian government, recently revealed, expressing deep concern over the fate of dozens who were arrested during the October 2023 demonstrations. The experts warned against using anti-terrorism legislation and public order laws as a tool to undermine the right to peaceful expression and civic participation.

Six of the most prominent mandate holders under the UN's Special Procedures signed this communication, including the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism. The Working Group on Arbitrary Detention and the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967 also participated in the signing.

UN reports revealed that the arrest campaign targeted at least 88 people, with 67 of them placed in prolonged pre-trial detention without a fair trial. Sources indicated that a number of these detainees were subjected to enforced disappearance for several days before appearing before judicial investigation bodies.

The detained group faces stereotypical charges including joining a terrorist group and participating in illegal gatherings, charges that human rights bodies reject and consider a means to suppress solidarity. The experts stressed that these practices violate the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which Egypt is a signatory party.

The UN letter highlighted specific cases, including that of citizens Mohamed Selim and Omar Ghazi, who were arrested in Alexandria on October 20, 2023. The report stated that the two young men were subjected to enforced disappearance for two days before being presented to the Supreme State Security Prosecution, which decided to detain them in connection with Case No. 2469.

The signatories of the letter expressed serious concerns about the denial of communication between detainees and their lawyers or families, which weakens the guarantees of a fair trial. They also pointed out that the policy of prolonged pre-trial detention has become used as a pre-emptive punishment against activists and those in solidarity with national causes.

The report touched upon the tragic conditions inside the 10th of Ramadan Prison, where detainees suffer from severe overcrowding in cells and a severe lack of ventilation. The experts affirmed that the poor healthcare provided to prisoners poses a direct threat to their physical and psychological safety under the imposed restrictions.

UN bodies considered that the current detention conditions may amount to cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment, which contradicts the minimum international standards for the treatment of prisoners. They demanded the necessity of conducting transparent investigations into allegations of ill-treatment and enforced disappearance suffered by solidarity activists.

In a related context, the United Nations called on the Egyptian government to provide detailed explanations about the legal basis for the continued pre-trial detention of these citizens. It called for a comprehensive review of the compatibility of local laws with the international obligations undertaken by the Egyptian state in global forums.

The rapporteurs stressed that expressing solidarity with the Palestinian people is an inherent right that should not lead to imprisonment or security prosecution. They clarified that vague formulations in anti-terrorism laws open the door to arbitrary interpretations targeting civil society work and peaceful activism.

Sources also noted that targeting pro-Palestine demonstrators sends a negative message about the scope of freedoms available in the country. They affirmed that the international community is closely monitoring how the authorities deal with the issue of prisoners of conscience who have not committed any acts of violence.

The experts concluded their letter by emphasizing the necessity of the immediate release of all detainees whose detention has been proven to be based on the exercise of their legitimate rights. They affirmed that the continuation of these policies weakens the credibility of official pledges regarding human rights reform and opening up the public sphere.

These UN moves come at a time when international pressure on Cairo is increasing to improve its human rights record, especially concerning pre-trial detention. Human rights circles await an official response from the Egyptian authorities to these questions and documented accusations in the latest UN letter.

Criminalizing the expression of solidarity or participation in peaceful protests by leveling terrorist charges violates the internationally stipulated principles of legality and necessity.

The Gaza Strip witnessed a new field escalation since dawn on Friday, resulting in the martyrdom of seven Palestinians, including a police officer, and the injury of several women and children in Israeli attacks targeting various areas. Field sources confirmed that occupation forces carried out airstrikes and sniper operations that violated the existing ceasefire understandings, leading to casualties among civilians and displaced persons.

In the details of the aggression, sources reported that an Israeli drone targeted a tent for displaced persons inside Mustafa Hafez School, near Nasser Hospital, west of Khan Yunis city. The bombing resulted in the martyrdom of one Palestinian and the injury of three others with varying degrees of wounds, at a time when drones continue intensive flights over shelters crowded with displaced people.

In the northern Gaza Strip, two Palestinians were martyred by the bullets of occupation forces stationed around the town of Beit Lahia, where shooting operations were concentrated in the Aslan and Al-Atatra areas. These attacks come amid the continued targeting of citizens attempting to move in areas near the contact line, constantly increasing the daily death toll.

In the central Gaza Strip, warplanes launched raids on Al-Bureij camp, leading to the martyrdom of four people in an initial toll from those raids that targeted residential areas. The Civil Defense also confirmed the recovery of the bodies of three other martyrs who fell as a result of targeting a group of citizens in the Al-Maslakh area, southwest of Khan Yunis city, by a drone.

Regarding the targeting of security institutions, the Ministry of Interior in Gaza mourned one of its members who was martyred after an airstrike targeted a police checkpoint on Salah al-Din Street. The ministry clarified that occupation planes targeted the security point at the entrance to Al-Bureij camp in the early hours of dawn, also leading to the injury of another policeman with serious wounds.

For its part, the Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas) condemned this escalation, describing the targeting of police points as a blatant and serious violation of the ongoing ceasefire agreement. The movement's spokesman, Hazem Qassem, stated that these systematic attacks prove that the occupation does not value international efforts aimed at stabilizing calm, and insists on ignoring all political understandings.

In a related context, the Resistance Committees in Palestine considered the continued Israeli violations as organized terrorism aimed at spreading chaos in the Strip by striking the security and police system. In a statement, they indicated that the targeting of police points in Khan Yunis and Al-Bureij denounces a systematic plan to evade the commitments of the agreement reached under international auspices.

Official statistics issued by the Ministry of Health indicate that the number of martyrs since the start of the ceasefire agreement on October 10 last year has exceeded 618 martyrs. Medical teams also recorded the injury of more than 1663 Palestinians as a result of the continuous attacks that have not stopped despite the agreement coming into effect, threatening the collapse of the fragile truce.

These field developments come on the tenth day of the blessed month of Ramadan, with most of the raids occurring simultaneously with the suhoor time, doubling the state of panic among displaced families. Reports confirm that the targeted areas, especially in Mawasi Khan Yunis and Al-Bureij, are outside the control of the occupation army according to the maps agreed upon in the truce.

On the humanitarian front, nearly 1.9 million displaced Palestinians suffer from catastrophic living conditions in dilapidated tents lacking the most basic necessities for a dignified life. This suffering is exacerbated by the continued destruction of infrastructure, which has affected about 90% of civilian facilities in the Strip over two years of the genocide war waged by the occupation.

It is worth noting that the total number of victims of the Israeli aggression since October 2023 has exceeded 72,000 martyrs and more than 171,000 injured, an unprecedented toll reflecting the extent of the devastation. International organizations continue to warn against continued Israeli violations that hinder the delivery of humanitarian aid and further complicate the field and political scene in the region.

This systematic escalation against the Palestinian people decisively reflects Israel's disregard for efforts to stabilize calm in the Strip.

Current political readings indicate that the region is heading towards a new pattern of mobile wars, where fronts emerge, open, and freeze according to the interests of regional powers. Whether Iran is directly present or neutralized, its structural complexities remain an influential factor in the action-reaction equation.

The conflict in the Middle East is no longer poised to be a single, major, decisive confrontation, but has transformed into a series of escalating power tests. These tests move between geography, politics, and economics, creating a state of continuous attrition in the inflamed arenas.

Benjamin Netanyahu's recent statements delineate a new regional phase that transcends traditional media consumption. He spoke clearly about dividing the region into warring axes, describing regional powers as wounded or hostile axes that must be contained.

Netanyahu proposed the idea of establishing a third axis led by Tel Aviv, aiming to include countries that oppose the ideological orientations of the Shiite and Sunni axes. This proposal placed the UAE, Greece, and India at the core of the new formation, reflecting a desire to re-engineer alignments.

This shift in Israeli discourse reflects a strategic transition from a policy of conflict management to a policy of comprehensively redefining the enemy. The focus is no longer limited to the Iranian threat but has expanded to include any political structure that adopts the project of resistance or political Islam.

This dual description allows for the building of flexible alliances that transcend traditional contradictions between states, with the unifying theme being the control of environments that harbor opposing projects. The reference to an axis specific to Israel suggests a long-term strategic framework that intersects with energy interests and maritime corridors.

In this vision, Greece represents a vital gateway to the Eastern Mediterranean, while India emerges as a rising partner in alternative trade corridors connecting East and West. As for the UAE, it plays the role of the central financial and logistical player in this proposed system.

We are witnessing a serious attempt to establish a network of interests that goes beyond the purely military dimension to formulate an integrated system of influence. This proposal intersects with international shifts, especially within conservative American circles that advocate for reducing external costs.

Statements by American figures, such as Senator Josh Hawley, reflect a tendency to support regional arrangements based on functional alliances that bear the burdens of confrontation. This approach does not mean a complete American withdrawal, but rather a redistribution of roles to manage conflicts through reliable regional partners.

This Israeli proposal comes at a moment when the resistance axis is clearly exhausted due to continuous economic and military pressures. Tel Aviv is also exploiting the profound shifts in the Sunni environment that followed the Arab Spring waves to establish new political realities.

The Israeli reading assumes that the current moment is opportune to change the balance of power before any unexpected strategic shifts occur. Therefore, talking about the third axis is not just a description of reality, but a declaration of intent to build a new reality by force.

The fundamental question remains about the nature of the regional response to these moves, and whether other powers will be content with a cold repositioning? Historical experience indicates that the building of solid alliances often precedes major explosions and existential conflicts.

The region today appears to be at a transitional stage open to high-risk possibilities, where alignments harden and the spaces for political settlement narrow. Accelerating the race of axes could lead to counterproductive results that increase tension instead of preventing it.

In such historical moments, wars are not merely the result of miscalculation, but can be the product of cold planning aimed at reproducing balance. Accordingly, the title of the next phase may go beyond containing threats to reach imminent direct confrontations.

The shift in Israeli discourse reflects a transition from a conflict management approach to an approach of redefining the enemy and expanding the framework of confrontation.

Opponents of the Zionist project face a system characterized by racism and brutality, a system that derives its savagery from societal components that align with its criminal objectives. The events following the Al-Aqsa Flood operation have widely exposed the structural ugliness of this society that feeds on the blood of Palestinians.

The slaughter in the Gaza Strip continues in full view and hearing of the entire world, in one of the most heinous acts of ethnic cleansing recorded in modern history. Despite the enormity of the crimes, observers believe that popular reactions in the region have not risen to the level of the event due to the repressive policies practiced by some regimes against their peoples.

Occupation forces have violated all taboos, from the blood of children and women to the desecration of the bodies of resistance fighters, their abduction, and mutilation. The aggression also included the demolition of safe havens, forcing thousands of Gazans into repeated forced displacement, which for some reached 19 times in just two years.

This repeated displacement reflects the magnitude of the danger lurking in every corner of the Strip, already exhausted by a suffocating siege that has lasted for nearly two decades. This aggression is not limited to the military establishment but extends to wide sectors of settlers in the occupied territories of 1948.

The audacity of settler ideology is evident in live testimonies, such as the incident of the theft of the Kurd family's home in Sheikh Jarrah neighborhood, where the thief justifies his actions by saying that 'someone else would take it if he didn't.' This mentality reflects the reality of the conflict as a struggle with gangs that practice robbery and looting under state protection.

The forms of field criminality are numerous, including burning livestock alive, stealing Palestinian property, and burning homes and public facilities. Armed settler outposts are also widespread, practicing organized terrorism against neighboring Palestinian villages near their settlement outposts.

Recently, land and home seizures have accelerated to establish new settlement outposts, leading to the displacement of entire villages. These operations are accompanied by the violation of Palestinian dignity during incursions into camps and cities, in an attempt to break the will of popular steadfastness.

Places of worship have not been spared from desecration, with mosques and churches being turned into arenas for provocative dancing that expresses a thirst for blood rather than religious rituals. These actions come in the context of incitement led by extremist ministers in the occupation government who boast about torturing prisoners.

Occupation leaders, including Itamar Ben-Gvir, are trying to restore a false image of strength by abusing defenseless prisoners and crushing their dignity inside detention centers. These actions are a desperate reaction to the breakdown of the Israeli security system's prestige in the field.

Videos show soldiers boasting about killing children and raping Palestinians, in an unprecedented moral decline of the military establishment. Voices within the entity are also rising to demand the use of nuclear weapons against Gaza, reflecting a desire for comprehensive annihilation that spares no one.

Zionist violence extends to the internal components of the entity, as happened in the incident of extremist Jews being run over due to political disputes, or the pursuit of female soldiers. This internal savagery is not new but dates back many years when Yitzhak Rabin was assassinated by an extremist Jew.

It is worth noting that Rabin, who led Zionist gangs and participated in the displacement of Palestinians, was killed merely for attempting to conclude limited political agreements. Benjamin Netanyahu was then one of the most prominent inciters against Rabin to reach power by exploiting extremist rhetoric.

Netanyahu today lives in a stolen house in Jerusalem that originally belonged to the Palestinian doctor Tawfiq Canaan, who was displaced in 1948. This incident summarizes the essence of the entity based on the usurpation of the rights and historical properties of others without any legal or moral deterrent.

In the face of these facts, Arab voices emerge promoting 'coexistence' with this system under the guise of peace, calls that ignore the nature of the enemy. Adhering to the weapon of resistance in Gaza, Lebanon, and Yemen represents an existential necessity to achieve the minimum level of deterrence against an entity that understands only the language of force.

We are facing an entity that knows nothing but violence and theft, and its inherent qualities are those of evil and criminality, by virtue of extended historical facts.

British Prime Minister Keir Starmer faced a severe political crisis after the Labour Party lost a historic seat in the 'Gorton and Denton' constituency in Manchester, a seat the party had dominated for nearly a century. Press reports considered this defeat a direct threat to Starmer's political future, especially after the party fell to third place in these by-elections.

The Green Party achieved a landslide victory in the constituency, securing about 41% of the votes, significantly outperforming the Labour Party, which only garnered 25%. The 'Reform UK' party came in second with 29%, reflecting a radical shift in political loyalties within the traditional strongholds of the British left.

In his first reaction, Starmer showed clear defiance by rejecting the idea of resignation, emphasizing his understanding of voters' frustration and their desire for change. Starmer described the Green and Reform parties as 'extremist' and seeking to tear the country apart, vowing to remain in office and fight for his constituents despite what sources described as a humiliating defeat.

Political sources attributed this failure to several factors, most notably Starmer's stance on the Israeli war on the Gaza Strip, which sparked widespread anger among Muslim voters. His controversial decision to prevent Andy Burnham from running also contributed to increasing internal divisions and alienating a large segment of the party's traditional supporters.

An analysis by 'Electoral Calculus' showed shocking results, predicting that the Prime Minister and almost all members of his government would lose their seats if these results were replicated nationally. The analysis indicated that the Labour Party's representation could shrink to only 33 seats, while the Green Party could jump from 5 seats to 249 seats.

The Muslim voting bloc played a pivotal role in these results, as the Gorton and Denton constituency has a high proportion of Muslim residents who turned to support the Green Party. Observers believe that the Green Party's pro-Palestinian rights campaign succeeded in attracting voters who felt disappointed by the policies of the current Labour leadership.

Sources within the Labour Party reported a growing sense of anxiety among Members of Parliament about their seats in the upcoming elections. A member of the party's council in the constituency confirmed that the Gaza issue has not been forgotten and voters will not forgive the party for its past stances, indicating that pressure is now mounting to push the party towards adopting more left-wing policies.

For its part, the 'Muslim Voice' alliance in Britain stated that this historic result sends a clear message that the votes of Muslim communities cannot be taken for granted by any party. The statement clarified that voters made a conscious choice to punish the Labour Party, which had failed them on fundamental issues including Gaza, the economy, and civil liberties.

The election campaign saw personal participation from Starmer, who called for unity, but his efforts did not succeed in countering Green Party candidate Hannah Spencer. Spencer received public support from former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn, which strengthened her position among voters disgruntled with the current leadership's direction.

This setback comes at a time when the Green Party has been experiencing continuous growth since Zak Polanski took over its leadership in September 2025. This rise reflects voters' desire to find political alternatives capable of expressing their positions on international and local issues that the two major parties ignore.

Analysts believe that the British political scene is undergoing a comprehensive reshaping, as the historical dominance of the Labour and Conservative parties has begun to shake. The local elections scheduled for next May are a pivotal moment that will definitively determine Starmer's ability to remain at the head of the government or face an internal rebellion that will overthrow him.

Despite government attempts to downplay the results of the by-elections, considering them not always reflective of general trends, the demographic model used in recent analyses causes real fear in Downing Street. The numbers indicate that the 'Reform UK' party could become the leading force in the country if the bleeding of votes from the two traditional parties continues.

In a related context, the 'Muslim Voice' alliance stressed that what happened in Gorton and Denton is not an isolated incident, but rather the beginning of a new political reality that the Labour Party will face. The alliance confirmed that issues such as Islamophobia and the deterioration of national health services were strongly present in voters' minds alongside the Palestinian issue.

Reports conclude by noting that pressure is not limited to the grassroots but also extends to trade unions demanding Starmer move to the left. With major elections approaching, the Prime Minister finds himself trapped between his party's historical legacy and a new political reality that refuses to compromise humanitarian principles for party loyalty.

I will continue to fight for these people as long as I live, and the rebel parties want to tear our country apart.

Hebrew media sources reported today, Friday, that prevailing assessments in Tel Aviv clearly indicate the likelihood of a collapse in the ongoing negotiations with Iran regarding its nuclear file. These predictions coincide with the monitoring of intensive American military mobilization in the region, which reinforces the hypothesis of an approaching military action against Tehran.

Press reports stated that the Israeli side shows noticeable satisfaction with the hardline stance adopted by the American administration at present. Washington has set conditions described as the highest ceiling since the start of the negotiation process, which reduces the chances of reaching compromises with the Iranian side.

Sources quoted a senior Israeli official as saying that the continuation of current data means a complete deadlock in the diplomatic horizon. The official added that current Iranian behavior does not suggest a desire to make substantial concessions that meet the recently imposed international demands.

In a related context, the Israeli security establishment is studying potential escalation scenarios in the event of a direct confrontation. Assessments concluded that the possibility of other regional parties engaging in the fighting, specifically Hezbollah in Lebanon and the Houthi group in Yemen, has become very likely.

Security analyses indicate that Hezbollah, despite the internal challenges it faces, will not stand idly by if Iran is subjected to a direct attack. Experts in Tel Aviv believe that the upcoming conflict may take on a pivotal and comprehensive character extending to several fronts simultaneously.

On the diplomatic front, the United States took a notable step by allowing its non-essential diplomatic staff to leave Israel immediately. This decision came as a precautionary measure reflecting the extent of concerns about a sudden and uncontrolled deterioration of security conditions.

The US Embassy urged its citizens in the region to seriously consider leaving as long as commercial flights are still available. It clarified that escalating tensions could at any moment lead to the suspension of civil aviation traffic to and from Israeli airports.

The US State Department issued a statement confirming authorization for government employees and their family members to depart the embassy due to increasing security risks. The statement emphasized that this measure comes in response to field assessments indicating the likelihood of imminent security incidents.

The embassy also warned that it might impose strict restrictions on the movement of its remaining staff in specific areas, including the Old City of Jerusalem and the West Bank. It indicated that these restrictions might be applied without prior notice based on developments in the security situation on the ground.

American warnings included an alert about potential attack plans that might target tourist gatherings, public facilities, and commercial markets. Washington called on its citizens to maintain a high level of vigilance and to stay away from demonstration areas or large gatherings that might be targets for escalation.

The region is experiencing a state of extreme anticipation amid mutual threats between Washington and Tehran, with intensive Israeli preparations for a potential Iranian reaction. Fears are growing that diplomatic failure could spark a widespread regional war that transcends traditional conflict boundaries.

Observers believe that recent American steps, both military and diplomatic, represent maximum pressure on decision-makers in Tehran. However, Tel Aviv continues to raise readiness on all fronts in anticipation of any scenario involving missile launches or drone attacks.

Regarding internal Israel, authorities have begun updating home front instructions and preparing shelters in some vital areas. These moves come amid intelligence reports of unusual movements by Iranian-allied forces in Syria and Lebanon.

In conclusion, the scene remains open to all possibilities, as the world awaits the results of the coming hours that may determine the fate of the nuclear agreement or open the door to a major military confrontation. All eyes remain on the field movements of American forces in the waters of the Gulf and the Mediterranean.

If the situation continues like this, there is no hope of reaching an agreement. This is not in the nature of the Iranians.

A recent poll conducted by the 'Gallup' research institution has revealed a fundamental and unprecedented shift in American public opinion towards the conflict in the Middle East. The results showed that 57% of American citizens now support the establishment of an independent Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, reflecting a stabilization in this upward trend that began in 2020.

The data indicated that public sympathy in the United States has undergone a dramatic shift towards the Palestinian side after decades of absolute support for the occupation. While 54% of Americans leaned towards the occupation three years ago, this percentage has shrunk to only 36%, while sympathy for Palestinians has jumped to 41%, putting both sides at a historic parity for the first time.

Research sources reported that this radical change is primarily driven by the grassroots of the Democratic Party and independents. About two-thirds of Democrats currently express sympathy for Palestinians, compared to only about 25% in 2016, making the issue of military aid to the occupation a major point of contention in the party's primaries.

The shift was not limited to Democrats but also included independents, who for the first time in the history of 'Gallup' polls showed greater sympathy for Palestinians than for the occupation. 40% of independents lean towards the Palestinian narrative, compared to only 30% who support the occupation, which is the lowest level of support recorded for this influential political group.

Regarding age groups, the poll showed a wide generational gap, with young people aged 18 to 34 leading the advocates for Palestinian rights. Half of these young people affirm their sympathy for Palestinians, while the percentage of supporters of the occupation among them does not exceed a quarter, which explains the momentum of student protests in American universities.

The poll also observed a notable shift among middle-aged Americans (35-54 years old), who for the first time showed greater sympathy for Palestinians compared to last year. Even among seniors over 55, who remain the group most supportive of the occupation, their levels of sympathy recorded their lowest since 2005.

Analysts link this decline in American support to the policies of the right-wing government in Israel led by Benjamin Netanyahu. Netanyahu's popularity in the United States has fallen by about 15 percentage points over the past seven years, affected by his previous disagreements with the Obama administration and his close association with Trump, leading up to his management of the current war.

Regarding the Republican Party, 70% of its supporters still back the occupation, but this percentage has declined from the 80% level it was at before the outbreak of the war. Within the isolationist wing of the party, voices are emerging that question the utility of continuing to provide traditional military and financial support to the occupation without restrictions.

Sources explained that the ongoing war on the Gaza Strip and the military response, described as disproportionate, were key drivers of this accelerated shift. With the martyrdom of more than 72,000 Palestinians, half of whom are women and children, many American politicians and activists began describing what is happening as 'genocide,' a term that is now strongly echoed in progressive circles.

Despite widespread American support for the two-state solution, the poll revealed a gap between American aspirations and the reality on the ground in the region. Global 'Gallup' data showed that only 30% of Palestinians and settlers in the occupied territories support this solution, indicating the complexity of the scene on the ground compared to the external view.

Benedict Viggers, a global news writer at 'Gallup,' stated that closing the gap in American public opinion within a few years is astonishing. He added that partisan polarization on the Palestinian issue has reached its peak, with 75% of Democrats supporting a Palestinian state compared to only a third of Republicans.

These figures confirm that the Palestinian issue is no longer a secondary topic in American politics but has become a driver of internal elections and a determinant of foreign policy. The shift in the sentiments of independents and youth portends long-term changes in the nature of the strategic relationship between Washington and Tel Aviv in the coming decades.

Observers believe that the recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of the occupation and the latter's sovereignty over the Golan during the Trump era contributed to deepening American division over the conflict. While some considered them diplomatic victories, a wide segment of Democrats and independents saw them as undermining opportunities for a just peace, pushing them to adopt more equitable positions for Palestinians.

In conclusion, the poll highlights that American society is undergoing a comprehensive re-evaluation of its role in the Middle East. With the continuation of the war and the escalation of humanitarian crises, it appears that the Palestinian narrative has begun to find its way into the consciousness of the average American citizen, overcoming decades of systematic media and political marginalization.

This is the first time that sympathy for both sides has reached parity, which is truly remarkable; within a few years, that large gap in public opinion has been completely closed.

Expansionist statements by high-ranking American officials, based on biblical references to borders extending from the Nile to the Euphrates, raise fundamental questions about the nature of current strategic transformations. This language is not merely fleeting remarks, but touches upon a historical memory burdened by conflicts and awakens deep regional fears regarding the intentions of major powers in the region.

The American political scene has witnessed a remarkable increase in the influence of the conservative evangelical movement within the Republican Party over the past two decades. This movement does not treat Israel as a traditional strategic ally, but rather sees it as an extension of a theological vision linked to esoteric texts and religious conceptions of the end of history, which explains the infiltration of biblical terminology into official discourse.

Despite the power of this ideological discourse, the institutional structure of the American state remains governed by a complex network of vital interests. These interests include ensuring energy security and the stability of global markets, in addition to maintaining strategic alliances with Gulf states and Turkey, and confronting escalating competition with China and Russia.

American calculations in the region are managed in the language of numbers and military and economic indicators more than theological texts. The deep state realizes that any adventure to radically change the region's maps could lead to a comprehensive explosion that Washington cannot bear the consequences of, thus imposing a kind of restraint on extreme ideological ambitions.

Israel's existence and continuity depend on broad international coverage and a complex network of diplomatic relations that prevent it from engaging in uncalculated regional expansion. Despite its military power, any attempt to impose a new geographical reality would mean the disintegration of the alliance system that ensures its relative stability in its surroundings.

The real danger lies in the process of 'normalizing' expansionist language within the public sphere and transforming it into a legitimate subject for discussion. This shift gives extremist currents greater political audacity and creates a psychological environment conducive to accepting gradual field steps that may not appear aggressive on the surface but change reality in the long run.

History does not always change through major leaps or swift wars, but often through slow and systematic accumulations. These accumulations include amending administrative laws, expanding settlements, and imposing new realities on the ground that redefine the actual boundaries of control without the need for loud official announcements.

Peace projects proposed in the region are considered tools for re-engineering regional balances and distributing spheres of influence among active powers. These initiatives are fundamentally subject to calculations of power and interest, far from moral idealism, which requires a cold structural reading to understand their true objectives, free from emotions.

The future of the region is linked to three crucial factors: first, the ability of American institutions to balance the ideological convictions of some of its currents with supreme strategic interests. This balance determines the extent of impetus towards supporting expansionist agendas that may harm Washington's international standing.

The second factor is the stance of regional allies, specifically Arab states and Turkey, towards any shift in political discourse towards symbolic or actual expansion. The cohesion of these positions and their ability to maneuver politically constitute a bulwark against attempts to redraw maps based on religious perceptions.

The true compass for any political intentions is manifested in the course of field changes in Jerusalem and the West Bank. What happens on the ground in these areas is the most accurate indicator of the major powers' orientations, transcending media statements to reach the core of the geopolitical conflict.

Sound strategic analysis does not deny the existence of expansionist currents, but it warns against being drawn into the assumption of a 'master plan' without precise monitoring of power balances. Real power lies in building legal and media tools capable of confronting political deviations before they become an imposed reality.

Actors in the region must accurately distinguish between language and decision, and between religious symbolism and political implementation on the ground. Ultimately, politics is the art of managing the possible, and history is not driven by enthusiastic slogans but by the ability to read power balances and act within available spaces.

In conclusion, the Middle East remains an arena of contention between ideology and interest, where each party seeks to impose its vision. Vigilance against the transformation of discourse into policies, and policies into realities, is the only guarantee to prevent the transformation of theological myths into geographical maps that tear apart the region's stability.

The Middle East is not reshaped by discourse alone, but it may be reshaped if discourse turns into policies, policies into realities, and realities into new maps.

Fundamental questions are escalating regarding the double standards governing international politics, especially when it comes to projecting religious beliefs onto official positions. This contradiction is clearly highlighted when comparing the Western model's acceptance of its officials' religiosity with the condemnation of any religious authority in Islamic contexts.

The appointment of Mike Huckabee to a high diplomatic post was not merely a fleeting administrative measure; rather, it revealed the depth of his evangelical background and its direct impact on his decisions. Nevertheless, this background was treated as part of a legitimate personal identity within an institutional system that claims separation of religion and state.

The great paradox lies in the fact that Western religiosity is often marketed as an individual conviction governed by modern constitutional controls, while Islamic orientation is classified as a reactionary project that threatens civility. This classification is not based on objective values but reflects power balances that grant one party the right to define what is civilized.

No serious international calls emerged demanding Ambassador Huckabee leave his 'Evangelical-Talmudic' beliefs at the threshold of his position, even though his stances further complicate the region's turmoil. Instead, he is allowed to pour oil on the burning fire under the guise of biased official diplomacy.

The priestly discourse adopted by some Western politicians is asked to be understood by the world within the context of multiculturalism, while any Islamic authority is preemptively assumed to be a threat to multiculturalism. This abhorrent duality reveals a structural flaw that threatens international peace and security and undermines the concept of justice.

In a related context to diplomatic movements in the region, Tel Aviv recently witnessed an Iftar dinner hosted by Emirati Ambassador Mohammed Al Khaja, attended by Israeli President Isaac Herzog. This event reflected attempts to establish a new political reality that transcends traditional conflicts under the name of peace.

During that dinner, Herzog praised Emirati President Mohammed bin Zayed, describing him as one of the most influential and wise leaders of the current era. Herzog considered the UAE a fundamental pillar of the Abraham Accords and a hub for stability in a region suffering from continuous unrest.

The Israeli President condemned what he described as campaigns of hatred and slander launched by some countries against the Emirati-Israeli peace process. He claimed that these alliances aim to build a common future, despite the ongoing Israeli military operations that draw widespread criticism in the Palestinian territories.

The meeting of representatives of different religions at the Emirati Embassy in Tel Aviv is presented as a model of religious tolerance, but it raises questions about the timing of these events. While Iftar dinners are held, human suffering continues in the occupied territories, highlighting a gap between diplomatic discourse and the reality on the ground.

Observers believe that this blend of religious values and politics is only permissible when it comes from dominant powers or those within their orbit. However, when others try to adhere to their value heritage, they face accusations of backwardness and attempts at isolation and political containment.

The legacy of power and colonial standards still controls the formulation of the current international system, where priestly obsession converges with major economic interests. This political recipe does not establish sustainable security but pushes towards an inevitable civilizational clash due to the absence of the principle of equality.

If the Western model allows the mixing of religion with politics to serve its interests, then condemning this behavior in others expresses a blatant privilege of power. The issue at its core is not the ambassador's religious identity, but the absence of the voice of reason and justice in dealing with the fateful issues of peoples.

Today, the Islamic world faces a great challenge in how to establish political legitimacy that respects its values and ancient heritage without sliding into absurd conflicts. What is needed is to build institutions that guarantee freedom and justice for all, away from the dominance of racist figures who impose their unilateral vision.

Ultimately, the question remains open about the international community's ability to overcome this duality and reach understandings that respect the specificities of peoples. True justice requires ceasing to grant immunity to certain identities and depriving others of the right to express themselves in the political sphere.

The issue is not the ambassador's religious identity as much as it is the absence of justice and the voice of reason in a world controlled by the privilege of power.

Al-Zaytouna Centre for Studies and Consultations issued a summary of its periodic Palestinian Strategic Report for the years 2024-2025, which serves as an in-depth research reference co-authored by 15 specialized researchers. This edition comes at a pivotal historical moment following the Al-Aqsa Flood battle, to monitor the structural transformations that have occurred in the general Palestinian scene.

The report paints a complex picture of the internal Palestinian scene, where popular criticism of the Palestinian Authority's performance is escalating amid continued aggression and worsening violations in the West Bank. It also points to a deep crisis of confidence afflicting the political system, coinciding with controversial decisions related to allocations for prisoners and martyrs and the rearrangement of leadership.

Regarding the post-war management of the Gaza Strip, the study observed a divergence in visions between the Authority's readiness to assume tasks and Hamas's flexibility towards forming a community support committee. However, complexities remain, especially concerning the resistance's weaponry, which faces intense external pressure to end its military presence.

Demographically, statistics revealed that the number of Palestinians worldwide reached 15.5 million by the end of 2025, with more than half of them living in the diaspora. Estimates indicate that the Palestinian presence within historical Palestine has surpassed the number of Jews, with expectations of this gap widening by 2030.

The report documented massive human losses in the Gaza Strip, where the number of martyrs was estimated at about 77,000 over two years, in addition to 170,000 others suffering various injuries. Sources confirmed that the Strip lost about 10.6% of its population due to direct killing, forced displacement, and the deadly living conditions imposed by the occupation.

In occupied Jerusalem, Judaization operations have moved to unprecedented stages through intensified incursions into Al-Aqsa Mosque, exceeding 73,000 infiltrators in 2025. Through these policies, along with the demolition of homes in Sheikh Jarrah and Silwan, the occupation aims to alter the demographic balance in favor of the settlers.

The aggressions were not limited to residential areas but extended to religious and historical identity, as the occupation army destroyed 93% of Gaza Strip mosques and two-thirds of existing cemeteries. Historical churches were also directly targeted, in a clear attempt to erase the civilizational memory of the Palestinian people in the afflicted Strip.

Economically, Palestinians are experiencing a state of near-total collapse, especially in Gaza, where its GDP contracted by 84%, and unemployment rates reached 78%. In the West Bank, the situation was not much better, with the economy declining by 13% and a significant increase in the ranks of the unemployed.

The report clarified that the Palestinian Authority's budget remains hostage to political pressures, as it relies 84% on clearance funds and international grants. The occupation also controls the joints of foreign trade, as trade exchange with the Israeli side accounts for more than 60% of the total Palestinian trade movement.

On the ground, military confrontation continued with high intensity during 2024 and 2025, as the occupation army carried out thousands of airstrikes targeting infrastructure and civilians. In contrast, the Palestinian resistance maintained its operational capabilities in Gaza and the West Bank, despite the heavy human and material cost paid by the Palestinian people.

Data indicated the occupation's failure to achieve its declared strategic goals despite the extent of destruction, as resistance cells remained capable of carrying out qualitative operations. Sources recorded thousands of operations in the West Bank, reflecting the continuity of popular and armed confrontation against settlement expansion and daily aggressions.

Diplomatically, Palestine achieved progress in gaining international recognition, with the number of recognizing states reaching 159, despite Israeli intransigence and American reservations. The 'Beijing Declaration' emerged as one of the serious attempts to unify the Palestinian ranks, although it faced implementation obstacles related to the political program and international community conditions.

The report anticipates a future dominated by internal polarization and continuous economic pressures, with expectations of living conditions remaining fragile and linked to the extent of calm stability. Researchers believe that the occupation will continue its attempts to impose new geographical realities in Jerusalem and the West Bank to undermine any opportunity for establishing a contiguous Palestinian state.

In conclusion, the report emphasizes that these figures and statistics reflect a tragic reality but at the same time confirm the dynamism of Palestinian steadfastness. The center called for the necessity of adopting comprehensive strategic readings based on scientific data to confront the existential challenges facing the Palestinian cause at this stage.

No matter how accurate, numbers do not encapsulate the extent of human suffering, nor do they summarize the dynamics of steadfastness and resistance in the face of attempts to erase identity.

The US Embassy in occupied Jerusalem has issued a decision allowing its non-essential staff and their family members to leave the occupied territories, in response to security assessments indicating potential risks. Diplomatic sources clarified that this measure comes in the context of growing concerns about the outbreak of a direct military confrontation with Iran, especially as political and military tensions in the region have reached unprecedented levels.

Although the embassy did not disclose the nature of the specific security threats that necessitated this measure, it confirmed that the decision falls under the category of voluntary 'authorized departure.' This classification grants the affected employees the freedom to choose whether to stay or leave, which differs from the forced departure procedures imposed earlier this week on diplomatic staff in the Lebanese capital, Beirut.

This diplomatic move coincides with the United States strengthening its military presence in the Middle East, where the region is witnessing one of the largest deployments of US forces. These military movements come at a sensitive time when Washington is engaged in complex negotiations with Tehran regarding its nuclear file, which have not yielded tangible results so far.

In a related context, informed sources reported that the latest round of nuclear talks, which concluded on Thursday, did not achieve any significant diplomatic breakthrough. This stalemate has intensified Iranian rhetoric, with Tehran threatening to target US military bases deployed in the region if it is subjected to any attack, while warning that any escalation could draw Israel into the heart of the confrontation.

On a broader international level, other Western capitals have begun to take similar precautionary steps by evacuating the families of their diplomats from several countries in the Middle East. Several countries have also issued warnings to their citizens, urging them to avoid traveling to Iran, in light of the state of alert and anticipation prevailing in the region due to the ongoing tensions between Washington and Tehran.

Authorized departure allows affected employees to decide whether or not they will leave, and it does not rise to the level of mandatory evacuation.

Security and political circles in Tel Aviv are in a state of high alert, coinciding with the approaching deadline set by US President Donald Trump for the nuclear negotiations in Geneva. Sources reported that assessments indicate a high probability of these talks collapsing next Sunday, which would open the door for direct American military options against Iranian facilities.

Media reports stated that the stalemate in the Geneva track is due to Tehran's adherence to firm positions, as it categorically rejected American demands related to removing its enriched uranium stockpile from its territory. The Iranian leadership also expressed complete rejection of committing to the principle of 'zero enrichment' permanently, considering it a تجاوز of its red lines in nuclear sovereignty.

In a related context, Iran rejects any proposals aimed at dismantling its sensitive nuclear infrastructure, especially the 'Fordow', 'Natanz', and 'Isfahan' facilities. These complexities have led military circles in Tel Aviv to conduct dramatically described situation assessments, to discuss scenarios of an expected Iranian response if it is subjected to an airstrike by Washington.

Intelligence estimates indicate that any upcoming confrontation will not be limited to one front, but will quickly turn into a 'multi-front' war. Military analysts believe that the Houthi group in Yemen will be the first party to engage in fighting alongside Tehran, by targeting Israeli depth with missiles and drones.

Sources warned of the repercussions of Hamas's involvement in this potential confrontation, as the occupation army's leadership has developed plans for the complete occupation of the Gaza Strip and the elimination of the remaining leadership structure of the movement if a front is opened from the Strip. This threat comes as part of deterrence attempts to prevent the expansion of the conflict to include Palestinian territories.

As for the northern front and the Iraqi arena, current estimates tend to suggest that Hezbollah and pro-Iranian militias in Iraq may prefer not to officially and directly join the confrontation in its initial stages. However, reports indicate increasing internal pressures within these organizations pushing for active participation to enhance the unity of the arenas.

Yedioth Ahronoth newspaper, for its part, confirmed that preparations in Tel Aviv are taking place regardless of the final results of the Geneva talks, as the prevailing assumption is that failure is the most likely scenario. Operational plans are based on the premise that any American attack will be followed by an immediate and direct Iranian response targeting major cities and vital facilities within the occupied territories.

Estimates concluded that Tehran views any American military action as primarily serving Israeli interests, which increases the likelihood of retaliatory strikes against Tel Aviv. Accordingly, emergency and air defense agencies have stepped up their preparations to face scenarios of intense bombardment from different directions.

Any upcoming conflict will be multi-front, and if Hamas joins the confrontation, the direct meaning of that will be a complete occupation of the Strip and the elimination of the remaining leadership.

The results of a recent Israeli public opinion poll revealed a state of deep pessimism regarding the prospects of the conflict with the Palestinians, transcending traditional right-left divisions. The study's organizers explained that the results reflect a clear desire to avoid making decisive decisions, amidst the dominance of fear of the unknown and an inability to translate general understandings into concrete policies.

According to the poll conducted by researchers from Reichman University in December 2025, less than half of the Jewish public supports the idea of separation from the Palestinians in any form. The figures showed that only 22% support the two-state solution, while 23% lean towards unilateral separation, indicating a sharp decline in traditional political options.

In contrast, a majority of 55% expressed their preference for continued Israeli control over the West Bank territories. This percentage is divided between supporters of officially annexing the territories and those who prefer to maintain the status quo, escaping the implications of radical change.

Researchers Zion Heffler and Gilad Hirschberger noted that these results do not necessarily reflect an ideological adherence to the idea of 'Greater Israel'. Rather, they express a tendency to choose a path that does not require immediate concessions or tangible security risks at present, which explains the continuous erosion of support for the two-state solution since 2018.

The study confirmed that this shift in Israeli consciousness began before the events of October 7th, meaning it is a deep pattern of loss of faith in political solutions. The Jewish public believes that physical threats, such as armed operations and rockets, far outweigh symbolic or international legal threats.

Respondents view withdrawal from Palestinian territories as an immediate and clear threat to personal security, while the consequences of controlling millions of Palestinians are considered a theoretical or long-term issue. This perception creates a consistent bias in favor of avoiding separatist solutions, whether through bilateral agreements or unilateral steps.

The poll revealed a state of 'trap awareness', where the public refuses to pay the security price of withdrawal, just as it rejects the price of annexation that could harm the state's identity and global image. As a result of this contradiction, the priority emerges to postpone major decisions and maintain the current reality despite its clear instability.

Regarding the future of the Gaza Strip, more than half of the participants supported continued Israeli control over the Strip even after the end of combat operations. Widespread support emerged for ideas described as extreme, such as encouraging the emigration of Palestinian residents from Gaza, as a way to permanently remove the security threat.

In a striking paradox, the public showed openness to the idea of regional cooperation with moderate Arab countries, with more than half supporting this trend to enhance security. However, this percentage drops to only one-fifth if this cooperation is conditional on progress towards a two-state solution or making geographical concessions.

The study addressed a significant gap in understanding demographic reality, where a large majority of Jews believe there is a solid Jewish majority of 62% between the river and the sea. This conviction contradicts official census data indicating that the percentage of Jews in this region does not exceed 48%, which fuels the illusion of being able to continue control without threatening the state's future.

The results deepened the image of doubt and distrust towards Palestinians in general, with 80% of respondents believing that Palestinians primarily seek to destroy Israel. This certainty of an existential threat prevents any change in political perceptions and reinforces patterns of generalization and hostility.

This trend was not limited to Palestinians in the occupied territories but extended to Palestinians within Israel, with more than half of the Jewish public believing they supported the Hamas attack. This combination of demographic fear and security doubts reinforces hesitation in dealing with the long-term costs of continued conflict.

The researchers concluded that Israeli society is in a state of intellectual closure towards political solutions, preferring to manage the conflict rather than resolve it. The report states that the search for solutions that remove the threat, even if impractical, has become the primary driver of general political attitudes.

In conclusion, these data indicate that the gap between field reality and general perceptions in Israel is widening, complicating any international or regional efforts to revive the peace process. The option of 'postponing the decision' remains dominant, awaiting an unknown that everyone fears and lacks the tools to confront.

The Jewish public rejects withdrawal, which entails security risks, and annexation, which harms the state's image, creating a 'trap awareness' that pushes for postponing decisions and maintaining the status quo.

Washington – Said Arikat - 2026

Francesca Albanese's family has filed a lawsuit in a federal court in Washington against the Donald Trump administration, challenging the sanctions imposed on her by the US government last year due to her stances on the war in Gaza and her criticisms of Israel.

The lawsuit, filed Wednesday in the US District Court for the District of Columbia, states that the sanctions "violate the First Amendment of the US Constitution," considering that Albanese's statements and her work within the United Nations fall under constitutionally protected freedom of speech and professional activity. The lawsuit was filed by Albanese's husband and minor daughter, arguing that the US measures have caused direct harm to the family, including financial and banking restrictions and complications related to residency and travel.

Albanese serves as the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the occupied Palestinian territories, an independent position appointed by the UN Human Rights Council. During the recent war in Gaza, she was one of the most prominent voices criticizing Israeli military operations and called for accountability for potential violations before the International Criminal Court.

In July 2025, the US administration imposed sanctions on Albanese, accusing her of taking "biased" positions and working to undermine the interests of the United States and its allies. The sanctions included her listing on the Treasury Department's registers, which entails freezing any assets subject to US jurisdiction and prohibiting financial transactions with her by American institutions or individuals.

The lawsuit names several senior officials in the Trump administration in their official capacities, including the Secretary of State, the Secretary of the Treasury, and the Attorney General, arguing that the sanctions decision was the result of a "high-level political directive" aimed at silencing a critical voice within an international institution.

In a statement, Albanese described the sanctions as an "attempt to intimidate her and deter her from performing her duties," affirming that she would continue her work as an independent expert mandated by the United Nations. For its part, the US administration defended its decision, stating that the measures are legal and fall within the executive branch's powers in foreign policy and protecting national interests.

The case highlights escalating tension between Washington and some UN human rights mechanisms, particularly concerning the Palestinian-Israeli issue. It also opens the door for a new judicial test of the limits of using US sanctions against international officials, and the extent to which such decisions are subject to review by US courts when they have effects that touch upon constitutional rights within the United States.

It is expected that the court will begin considering preliminary requests to temporarily halt the implementation of sanctions until the constitutionality of the measures is decided, in a case that may have repercussions extending beyond the direct parties to affect the relationship between US constitutional law and international accountability mechanisms.

This case reflects a growing clash between traditional US foreign policy tools, based on sanctions, and the domestic constitutional legal system that grants broad protection to freedom of expression. US courts have long given the executive branch wide latitude in national security matters, but targeting an individual working within an independent UN framework raises a new question about whether sanctions can become a tool of political deterrence against legal or human rights discourse. Consequently, the court may find itself facing a delicate test of balancing presidential powers and protecting individual rights within the US constitutional system.

At the international level, the repercussions of the lawsuit may extend beyond its legal boundaries to affect Washington's relationship with UN institutions, especially if the imposition of sanctions is considered a precedent that allows for punishing international experts for their reports or professional opinions. The success of the lawsuit could strengthen the independence of UN human rights mechanisms, while its failure could encourage other countries to take similar actions against UN rapporteurs who criticize their policies. In both cases, the issue appears to be an indicator of a broader shift in the interplay between international law and the domestic policies of major powers.

By Said Arikat

News Analysis

Washington, D.C. — Four years into the war in Ukraine, a rigid orthodoxy dominates Western debate: Russia alone caused the conflict. The invasion, we are told, was entirely unprovoked, and responsibility rests exclusively with the Kremlin. This conclusion is presented not only as a moral judgment but as strategic truth.

Yet claiming moral clarity is not the same as analytical honesty. Wars of this magnitude rarely emerge from a single decision detached from political context. Russia bears direct responsibility for launching the February 2022 invasion. Acknowledging that fact, however, should not preclude examining how Western policies helped shape the conditions in which war became increasingly likely.

For nearly two decades, Moscow repeatedly warned that Ukrainian membership in NATO crossed a fundamental security red line. These warnings were neither subtle nor concealed. At NATO’s 2008 Bucharest Summit, the alliance declared that Ukraine “will become a member.” Western leaders framed the pledge as support for sovereignty and democratic choice; Russia interpreted it as the continued advance of a hostile military alliance toward its borders.

Western officials insist NATO is purely defensive and therefore nonthreatening. That claim reflects how the alliance understands itself, not necessarily how others perceive it. International politics operates on perceptions of power rather than declarations of intent. Strategic stability depends less on what states believe about themselves than on what their adversaries fear.

The United States has long recognized this logic. Washington was prepared to risk nuclear confrontation during the Cuban Missile Crisis to prevent Soviet deployments in Cuba. No American policymaker would calmly accept a rival military alliance integrating Mexico or Canada into its security architecture. Yet Western leaders appeared surprised by Russia’s intense reaction to NATO’s gradual expansion toward Ukraine — a country central to Russian history, geography, and military planning.

Rather than treating Russian objections as a security concern requiring management, Western policymakers increasingly dismissed them as paranoia or imperial nostalgia. That dismissal was not strategy but wishful thinking. Ignoring an adversary’s stated fears does not neutralize them; it hardens them.

After Russia annexed Crimea in 2014, Western policy deepened rather than recalibrated. NATO expanded training missions, increased weapons transfers, and intensified intelligence cooperation with Ukraine. Kyiv moved steadily closer to NATO in practice while remaining outside its formal security guarantees. The result was a dangerous imbalance: enough integration to alarm Moscow, but insufficient deterrence to prevent escalation.

Ukraine thus entered a strategic gray zone — aligned militarily without protection, while Russia perceived a slow-motion absorption of a neighboring state it considered vital to its security. Western policymakers viewed this approach as a way to support Ukraine without direct confrontation. In practice, it produced mounting instability rather than equilibrium.

I witnessed how stark this disconnect had become in December 2021. As Russian forces massed along Ukraine’s borders, Moscow delivered two draft treaties to the Biden administration proposing what it called “security guarantees.” The documents demanded a legally binding prohibition on Ukrainian NATO membership and a rollback of NATO deployments in Eastern Europe. The proposals were sweeping and, in key respects, unacceptable. But they also represented an unmistakable signal that the Kremlin viewed the existing trajectory as intolerable.

Days later, Undersecretary of State Victoria Nuland entered the State Department briefing room to address the escalating crisis. I was present. When I and several colleagues asked whether the Russian proposals might serve as a starting point for serious negotiation — even if only to test Moscow’s bottom line — the idea was dismissed. There was little indication that Washington saw value in publicly engaging the core demand. Soon afterward, the United States and its allies formally rejected the drafts.

Rather than testing whether diplomacy could reduce tensions, Washington reinforced that NATO’s open-door policy was nonnegotiable. Principle took precedence over strategic timing. From Moscow’s perspective, diplomacy appeared exhausted before it had meaningfully begun.

Western leaders continue to describe the invasion as “unprovoked.” Yet from the Kremlin’s vantage point, NATO expansion — combined with the refusal even to discuss limits — constituted a cumulative provocation. Whether that perception was justified matters less than the fact that policymakers failed to account for it.

The deeper problem lies in the structure of the post–Cold War order itself. NATO expanded steadily eastward while no inclusive European security architecture emerged that meaningfully incorporated Russia. Enlargement advanced during a period of Russian weakness, producing a system in which one side’s security gains appeared to come at the other’s expense. Western policymakers assumed liberal integration would eventually override geopolitical rivalry. It did not.

Critics argue that acknowledging Western missteps risks legitimizing spheres of influence. Yet refusing self-examination carries its own danger. A foreign policy that treats its principles as immune from strategic consequences becomes incapable of learning from failure.

None of this alters the central fact that Russia chose war. But Western decisions narrowed diplomatic space and intensified confrontation. Two realities can coexist: Russia acted aggressively, and NATO policy helped create a crisis environment in which escalation became increasingly probable.

Four years later, the consequences are unmistakable. Ukraine lies devastated, Europe is rearming, Russia is entrenched in long-term confrontation with the West, and global instability has deepened. The promise that NATO expansion would produce a more secure Europe has yielded the opposite result.

If policymakers hope to prevent future catastrophes, they must abandon comforting myths. Strategic success requires understanding how one’s own actions appear to rivals, not merely asserting moral righteousness. The tragedy of Ukraine is not only that Russia chose war, but that Western leaders pursued policies that made that choice easier to imagine — and harder to avoid.

International press reports have revealed a new direction in Iranian diplomacy aimed at presenting wide-ranging economic incentives to the administration of US President Donald Trump. These proposals include opening vital sectors such as oil, gas, mining, and aviation to direct American investments, in an attempt to avoid any potential military action and alleviate the burden of economic sanctions that are crippling the Iranian economy.

Informed sources described this offer as a 'commercial prize' specifically designed to suit President Trump's inclinations, as he places great importance on economic returns and major commercial deals. Through this step, Tehran aims to build common interests that would make it difficult for Washington to proceed with military escalation options, while ensuring the renewed flow of foreign investments.

The leaked information indicates that planners in Tehran are carefully studying the Venezuelan model, where American energy companies were allowed to operate despite diplomatic estrangement and acute political tensions. Iran hopes that this path will lead to the release of tens of billions of dollars frozen in foreign accounts, in exchange for its activities being subject to a strict international monitoring mechanism.

In the context of diplomatic moves, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi announced significant progress in the third round of negotiations concluded in Geneva. Araghchi described these talks as the most focused and in-depth, noting that mutual understandings were reached on fundamental issues including the lifting of sanctions and technical steps related to the nuclear program.

Despite the positive atmosphere described by the Iranian side, other reports indicated the continued existence of fundamental gaps in positions between the two parties. Washington adheres to strict demands including the destruction of fortified nuclear sites and the transfer of the entire enriched uranium stockpile out of Iranian territory, which Tehran has categorically rejected so far.

US envoys, Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner, informed the Iranian side that any future agreement must be permanent and comprehensive, going beyond the loopholes of the 2015 agreement. The US administration insists on not including 'sunset clauses' that would allow Iran to resume its nuclear activities after a specified period, emphasizing the need for eternal guarantees.

In an attempt to bridge viewpoints, Iran presented technical proposals including reducing uranium enrichment levels from 60% to just 1.5%, or suspending enrichment operations for several years. A proposal also emerged to establish an 'Arab-Iranian consortium' to manage and process nuclear fuel inside Iran to dispel international concerns about the possibilities of nuclear armament.

For its part, the United States still raises the slogan of 'zero enrichment' as a final strategic goal in any negotiations with Tehran, but it has shown slight flexibility behind the scenes. Sources indicate that Washington may allow limited operation of a research reactor in Tehran for the production of medical isotopes, provided that it is under close international supervision to prevent any deviation towards military purposes.

These developments come at a sensitive time, as news circulates about President Trump being briefed on a set of ready military options against Iranian facilities. The Iranian bet remains on the extent to which 'economic diplomacy' can convince the White House to replace the language of threat with the language of mutually beneficial commercial deals.

The Iranian strategy is based on offering a 'commercial prize' to American interests in the oil, gas, and mineral sectors in exchange for security and economic guarantees.

Informed sources indicate that US intelligence reports do not support recent claims made by President Donald Trump regarding Iran's imminent acquisition of intercontinental ballistic missiles. The sources clarified that current technical assessments raise major questions about the justifications put forward by the White House for threatening military action against Tehran.

The US President had stated during his 'State of the Union' address to Congress that Iran was rapidly developing missiles that would soon reach the American heartland. Trump considered this development a direct threat requiring decisive action, as part of his effort to rally public opinion behind his escalating policies towards the Iranian regime.

In contrast, two informed sources confirmed that there has been no fundamental change to the annual assessment submitted by the US Defense Intelligence Agency for 2025. This assessment clearly indicates that Iran may need a full decade, specifically until 2035, to be able to produce a militarily viable intercontinental ballistic missile.

For her part, White House spokeswoman Anna Kelly defended the President's stance, noting that Trump is right to highlight the serious risks posed by Iranian military programs. Kelly said that concerns about Tehran acquiring intercontinental missile technology remain a top priority for the current US administration.

Technical experts believe that even if Tehran receives technological support from allies such as China or North Korea, the process would take a long time. These experts estimate that producing a missile ready for actual combat operations requires at least eight years of continuous testing and development.

In the same context, press reports quoted US intelligence agencies as believing that Tehran is still years away from possessing long-range offensive capabilities. These assessments come at a sensitive time when the region is witnessing intense US military reinforcements coinciding with stalled nuclear negotiations between the two sides.

The White House has not yet provided additional details or concrete intelligence evidence to support the narrative presented by Trump to Congress. Observers describe this approach as the most aggressive towards Iran in decades, with Trump linking the missile program and support for armed groups to justify any future action.

Trump also claimed that Iran had begun rebuilding its nuclear facilities that were subjected to US raids last June, asserting that those sites had resumed operations. Despite these statements, no public reports have emerged confirming the resumption of activity at the three main sites previously targeted by US airstrikes.

For his part, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio adopted a tone that seemed more reserved than the President's statements, describing Iran as 'on a path' to acquiring these weapons. This phrasing reflects an attempt to balance tough political rhetoric with the technical reality imposed by intelligence reports.

On the other hand, Iran continues to deny its pursuit of nuclear weapons, asserting that all its activities fall under peaceful and research purposes. Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi stressed that his country is not developing long-range missiles, and that its current arsenal is exclusively for self-defense.

Araqchi clarified in press statements that the range of Iranian missiles is predetermined with a ceiling not exceeding two thousand kilometers, which is sufficient to respond to regional threats. Tehran insists that its missile program is a sovereign right not subject to negotiation, despite increasing international pressure to restrict its ballistic capabilities.

Data from the International Atomic Energy Agency indicates that Iran halted its military nuclear program in 2003, despite continuing to enrich uranium. However, the high levels of enrichment raise international concerns about the possibility of converting the program to a military path in a short time.

Iran currently possesses the largest ballistic missile system in the Middle East, capable of reaching targets in Europe and surrounding US bases. Analysts believe that the development of Iranian space launch vehicles provides it with technical expertise that could be converted in the future into intercontinental missiles if the political decision is made.

However, David Albright, president of the Institute for Science and International Security, asserts that Tehran still lacks the technology to protect nuclear warheads during re-entry into the atmosphere. Experts conclude that the gap between political rhetoric and on-the-ground reality remains wide, especially with the damage to Iranian facilities from recent Israeli strikes.

Intelligence reports do not contain anything to support Trump's claim that Tehran will soon be able to develop a missile capable of reaching American territory.

Gaza - Al-Quds Special Correspondent - The Gaza Strip has witnessed a gradual military escalation in recent weeks, taking on a systematic and expanding character, moving beyond the framework of limited operations or localized responses, to reflect the features of a new security strategy through which Israel seeks to re-engineer the field scene and impose different security equations by force.

This escalation is characterized by its geographical breadth and temporal recurrence, targeting multiple areas throughout the Strip, including residential areas and civilian sites, in the absence of effective international pressure that could curb this trajectory or limit its repercussions.

Observers believe that this shift cannot be read as a fleeting reaction, but rather as part of a deliberate policy aimed at redefining the rules of engagement and creating a new security reality within the Strip.

Expanding the "Yellow Line"

The escalation coincides with the expansion of what is known as the "Yellow Line," in a move that reflects a practical Israeli endeavor to redraw the security borders within Gaza, and create a wider field area controlled by Israeli forces.

Analysts believe that this expansion aims to enshrine greater freedom of movement for the occupation army, and establish a new deterrence equation based on continuous pressure and the cost of attrition.

Writer and political analyst Dhu al-Fiqar Suwerjo confirms that what is happening goes beyond the framework of "tactical responses," and reflects a systematic escalation policy aimed at reshaping the rules of engagement and imposing field realities that serve the Israeli security and military vision.

He points out to "Y" that the expansion of the "Yellow Line" constitutes a central tool in this strategy, allowing for the imposition of additional restrictions on the movement of residents and increasing pressure on the environment supporting the resistance.

Targeting Societal Resilience

The objectives of the escalation, according to Suwerjo, are not limited to the military dimension alone, but extend to an attempt to weaken the resilience of the population by expanding the scope of targeting to include civilians and residential areas, thereby exacerbating the psychological and social impact, and deepening the state of anxiety and instability.

He adds that the Israeli message is clear: raising the cost of any form of resistance or resilience, in an attempt to push Palestinian factions to make political or military concessions under continuous field and economic pressure.

Absence of International Deterrence

For his part, Adel Yassin, a specialist in Israeli affairs, believes that the widening scope of targeting reflects an Israeli feeling of the absence of effective international deterrence, in light of the international community's silence or inability to impose real pressure that would stop military operations or limit their scope.

Yassin told "Y" that this reality grants Israel a wide political and security margin for maneuver, with indirect support or supervision from international coordination circles.

Yassin points out that the escalation also serves internal political objectives, especially in light of a heated electoral atmosphere, as it is used to satisfy the right-wing public and demonstrate the continuation of "security control," in addition to restoring the confidence of settlers in the Gaza envelope in the military establishment's ability to protect them.

De-escalation at Stake

Regarding the future of the de-escalation agreement, Yassin warns that continued violations would undermine any political path or serious reconstruction efforts, stressing that the fate of the agreement remains dependent on the seriousness of mediators and the US administration in obliging Israel to its commitments.

He believes that any laxity in this context will keep the possibilities of explosion open, while regional and international pressure constitutes a decisive factor in curbing the escalation.

Observers agree that attempts to impose permanent realities by force in Gaza have historically proven to have limited long-term results, given the community's ability to adapt and endure. This makes any field gains susceptible to erosion over time, and leaves the scene open to multiple possibilities between escalation and containment.

The occupation forces continue their violations of the ceasefire agreement with the "Hamas" movement, which came into effect on October 10th. According to the Ministry of Health in Gaza, the number of martyrs and injured since the agreement came into force has reached 615 martyrs and 1,651 injured, in addition to the recovery of 726 martyrs from under the rubble.