The Rafah border crossing is witnessing moving humanitarian scenes as Palestinians stranded abroad continue to flock to the Gaza Strip, a move that reflects popular determination to return despite the massive destruction left by the war. Since the reopening of the crossing on February 2nd, stories of families who were not deterred by years of genocide or loss of homes from returning to their roots have been unfolding, dealing a strong blow to the displacement and settlement plans promoted by Israeli parties.

Citizen Fida Omran describes her arrival in Gaza as a restoration of the soul, as she was reunited with her father in Nasser Hospital in Khan Yunis after a long treatment journey abroad. Omran affirmed that the services available abroad could not compensate her for the warmth of her homeland, advising Palestinians to hold on to their land and not to think of leaving, stressing that 'there is no better place than Gaza' despite the harsh current conditions.

For its part, government sources in Gaza revealed the existence of deliberate Israeli obstacles aimed at slowing down movement through the crossing, as the occupation did not adhere to the agreed-upon numbers under the ceasefire understandings. The sources explained that the occupation practices a policy of procrastination and harassment against returnees, in a desperate attempt to deter them from returning to the Strip and keep them in a state of forced diaspora.

Field data indicates that about 80,000 Palestinians abroad have officially registered their names to return to the Gaza Strip, a number that sends clear political messages to decision-makers in Tel Aviv. Observers believe that this massive turnout for return, even in the absence of basic necessities of life, represents a frustration of Israeli efforts aimed at emptying the Strip of its inhabitants and turning it into a buffer zone or settlements.

Returnee Tahani Omran recounted harsh details about the treatment returnees received from the occupation army at the crossing, where she was subjected to abuse and interrogation for hours while handcuffed and blindfolded. Tahani affirmed that these repressive measures aim to intimidate Palestinians, but she stressed that the will to stay is stronger than the machine of oppression, saying: 'We were born in Gaza and we will die in it.'

In a related context, young Hossam Al-Mansi expressed his immense joy at meeting his seven children after a treatment journey in Egypt, affirming that the soil of Gaza is worth the world and everything in it for him. Despite praising the medical care he received in Egyptian hospitals, he stressed that the feeling of belonging to the homeland cannot be compensated, calling on everyone to stand firm on the soil of the Strip no matter the sacrifices.

Political analyst Iyad Al-Qara considered that the arrival of the first batch of returnees represents a 'practical failure' of the displacement project adopted by the occupation government with the support of international parties. Al-Qara explained that the decision to return has two dimensions; one humanitarian related to reuniting fragmented families, and the other national political reflecting a deep popular awareness of the necessity of confronting ethnic cleansing plans.

Al-Qara pointed out that Palestinian national upbringing proved its effectiveness during the war, as displaced people insisted on returning to their destroyed homes in the northern Strip immediately after the truce came into effect. This collective behavior reflects the failure of the occupation to break the will of Palestinians, which explains the state of annoyance and violations practiced by the army against returnees through the Rafah crossing at present.

Reports indicate that the occupation authorities tried to entice some returnees with money in exchange for returning to Egypt or security cooperation, but these attempts were met with outright rejection. These testimonies confirm that the occupation uses all means, from intimidation to enticement, to reduce the population in Gaza, but it clashes every time with the nature of the Palestinian person clinging to his land.

Statistically, sources stated that the occupation's adherence to the number of travelers through the crossing did not exceed 29% during the past two weeks, which hinders the return of thousands of stranded people. Out of 2,800 travelers who were supposed to cross, only 811 people were able to move, which puts the international community before its responsibilities regarding the occupation's continuous violations of agreements.

In light of this catastrophic reality, there are still more than 22,000 wounded and sick people in the Gaza Strip waiting for the opportunity to travel to receive necessary life-saving treatment. This crisis is exacerbated by the continued destruction of 90% of the health and civilian infrastructure, making the Rafah crossing the only lifeline that the occupation is trying to choke by all means and methods.

The emergency Arab summit had adopted a plan for the reconstruction of Gaza at a cost of 53 billion dollars, aimed at stabilizing Palestinians in their land and preventing any attempts at forced displacement. The plan includes comprehensive development and housing projects extending for five years, but its implementation remains dependent on the permanent opening of crossings and the cessation of Israeli restrictions imposed on the entry of basic materials.

The scenes of hugs and tears at the gate of the crossing summarize the story of a people who refuse to be broken, as Palestinians prefer to live in tents on the ruins of their homes over a life of exile. This popular determination represents the first and strongest barrier against any international or regional projects aimed at liquidating the Palestinian issue through the gateway of displacement or alternative settlement.

In conclusion, the Rafah crossing file remains a real test of the extent of international parties' commitment to ensuring freedom of movement for Palestinians, especially in light of statistics that confirm the scale of the humanitarian catastrophe. With the continued flow of returnees, Palestinians prove day after day that the land belongs to its owners, and that all attempts at uprooting will only increase their attachment to their identity and their legitimate right to live on their national soil.

Upon our arrival in Gaza, our souls were restored and our breaths returned, and nothing compares to the feeling of being among family and loved ones despite all the suffering.

Consciousness engineering, at its deepest levels, shifts from guiding political and consumer public opinion to laboratories for manufacturing ideologies and alternative beliefs. While the political engineer targets the conscious mind, the ideological engineer works to penetrate the subconscious and being to completely re-engineer human sentiment. This penetration is clearly manifested in ideology's ability to transform intellectual elites into tools in the hands of nationalist or fascist projects, where innate logic is disabled in favor of a false certainty designed to isolate minds from human self-evident truths.

Language is the fundamental and primary building block of any ideological system, where it is not used as a means of communication but as a tool for mental framing. The engineer deliberately undertakes a widespread process of replacement and substitution of terms, withdrawing words with innate connotations and planting in their place booby-trapped terms that capture emotion before reason awakens. Through this linguistic poisoning, occupation in the recipient's consciousness may transform into liberation, and promiscuity becomes openness, making acceptance of the term an implicit acceptance of the underlying intellectual system.

Narrative engineering comes as a second step to build the nervous system of ideology, where epic stories are crafted to give followers a sense of heroism and meaning. This process relies on professional historical montage that exaggerates certain events and obscures others to create a narrative that justifies mental alienation. This mechanism was used in ancient Greek epics to unite warring kingdoms, and more recently in the creation of European nationalisms that depicted the nation as a metaphysical entity possessing the right to absolute control.

Zionist ideology stands out as a stark example of narrative engineering, having exploited ancient historical events like the Babylonian captivity to transform them into an eternal license to uproot the Palestinian people. The Zionist engineer managed to hack historical consciousness by replacing lived reality with a sacred narrative illusion that justifies the crime. By this logic, the settler sees himself as an heir to the prophets, not a usurper of the land, revealing the danger of leaping over time to serve colonial agendas.

Engineering then moves to the stage of dismantling collective identity and replacing it with artificial identities through a process of societal atomization. The engineer realizes that a person belonging to a family, tribe, or established history is resistant to domestication, so they seek to break organic ties. Once individuals are transformed into separate atoms, it becomes easy to penetrate their consciousness and reprogram them after stripping them of the social filter that protected them from external manipulation.

The analogy between the experience of the 'New Soviet Man' and the 'American Dream' reveals a unity of purpose despite different means in resetting history. While the Eastern laboratory sought to forcibly erase innate history in favor of narrow party loyalty, the Western laboratory worked to melt identities in the crucible of the illusion of individual success. In both cases, the individual was stripped of their deep roots to become a cog in a machine or a fragile atom dissolving into an artificial consumer history.

Despite the apparent power of these laboratories, they suffer from structural vulnerabilities that make them fragile against the rock of reality and moments of truth. Ideological engineering fails when language cannot beautify ugliness, and when humans discover that the epic narrative does not provide them with dignity or bread. This gap between word and reality is the black hole that swallows ideologies, where simple truth possesses immense explosive power once spoken.

The fall of the Berlin Wall served as a historical model for the collapse of ideology when people decided to stop living within a lie. The system did not fall due to army cannons, but by individuals' decision to reclaim their innate consciousness and reject the narrative that tried to convince them that prison was paradise. Similarly, crises in the Western system, such as the subprime mortgage crisis, expose the falsity of identity based on consumption when millions find themselves destitute without social support.

In South Africa, the apartheid system collapsed when the narrative of 'racial superiority' clashed with the reality of isolation and economic collapse. The system's leaders admitted that the words on which the narrative was built no longer matched lived reality, and the oppressed stopped believing that their servitude was an inevitable fate. This collapse proves that coercive engineering, no matter how precise, remains unable to withstand the victim's realization of their humanity and their rejection of stereotyping.

Religion, with its transcendent reference, represents the last line of defense that prevents the individual from dissolving into the narratives of operators and man-made ideologies. Religious beliefs possess self-immune mechanisms that make the individual resistant to abduction, prompting extremist ideologies to attempt to suppress or contain religion. At the height of its extremism, ideology tries to cultivate alternative beliefs that sanctify the party or the market to fill the spiritual void left by materialism.

The essence of divine messages has always been an act of liberation, moving humanity from the authority of creation to the vastness of the Creator. Despite attempts by some elites throughout history to ideologize these messages and turn them into tools of tyranny, the essence of revelation remains a light that exposes falsehood. The individual with a conscious belief represents the greatest threat to the ideological engineer, because they possess the courage to gaze at the truth and reject subservience to anyone other than God.

Islamic reference stands out with self-correction and self-criticism mechanisms that provide the believer with acquired immunity against systematic ideological manipulation. The philosophy of Sharia is based on sovereignty and liberation, requiring submission to the Creator to be free from the power of all created beings and material systems. This liberation prevents the individual from being merely a cog in a machine, making them an active being who possesses the reins of their will, away from the pressures of operators.

Sharia addresses human nature and calls for the use of reason to criticize falsehood and contemplate the universe, instead of the stereotyping that ideology seeks. Islamic values of justice, honesty, and dignity are existential constants that do not change with changing political or economic interests. This comprehensiveness makes religious reference a compass that protects humans from abduction, and confirms that their dignity is derived from being a vicegerent on Earth.

In conclusion, consciousness remains the sharpest weapon that burns the jailer, the cell, and the artificial ideological narrative all at once. The ultimate choice lies between being a servant to the agendas of operators, or being free, rejecting stereotyping, and protecting one's heart and mind from penetration. Reclaiming the occupied sentiment is the first step towards true liberation, and it is the cornerstone in confronting all forms of contemporary consciousness engineering.

Ideology is a process of meaning abduction; it begins by poisoning language, then builds foundational myths, to end by dismantling identity and planting new loyalty.

The halls of the United Nations in New York witnessed extensive diplomatic activity, as 85 countries issued a joint statement on Tuesday condemning recent Israeli actions aimed at entrenching and expanding settlements in the occupied West Bank. The signatory countries expressed their deep concerns that these moves are directly intended to bring about a radical change in the demographic composition of the Palestinian territories, threatening to eliminate any future opportunity for stability in the region.

This massive international stance came in the wake of a series of legislative decisions taken by the occupation authorities, including the approval of laws facilitating land purchases by settlers, in addition to government directives to accelerate land registration processes in the West Bank, which has been under occupation since 1967. The signatory countries considered these steps to be an actual prelude to illegal annexation operations that defy international will.

The list of signatories to the statement included major international powers, foremost among them France, China, and Russia, along with influential regional blocs such as the European Union and the League of Arab States. The joint statement emphasized that unilateral Israeli decisions completely contradict the international legal obligations imposed on the occupying power, stressing the need for an immediate reversal of these policies, which are rejected by the international community in their entirety.

The statement warned that the continuous pursuit of changing the legal character and demographic status of the occupied Palestinian territories, including East Jerusalem, constitutes a blatant violation of relevant United Nations charters and resolutions. Sources indicated that this move reflects a state of international consensus that current Israeli practices cross red lines and threaten to undermine the international order based on respect for territorial sovereignty.

In a related context, UN Secretary-General António Guterres entered the crisis, demanding that the Israeli government immediately halt these measures and adhere to international legitimacy. Guterres based his demand on assurances issued by the International Court of Justice, which stressed that these practices are illegal and directly contribute to destabilizing stability and security in the Middle East region.

Statistical data issued by the international organization indicates a frightening and unprecedented acceleration in the pace of settlement expansion during the current Israeli government led by Benjamin Netanyahu. Reports clarified that this pace has significantly doubled, especially in the period following the events of October 7, 2023, reflecting an exploitation of current circumstances to impose a new reality on the ground that will be difficult to change in the future.

On the ground, more than 500,000 settlers currently live in settlements established on West Bank lands, alongside approximately three million Palestinians who face continuous restrictions. Observers believe that this settlement expansion represents a ticking time bomb that threatens the remaining opportunities for implementing a two-state solution, as Palestinian geography is being fragmented, preventing the establishment of a contiguous and viable state.

This widespread international movement reflects the increasing tension towards the policies pursued by the occupation government, which aim to undermine opportunities for reaching a comprehensive and just peace agreement. The signatory countries affirmed at the conclusion of their statement that the continuation of these violations will only lead to further escalation, calling on the international community to take concrete steps to ensure the protection of Palestinian rights and halt settlement encroachment.

These unilateral decisions completely contradict Israel's obligations under international law and must be immediately reversed.

The "Peace Council" called for by US President Donald Trump — scheduled to convene in Washington on February 19 — is being marketed as a historic breakthrough in Gaza's recovery. The US administration states that member countries will announce pledges exceeding five billion dollars for humanitarian aid and reconstruction, along with a commitment to "thousands of elements" to form an international stabilization force, in addition to a local police system. However, the fundamental question, behind the branding, promotional shots, and self-congratulatory atmosphere, remains unanswered: no one knows exactly what this council is supposed to do, what authority it claims, or what it can realistically achieve.

Trump launched the initiative in January and celebrated its formation in Davos last month, presenting it as a platform for "global peace." As usual, his language was extreme and exaggerated, with a promise that starts in Gaza but extends far beyond it. The Washington meeting will be the first official gathering since the council's establishment, but it seems closer to an event prepared for a theatrical political announcement than a genuine working summit: declared funds, promised personnel, and a Washington-led American narrative of "restoring order."

However, the public description of the council seems more like a political slogan than a viable international mechanism. A reconstruction fund, a stabilization force, and a "local police" structure are not interchangeable terms that can be used loosely; rather, they require clear mandates, legal frameworks, chains of command, rules of engagement, host party consent, and accountability mechanisms. Trump's insistence on chairing the council himself further raises doubts about it being a truly multilateral body, reinforcing the impression that it is an American-directed coalition, aiming to bypass institutions that limit American maneuverability.

This suspicion is already reflected in the membership list. More than twenty countries have accepted Trump's invitation, including Israel, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Egypt. But the striking absence of major European allies is not a detail. Several European governments have expressed, publicly and implicitly, concerns that the council was designed to replace the United Nations. Their refusal is not merely symbolic, but a practical blow: any serious reconstruction effort requires long-term funding, technical expertise, and political legitimacy — elements for which the European role is indispensable.

The institutional symbolism, in turn, was deliberate. The name of the "United States Institute of Peace" was changed in December to the "Donald J. Trump Institute of Peace," after the administration had weakened the institute by dismissing a large number of its board members and staff, as part of the "government efficiency management" campaign that targeted foreign aid and semi-independent institutions. Thus, a platform historically dedicated to peacebuilding was transformed into a personal political monument, reinforcing the impression that the council is not a neutral initiative, but a vehicle bearing Trump's brand and working to concentrate credit and decision-making in one hand.

Financial claims should also be treated with caution. Five billion dollars seems like a striking figure in headlines, but it is a small part of what Gaza's recovery requires. A joint damage and needs assessment prepared by the United Nations, the European Union, and the World Bank last year estimated that reconstruction could exceed 70 billion dollars and take years. In comparison, the council's pledges seem more like a down payment — and even that is conditional on the funds being real, new, and disbursable, not just recycled commitments at a media event.

The credibility gap widens further with the "master plan" promoted by Jared Kushner, Trump's son-in-law and real estate businessman who helped negotiate the ceasefire between Israel and Hamas. Kushner presented a vision that includes hundreds of skyscrapers, new cities, and a coastal tourist area. He claimed that construction could take two or three years and require investments of at least 25 billion dollars, while insisting that the coming months would be dedicated to delivering aid. This plan, in its form, resembles Gulf "mega-city" projects, but in its political content, it is closer to a colonial fantasy: redevelopment without sovereignty.

Gaza is not an empty land awaiting investors. It is a shattered territory emerging from widespread displacement, destroyed infrastructure, and unresolved political authority. Reconstruction is not just about pouring concrete; it includes property rights, land disputes, the return of displaced families, the legitimacy of governance, and border control. A tourist area cannot be built on a political vacuum, and skyscrapers do not answer the question: who governs? Who secures? And who speaks for the Palestinians?

As for the security aspect, this is where the council's ambitions seem most concerning. Trump says that member states will commit thousands of elements to an international stabilization force and local police, but he did not clarify whether Israel would accept the presence of this force, or whether it would operate independently, or whether it would become a barrier that allows Israel to formally withdraw while maintaining strategic dominance. For Palestinians, the term "stability" may become merely a euphemism for external security management — a new system of control re-marketed as humanitarian concern.

Trump also reiterated a key demand in his announcement: that Hamas commit to "complete and immediate disarmament." This demand is an essential part of the American framework, but it is also the most politically explosive. Disarmament cannot be imposed by decree; it requires a political settlement, legitimate governing authority, and a credible security alternative. Without that, the call for disarmament seems closer to terms of surrender than to peacebuilding, threatening any ceasefire with collapse under the weight of humiliation and distrust.

The timing of the council meeting is not accidental. It comes after a second round of indirect US-Iranian talks in Geneva, following a previous round in Oman. Trump has repeatedly threatened to strike Iran if it does not curb its nuclear program, while Secretary of State Marco Rubio insisted that the president prefers negotiated solutions. Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Majid Takht Ravanchi said the ball was "in the American court" to prove seriousness. This synchronicity reveals a recurring pattern: performative diplomacy on one front, while employing coercive pressure on another.

Ultimately, the "Peace Council" may not be an institution as much as a political tool: a means for Trump to claim ownership of Gaza's future, push allies into alignment, and offer an alternative to UN-centric legitimacy. Whether the council will become an effective mechanism or end up marginalized without impact will depend on what happens after February 19: will the money actually be disbursed? Who will lead any security force? And do Palestinians have a real role beyond being the subject of others' plans?

So far, the council's grand name conceals an empty core: a promise of peace without a plan.

An unprecedented wave of political and media targeting is escalating in European and international circles against the UN Special Rapporteur on human rights in the occupied Palestinian territories, Francesca Albanese, after the promotion of a video clip presented as documenting a statement in which she describes Israel as "the common enemy of the world." This clip quickly became a ready pretext adopted by several European governments to demand her resignation, in a scene that observers see as a blatant example of how carefully crafted disinformation can turn into an official pressure tool against a UN official.

However, the issue, according to circulating data and human rights and media reports, is not related to a "controversial" statement as some parties tried to portray it, but rather to what resembles a "moral execution" process based on questionable material, even accused of fabrication and deliberate manipulation. The circulated clip does not reflect the content of Albanese's speech in its original context, but rather suggests that she said a phrase she did not say, or that its meaning was turned upside down through selective editing that serves a specific political goal: silencing one of the clearest UN voices on the Palestine issue.

The fingers of accusation point directly to an organization with a name that suggests moral oversight and commitment to the UN Charter, "UN Watch," which is nothing but an explicit pro-Israel lobby, playing a propaganda and political role under the guise of "human rights monitoring." The irony is that this organization, despite its controversial nature, enjoys a status that allows it access to the corridors of the UN in Geneva, and operates from within a space that is supposed to be dedicated to protecting human rights, not undermining them.

According to observers, "UN Watch" has a clear hostile record against Albanese, which cannot be separated from the nature of its work. In 2025, the organization tried to prevent the renewal of her accreditation as UN Special Rapporteur on Palestine, but failed through the public and institutional channels. After the "open path" to her removal failed, human rights organizations say that the organization moved to another, more dangerous path: fabricating a misleading narrative and circulating it widely until it becomes a "political truth" that can be built upon.

The video, which was launched to incite public opinion against Albanese and create a state of shock around her, appears to be fabricated (or at least designed in a way that produces a meaning she did not intend or say). Observers confirm that the full version of her speech does not include the circulated phrase, and that what happened was an excerpt or montage aimed at producing an extremely extremist statement that governments could easily exploit in their campaign. Some go so far as to say that what happened is not just a "misunderstanding," but a calculated disinformation operation, part of a propaganda war aimed at removing Albanese from her position by any means.

The seriousness of the issue increases with the statements of Craig Mokhiber, former UN Commissioner for Human Rights, who described "UN Watch" as a "despicable" entity with a long history of "dirty tricks" against human rights defenders. Mokhiber publicly demanded the withdrawal of the organization's accreditation within the UN, considering that it should not even approach international institutions, because it exploits its consultative status to distort UN staff, disrupt its work, and launch organized smear campaigns against anyone who criticizes Israel.

In a very clear accusation, Mokhiber pointed out that the organization was founded in the 1990s by Morris Abram, described as a former pro-Israel lobbyist and former US ambassador, and that its actual function from the beginning was to attack and distort human rights defenders in favor of Israel. He also said that the organization masters a consistent strategy based on spreading lies and accusing critics of Israel of "anti-Semitism" to silence them, while the UN continues to grant it consultative status with the Economic and Social Council, allowing it access to UN corridors and using them as a platform for pressure, harassment, and distortion.

Most controversially, Mokhiber indicated that the organization benefits from US political support within UN missions in Geneva and New York, which grants it undeclared immunity and ensures the continuation of its influence. It did not stop there, as he said that members of the US Congress regularly allow it to provide briefings to legislative committees, where it defames UN officials and their procedures, and turns the international institution into a permanent target for campaigns of doubt and incitement.

As for the video itself, circulating indicators suggest that its first source on the internet may be directly linked to the leadership of "UN Watch." Policy expert Martin Konishni noted that the first appearance of the clip was in a post by the organization's director, Hillel Neuer, a name associated in the eyes of critics with a clear propaganda role in defending Israel and all its crimes against Palestinians. Observers believe that this detail alone is enough to explain the rapid spread of the video, and the way it was pushed to the forefront of the European political discussion.

Despite the unraveling of the controversy surrounding the video's authenticity, and despite the availability of what indicates that it is misleading material, a number of Western governments continued to deal with it as if it were documented, and continued to target Albanese as if the truth meant nothing. Human rights activists believe that this behavior not only exposes the fragility of some European capitals' commitment to the standards they boast about, but also reveals their willingness to adopt ready-made narratives even if they prove to be based on disinformation, as long as they serve a political goal of silencing an annoying UN voice.

Ultimately, the issue does not seem to be just a disagreement over a sentence or a video clip, but a scandalous test of the independence of the UN system and its ability to protect its officials from organized smear campaigns. It also poses a direct question to the international community: Are UN institutions turning into an arena where propaganda battles are waged for the benefit of pressure groups, or do they remain a platform that is supposed to protect international law and defend human rights, not be used to settle political scores with those who demand its application?

This incident reveals a structural flaw that goes beyond Francesca Albanese to the nature of the UN's work itself, where pressure groups with political agendas have become able to infiltrate the UN sphere and exploit it as an arena for attack instead of oversight. The most dangerous thing is that disinformation does not remain within the realm of propaganda, but quickly moves to the level of political decision when governments pick it up and officially reproduce it. Here the question arises: Who holds the disinformer accountable when they hide under the guise of "consultative" status within the international organization?

What is happening highlights a sharp moral paradox: "human rights" slogans are raised in Europe, while a UN rapporteur is targeted for her human rights work through a video of questionable authenticity. The continued official dealing with misleading material, even after doubts have been raised about it, means that some capitals are not looking for the truth but for a political justification. In such cases, fighting disinformation becomes a test of moral sovereignty, not just a fleeting media discussion.

Cities and towns in the occupied West Bank witnessed a new wave of incursions and attacks carried out by Israeli occupation forces and groups of settlers, resulting in injuries, arrests, and property destruction. Field sources reported that a Palestinian citizen was injured by live occupation fire during an incursion into the city of Dura, south of Hebron, where the operation involved extensive firing of gas and sound grenades, raiding commercial shops, and tampering with their contents.

In Ramallah Governorate, settlers launched a violent attack targeting the Al-Ara'ra Bedouin community located between the towns of Rammun and Deir Dibwan, resulting in injuries among local residents. Residents of the area stated that the attackers were heavily armed, while occupation forces intervened to secure the settlers' withdrawal after they carried out their assault on the Bedouin community.

Bethlehem Governorate was not spared from this escalation, as a Palestinian was shot and another sustained bruises following an attack by settlers on citizens' homes in the village of Al-Rashayda. Violent confrontations erupted between residents and settlers who attempted to intimidate families and destroy their private property under military protection.

In the context of the systematic demolition policy, occupation bulldozers demolished a home in the town of Al-Khader, southwest of Bethlehem, under the pretext of building without a permit in areas classified as 'C'. This step comes after a series of notices received by homeowners in the area, as part of attempts to impose urban restrictions on Palestinians.

Regarding field military operations, occupation forces carried out a widespread operation in the city of Salfit that lasted for several hours, including raiding and thoroughly searching the homes of released prisoners. The forces also temporarily forced a number of families to evacuate their homes and converted them into military observation points during the incursion.

In the northern West Bank, occupation forces deployed large military reinforcements, including more than 15 armored vehicles, to the city and camp of Jenin, where the vehicles patrolled streets and residential neighborhoods. These movements caused a state of confusion and severe tension among residents, coinciding with incursions into other villages and towns in the governorate.

In occupied Jerusalem, the occupation authorities forced the family of the elderly Ahmed Khader to self-demolish their home in the town of Sur Baher, to avoid paying exorbitant financial fines. Local sources explained that the family was forced to take this bitter step to avoid a fine of up to 80,000 shekels if occupation mechanisms carried out the demolition operation.

In the eastern Ramallah countryside, specifically in the village of Yabroud, settlers stole a number of sheep after attacking the outskirts of the village and destroying agricultural facilities and pens. The attack was accompanied by indiscriminate gunfire towards citizens who tried to confront the settlers and protect their land and livestock.

In the city of Al-Bireh, occupation forces arrested a young man from the Al-Hashimiya neighborhood after raiding the neighborhood and his home. His identity or where he was taken has not been revealed yet. The Red Crescent also reported that a Palestinian was injured by occupation fire near the Jabara military checkpoint south of Tulkarm, where he was transferred to the hospital for treatment.

Official Palestinian data indicates that the pace of attacks in the West Bank has escalated unprecedentedly since the start of the aggression on the Gaza Strip, with the number of martyrs reaching 1114. Medical and human rights sources also recorded approximately 11,500 injured Palestinians and nearly 22,000 others arrested amid ongoing repression campaigns.

Since the start of the war on Gaza, occupation forces have intensified their attacks in the West Bank through killing, arresting, and displacing to impose new realities on the ground.

Recent documents from the files of the late American businessman Jeffrey Epstein have revealed a pivotal role he played in mediating major infrastructure deals for 'DP World' in Nigeria. Correspondence dating back to 2018 shows Epstein's efforts to grant the Emirati company direct influence in strategic West African ports before his death in prison in 2019.

The correspondence, recently published by the US Department of Justice, clarified that Epstein facilitated communication channels between the former head of Nigeria's sovereign wealth fund, Gideon Zeitlin, and Sultan Ahmed bin Sulayem, then chairman of DP World. These discussions aimed to establish and operate vital shipping terminals in the Nigerian regions of Lagos and Badagry.

The revelation of these documents coincides with bin Sulayem's dismissal from his position a few days prior, following reports confirming his strong relationship with Epstein. The Emirati company's management insisted on full control over the ports as a condition for investment, a hurdle it had faced since its first attempts to enter the Nigerian market in 2005.

Epstein's role was not limited to commercial mediation; he also worked to involve influential American figures to facilitate political and financial arrangements. Among these figures was Kathryn Ruemmler, former legal counsel in the Obama administration, who recently resigned from her senior position at 'Goldman Sachs'.

The documents indicate that the economic trajectory of the ports was closely linked to security and intelligence cooperation. Epstein's relationship with former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak extended for over a decade and included investments in cybersecurity and Israeli military industries targeting the African market.

In 2014, with rising security unrest in Nigeria, Ehud Barak introduced Israeli security companies to the Nigerian government under the banner of counter-terrorism. Barak leveraged his international network to promote technologies described as 'field-tested,' a clear reference to their use against Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank.

Among the most prominent technologies transferred to Nigeria was the 'Basel' biometric system, the same system used by the occupation at the Erez crossing to regulate the passage of Palestinian workers. This system relies on advanced facial recognition and hand measurement technologies and was marketed as an effective security solution for Nigerian facilities.

Barak and his partner Gary Fegel invested millions of dollars in 'FST Biometrics,' a company specializing in facial recognition systems, founded by a former head of Israeli military intelligence. Pilot projects for these technologies were launched in Nigerian universities to monitor dormitories and classrooms under the pretext of security.

Financial records show that Epstein provided a $1 million loan to Barak for investment in the 'Reporty Homeland Security' emergency response platform. These security partnerships were not merely fleeting investments but aimed to open doors for political and economic influence in vital sectors such as oil.

In 2013, Epstein helped Barak propose joint projects with international businessmen to enhance Israel's presence in Africa. Barak traveled to Nigeria to attend undeclared security conferences where he met with senior military and political leaders to pave the way for these investments.

Security cooperation resulted in the installation of a $40 million internet surveillance system produced by the Israeli company 'Elbit' in Nigeria. Despite parliamentary controversy sparked by the project, relations continued to expand to include World Bank-backed partnerships for developing cyber infrastructure.

DP World's interests once again intersected with this security network, as Epstein's relationship with bin Sulayem helped set the stage for major economic agreements. These moves preceded the signing of the 'Abraham Accords' in 2020 by years, indicating long-term strategic coordination.

After official normalization, the Emirati company attempted to acquire the Israeli port of Haifa, linked to gas fields in the Mediterranean. Although it did not win the deal, the documents confirm that economic rapprochement between Dubai and Tel Aviv was proceeding on parallel tracks involving security, energy, and ports.

These leaks prove that the Epstein and Barak network acted as a bridge for transferring Israeli repressive expertise from the occupied territories to the African continent. Thus, technologies used in the siege of Gaza became a commercial commodity used to enhance the influence of regional companies in emerging markets.

I hope your friend's visit to Tel Aviv is more effective than his efforts in Africa.

The diplomatic and military steps led by the US administration to impose a new reality in the Gaza Strip under the name of an "international stabilization force" are accelerating. Media sources reported that Washington has made significant progress in discussions with Morocco, Greece, and Albania to send military units to participate in this force, amid indications suggesting that Morocco will likely be the first Arab country to officially join this international formation.

Hebrew reports stated that these contacts come within the context of comprehensive security and political arrangements being prepared by the United States for the post-war phase in the besieged Strip. These moves aim to find international security alternatives to manage the field situation, coinciding with US pressure to involve regional and international parties in bearing security and administrative responsibilities within Gaza.

On the ground, informed sources revealed direct coordination that took place in recent days between representatives of the US command headquarters in the "Kiryat Gat" area and the command of the Southern Command in the Israeli occupation army. These discussions focused on arrangements for entering the geographical area located between the cities of Rafah and Khan Yunis in the southern part of the Strip, in preparation for the inauguration of a permanent international military presence.

Leaked plans indicate Washington's intention to build a massive military base in the southern Gaza Strip, to serve as the main headquarters for the multinational force and representatives of the participating armies. US forces are expected to be accompanied by contractors and engineers to finalize the construction plans, with actual construction operations scheduled to begin before the end of February.

In a related context, military authorities in Indonesia announced the preparation of about a thousand soldiers as a first batch for potential deployment in the Gaza Strip by early April. The Indonesian army spokesman clarified that this force could expand to reach eight thousand soldiers by June, provided a final political decision is issued by the supreme command in Jakarta.

This Indonesian move is linked to an anticipated visit by President Prabowo Subianto to the US capital, Washington, this week, where he will participate in the first meeting of what is known as the "Peace Council." This council, chaired by US President Donald Trump, is considered the cornerstone of the American plan aimed at ending the conflict in Gaza and reshaping security arrangements.

The UN Security Council granted legal cover for these moves in November 2025, when it approved the establishment of the "Peace Council" as an international framework for managing the crisis. These steps come within the vision of the Trump administration, which seeks to integrate international and regional powers in managing the affairs of the Strip, ensuring the end of direct military operations and the transition to a phase of stability.

For its part, the Indonesian Ministry of Foreign Affairs hastened to clarify its position, emphasizing that any military participation does not in any way mean recognition of the Israeli occupation or normalization of relations with it. Jakarta stressed in an official statement its categorical rejection of any attempts aimed at forced displacement or demographic change in the Palestinian territories, considering its position on the rights of the Palestinian people to be firm.

Indonesian sources concluded by affirming that the tasks of its forces will be humanitarian and non-combatant in nature, and will not interfere with the disarmament of any of the Palestinian parties. Jakarta also stipulated obtaining explicit approval from the Palestinian Authority before sending any soldier, to ensure that the international presence is coordinated with Palestinian legitimacy and in accordance with approved international mechanisms.

Indonesia's military participation in the international stabilization force does not mean normalizing relations, and will only take place with the approval of the Palestinian Authority and for humanitarian missions.

The debate surrounding American historian Robert Kagan's book 'Of Paradise and Power' has re-highlighted the deep divergence in strategic visions between the two sides of the Atlantic. Since the Iraq War in 2003, a conviction has solidified among American conservatives that the end of the Cold War did not negate the role of power in shaping the international order, which contradicts the European approach.

Kagan's famous metaphor that 'Americans are from Mars and Europeans are from Venus' embodies the core of the disagreement; where Washington prefers to use military force to resolve conflicts, European capitals tend towards diplomacy and international law. This cultural disparity has created a strategic gap that widens with every new international crisis faced by both parties.

Conservatives in the United States view Europe as an entity living in a state of political naivety, where the old continent spends on its social welfare and neglects to strengthen its defense capabilities. Analytical sources confirm that this American approach sees Europe as a 'reckless mother' who calls on Washington whenever it faces a bitter reality, as happened in the two World Wars.

Historically, the United States has not only provided military support to Europe but also contributed through the 'Marshall Plan' to the reconstruction of the continent devastated by internal conflicts. Nevertheless, American grumbling continues regarding what they consider European inaction in protecting troubling borders, especially in light of the current Russian-Ukrainian war and the millions of refugee crises.

At the height of the disagreement over Iraq, the term 'Old Europe' emerged, coined by Donald Rumsfeld to describe the traditional powers in the West, in contrast to 'New Europe' in the East and Center. This division reflected an American desire to bypass traditional European reservations and seek allies more aligned with hard power policies.

On the other hand, Europeans are proud of their continental model, which succeeded in containing historical conflicts, especially after the unification of Germany. European political culture adopts the principle of seeking common ground, considering that a neighbor is not necessarily an enemy, but rather part of an interconnected system where everyone depends on each other.

One cannot deny Europe's cultural influence on the United States, as the emigration of intellectuals and artists fleeing Nazism contributed to breaking American intellectual provincialism. These immigrants, especially German Jews, brought with them intellectual and artistic experiences that contributed to shaping contemporary American modernity in several fields.

In the first third of the last century, Paris was a true laboratory for American creators who sought individual freedom away from conservatism in their homeland. Great names like Hemingway and Scott Fitzgerald would not have reached their creative maturity without passing through the 'City of Light' and the modernist salons that included Picasso and Matisse.

Despite this cultural influence, conservative America remains unimpressed by European 'intellectual gifts,' and considers war and military standards as the primary measure for its judgments. Indeed, McCarthyism at a certain era represented a defensive reaction to repel cosmopolitan influences coming from Europe and contain their impact in major cities like New York.

Ultimately, the conflict between the two visions appears to be a struggle between a future derived from high technologies and a fixed past, and a European vision that promises a future not beholden to history. While Washington insists on its technological and military leadership, Europe remains committed to its soft power as a strategic option to face the challenges of a changing world.

Americans are from Mars and Europeans are from Venus; a metaphor that has drawn the widening gap in the strategic culture of both parties.

The occupying state has recently been facing a continuous political earthquake that is reshaping the rules of the international game and the global balance of power. In light of the Russian-Ukrainian war and the escalating tensions between Washington and Beijing, Israel finds itself in a dilemma, searching for a stable place on the map of the new powers currently taking shape.

Micha Avnimelech, a former official in the Israeli Ministry of Finance and a strategic expert, believes that Israel is suffering from a state of anxiety and humiliation as a result of the events of the past two years. He pointed out that the rise of extremist forces seeking to impose absolute control from the river to the sea hinders any real efforts to achieve regional and international stability.

Avnimelech explained that attempting to curb the right-wing religious currents within the Israeli government has become an arduous task fraught with serious challenges. He considered that the excessive use of force and disregard for the principles of international law have made Israel an undesirable party in international forums, deepening its political isolation.

The strategic expert strongly criticized the approach taken by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, describing it as a dangerous dependence on the United States and President Donald Trump. He stressed that Trump primarily represents his personal and political interests, which may not necessarily align with the long-term strategic interests of the occupying state.

He also noted that Netanyahu's policy is limited to attempts to flatter and humble himself before Trump during his frequent visits, with almost complete neglect of building alliances with other international partners. He warned that building national strategies on one volatile and unpredictable person is a grave mistake for which Israel may pay a heavy price.

Avnimelech described Trump's presidency as potentially a fleeting event in history, while the damage Israelis have inflicted upon themselves will remain. He pointed out that the state acts based on narrow tactical considerations and fanatical messianic tendencies instead of rational thinking that seeks sustainable solutions.

After Israel was previously classified as a desirable partner for regional cooperation, the expert believes that today it alienates its potential partners with its hostile actions. Israelis are now viewed in the international arena as troublemakers and a source of instability, rather than contributors to building security and economic alliances.

The analysis touched upon Israeli behavior in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, describing it as destructive and flagrantly violating international norms. He affirmed that this behavior, driven by extreme ideological motives, has led to an unprecedented internationalization of the conflict, weakening Israel's negotiating position.

Avnimelech indicated that the strong entry of countries like Turkey and Qatar into the Gaza issue, and the continued control of the Hamas movement over the Strip, reflects a clear strategic loss for the occupation. Despite military achievements on the ground, Israel is still far from achieving any tangible political victory that can be cashed in internationally.

The expert warned that Netanyahu's political rhetoric attempts to conceal this strategic failure, but reality proves that international pressure is increasing to align only with Washington's interests. He considered that the absence of a political horizon and the continuous rejection of respectful dialogue with regional countries are pushing Israel towards a political abyss.

Avnimelech called for the immediate return to open dialogue with moderate elements in the Middle East and with the international community in general. He stressed that readiness to reach an agreement that includes the Palestinian Authority is the only way to save what remains of Israeli gains and prevent the collapse of its standing.

He emphasized that the military and technological power Israel possesses must be coupled with political maturity and a broad vision capable of making concessions and compromises. He called on serious political forces within the entity to develop a comprehensive and realistic plan that enables them to return to active participation in the international arena before it is too late.

This analysis comes at a time when major powers such as Russia, China, and Iran are seeking to strengthen their regional and international influence at the expense of traditional balances. Moreover, the ambitions of Gulf states to transform their wealth into effective political power may intersect with the interests of the occupation and further complicate its strategic position.

In conclusion, the expert warned that the continuation of the current approach will turn Israel into merely a 'dish on the world's tables' to be divided by major powers according to their interests. He stressed that survival requires a radical change in leadership and political orientations, and moving away from the messianic illusions that are leading the state towards political suicide.

Strategies are not built on one person and their interests, nor on a volatile and unpredictable president like Trump.

Diplomatic circles have recently witnessed a remarkable escalation against the UN Special Rapporteur on the Occupied Palestinian Territories, Francesca Albanese, with French Foreign Minister Jean-Noël Barrot demanding her dismissal from her post. This stance was met with sharp criticism from French MP Arnaud Le Gall, who considered the demand a capitulation to the occupation's narrative and a distortion of the facts presented in international reports.

Germany was not far from this scene, as its foreign minister joined the call for Albanese's resignation, expressing his country's anger at the UN rapporteur's statements. This coordinated wave comes under the pretext of 'anti-Semitism,' the traditional weapon wielded against anyone who documents the systematic violations and apartheid policies of the occupation.

The direct targeting of Albanese is not due to a fleeting remark made in a media forum, but rather stems from her rigorous legal reports that have become a reference for international courts. Her documents have formed a fundamental basis for prosecuting occupation leaders before the International Criminal Court and the International Court of Justice, which has disturbed the powers supporting Israel.

Instead of adhering to human rights law, Paris and Berlin chose to follow a path that intimidates international organizations and threatens their independence. This behavior reflects a state of political hypocrisy and double standards, where international justice is sacrificed to protect a colonial system that practices genocide in Gaza.

Western dealings with Albanese have unmasked regimes that claim to protect international law while remaining silent about war crimes. This intimidating approach primarily aims to sideline international witnesses and allow the occupation to escape punishment, which is entirely consistent with hardline American attitudes towards UN organizations.

The incitement against Albanese reminds us of the continuous Israeli attack on UN Secretary-General António Guterres and his designation as persona non grata. It is a systematic policy aimed at criminalizing humanitarian and human rights work, and preventing international institutions from revealing the truth of what is happening on the ground in the Occupied Palestinian Territories.

The French-German position is shameful given the number of victims in Gaza and the West Bank, where the number of martyrs and injured has exceeded a quarter of a million people. Instead of punishing the occupying state for its crimes, arrows are directed at those who demand justice for the victims and an end to the killing machine and forced displacement.

In contrast, a glimmer of hope emerged from the British judiciary, which issued a decision to acquit activists from the 'Palestine Action' movement of terrorism charges. These activists, who targeted arms companies supplying the occupation, secured judicial recognition of the legitimacy of their protest against genocide, delivering a blow to those complicit in Israeli crimes.

The acquittal of 'Palestine Action' represents a moral scandal for the countries attempting to intimidate Albanese, and confirms that public and legal conscience is beginning to stir against the Zionist narrative. This judicial victory strengthens the position of civil and legal resistance to the occupation in the heart of Western capitals that have long supported the aggression.

The UN rapporteur's documents remain sufficient to take firm international stances that curb Israeli terrorism, including imposing sanctions and severing diplomatic relations. However, Western rhetoric about supporting peace remains empty unless it is linked to obliging Israel to end its occupation and dismantle the apartheid system that Albanese courageously documented.

Attempts to divert attention from a people subjected to genocide will not succeed in obscuring the historical truth being written today with Palestinian blood. The world that witnesses the intimidation of human rights defenders is the same world where millions come out to condemn Zionist colonialism and its criminal leaders.

Francesca Albanese will remain a unique model of courage in a time of international hypocrisy, and her ability to withstand American and European pressures gives hope to the victims. Her battle is not personal; it is a battle to preserve what remains of the credibility of international law in the face of the law of the jungle.

The violation of international law and its transformation into a tool to serve the powerful will not pass without legal and moral resistance from the free people of the world. The acquittal of the 'Palestine Action' movement is clear evidence that justice can prevail even in the most complex and politically pressured judicial systems.

In conclusion, the crimes of the occupation will remain immortalized in human memory as one of the most heinous crimes of the modern era, and intimidation will not succeed in silencing the voice of truth. The dismantling of the colonial narrative has already begun, and victory for justice in Palestine is a victory for all humanity against the forces of injustice and hypocrisy.

The French-German demand for Albanese's dismissal contributes to the American effort and the Israeli endeavor to escape punishment.

Recent diplomatic moves by US President Donald Trump, entrusting his favored envoys, Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner, have sparked controversy in international political circles. The Swiss city of Geneva witnessed intensive shuttle rounds led by the duo, navigating two of the most complex global crises in one day: the Iranian nuclear file and the Russian-Ukrainian war.

Observers believe that this approach reflects Trump's penchant for striking major deals and his persistent pursuit of rapid diplomatic achievements that could qualify him for the Nobel Peace Prize. However, the simultaneous negotiations in one location and at a close timing have raised questions about the ability to focus and achieve tangible results in issues that have been protracted and complicated.

Diplomatic activities in Geneva began with a focus on the Iranian file, where indirect talks lasting about three and a half hours took place between the American team and Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi. These discussions were mediated by Oman and under strict security measures, with participants indicating slight progress without reaching an imminent final agreement.

According to informed sources, the continuation of the diplomatic path gives Washington room for maneuver, as Trump continues to bolster military mobilization near Iran to send a message that the military option is still on the table. This ongoing tension keeps the Middle East in a state of anticipation, amid fears of things escalating into a comprehensive regional confrontation.

The American delegation had barely finished its meetings concerning Iran before moving directly to the Intercontinental Hotel to begin another round of negotiations related to the Ukrainian crisis. These talks, scheduled to last for two days, aim to find a formula to end the war, which Trump promised to extinguish in record time during his election campaign.

Despite the media buzz surrounding these meetings, expectations of a major breakthrough in the Ukrainian file remain low among many analysts. This war is the largest in the European continent since the end of World War II, making a quick settlement extremely difficult and complex.

Foreign policy experts, including former advisors in the Obama administration, criticized this approach, describing it as focusing on quantity rather than diplomatic quality. They pointed out that addressing two issues the size of Iran and Ukraine simultaneously could lead to a dispersion of efforts and weaken the American negotiating position against seasoned adversaries.

In a related context, regional sources close to Tehran expressed their doubts about the sincerity of American intentions, likening the situation to an emergency room trying to treat two critically ill patients with one doctor. This analogy reflects the concern that the lack of continuous care for each file separately could lead to a dismal failure on both tracks.

Analysts also drew attention to the background of envoys Witkoff and Kushner, who belong to the New York real estate world, considering that they lack the necessary political depth to face professional negotiators. The absence of Secretary of State Marco Rubio from these talks was notably observed, despite his extensive experience in international political affairs.

For its part, the White House, through spokeswoman Anna Kelly, defended this approach, affirming that Trump and his team are making extraordinary efforts to bridge viewpoints and stop the bloodshed. Kelly rejected the criticism directed at the team, emphasizing that the ultimate goal is to conclude lasting peace agreements that end raging conflicts.

Defenders of Witkoff and Kushner rely on their past successes in striking unconventional deals, such as the Abraham Accords and mediation efforts in the Gaza war. They believe that the absolute trust the President places in them gives them decision-making authority that transcends the traditional bureaucracy that has failed to resolve these crises for many years.

However, the reduction of State Department and National Security Council staff under Trump's administration has raised additional concerns about the technical and logistical support available to these envoys. Successful diplomacy requires an army of experts and advisors to draft the precise details of agreements, which the current team may lack given the new structure.

The question remains whether this 'shuttle diplomacy' will succeed in breaking the international stalemate, or if it will be merely a political show that ends without real results. The coming days in Geneva will be crucial in determining the course of American relations with both Moscow and Tehran in the next phase.

In conclusion, the international community awaits the results of these meetings with extreme caution, as any failure in Geneva could lead to military escalation in Ukraine or a nuclear confrontation with Iran. The ability of Trump's 'dealmakers' to tame these major crises remains under the microscope of a true test before the entire world.

Entrusting a team consisting of Witkoff and Kushner to solve all the world's problems is, frankly, a shocking reality.

Stéphane Dujarric, Spokesperson for the UN Secretary-General, affirmed that the recent decisions taken by the Israeli government to impose its authority over vast areas of the occupied West Bank are illegal. He clarified in press statements that these steps explicitly violate the rules of international law and relevant UN resolutions concerning Palestinian rights.

These warnings come after the occupation government, for the first time since 1967, approved a draft resolution allowing it to begin seizing vast Palestinian lands by registering them under the name 'state property'. This new legal path aims to legitimize control over the lands and facilitate settlement expansion deep into the West Bank.

For his part, Dujarric warned that these measures would provide cover for the occupation authorities to facilitate the expulsion of Palestinians from their homes and dispossess them of their historical land ownership. He pointed out that such moves lead to undermining security and social stability in the West Bank, especially given the catastrophic humanitarian conditions in the Gaza Strip.

In the context of Palestinian reactions, the Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas) stressed that this decision represents a blatant attempt to steal land and impose a new settlement reality by force of arms. The movement described the step as legally null and void, as it emanates from an occupying authority that lacks any legitimacy over the occupied Palestinian territories.

The UN spokesperson indicated that the international organization would continue to raise this issue in public forums and with member states, calling on the UN Security Council and influential powers to take urgent action. He urged the international community to uphold its legal and moral responsibilities to stop these violations that threaten peace and security in the region.

Dujarric also warned that current Israeli policies, supported by statements from ministers in Benjamin Netanyahu's government, directly aim to undermine any future opportunity for a two-state solution. He affirmed that Secretary-General António Guterres would continue to pressure world capitals to push for a serious political process that ends the occupation.

In conclusion of his statements, the Spokesperson for the Secretary-General emphasized that there is no alternative to the two-state solution to ensure the achievement of a sustainable and just peace that serves the peoples of the region, stressing that losing hope in political paths is not an acceptable option. This coincided with widespread condemnation from 80 countries and international organizations of Israel's unilateral actions that entrench illegal annexation.

Israeli measures will make it easier to remove Palestinians from the West Bank and dispossess them of their land ownership, which destabilizes the situation at a time when crises are escalating.

The second round of indirect negotiations between Iran and the United States concluded in the Swiss capital, Geneva, amidst indicators oscillating between diplomatic optimism and military warnings. Tehran affirmed that this round achieved positive breakthroughs compared to its predecessor, despite the continued regional tension overshadowing the political scene in the region.

Press sources quoted an American official confirming that the talks made tangible progress on several issues, while noting that the devil lies in the details that are still under discussion. The Iranian delegation is scheduled to return to Tehran for consultations, and will return within the next two weeks with practical proposals aimed at resolving the outstanding issues.

For his part, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi stated that both parties succeeded in formulating initial understandings on the major principles that will govern any future agreement. Araghchi clarified that work is currently underway to exchange drafts of the potential agreement document, warning that the path to a final solution is still long due to the complexity of the core issues.

In contrast to these diplomatic atmospheres, an escalating rhetoric emerged from Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, who threatened to deliver a devastating blow to US forces in the event of any military confrontation. Khamenei considered Iran's missile capabilities a red line that cannot be negotiated, emphasizing that Washington has no right to interfere with national deterrence programs.

International reports indicate that Tehran may be prepared to offer temporary technical concessions, including a halt to uranium enrichment for up to three years. These proposals also include the possibility of transferring part of the enriched uranium stockpile to a third party, likely Russia, in an attempt to build bridges of trust with the international community.

Observers believe that these Iranian steps aim to extract economic and commercial gains from Washington, in exchange for a temporary freeze of sensitive nuclear activities. However, these proposals remain contingent on the extent of the US administration's response to demands for lifting economic sanctions that have stifled the Iranian economy for years.

In an interpretation of the Iranian position, analysts described the Iranian Foreign Ministry's statements as a cautious welcome lacking real guarantees. Informed sources confirmed that the biggest obstacle lies in the historical lack of trust between the two sides, as Tehran demands legal guarantees that prevent any future US administration from withdrawing from the agreement.

On the American side, it appears that President Donald Trump's administration is currently inclined to give diplomacy a chance instead of direct military action. Former US State Department advisors explained that Washington aims through these talks to reduce the likelihood of armed conflict in the Middle East through limited trade-offs.

Experts in international relations believe that what is happening in Geneva is more of a 'crisis management' process than a pursuit of a comprehensive and final agreement. The current Iranian goal is focused on creating an international narrative that portrays Tehran as a flexible party seeking peace, thereby removing pretexts from the hands of parties pushing for military escalation.

Academics believe that any partial agreement that may be reached, especially if limited to the nuclear file without addressing regional influence, will face strong opposition. Such understandings are expected to provoke the Israeli side, which views any easing of pressure on Iran as a direct threat to its national security.

The ballistic missile issue remains a major stumbling block in the negotiations, as Washington insists on including it in any comprehensive deal, while Tehran considers it an integral part of its sovereignty. This fundamental divergence in views makes it difficult to predict the success of future rounds in achieving a real breakthrough that ends the decades-long crisis.

The political flexibility shown by American officials behind closed doors has not yet translated into practical steps on the ground, especially regarding the sanctions file. Political circles are awaiting the outcome of the meeting in the next two weeks, where the new Iranian proposals will serve as a real test of the parties' seriousness in reaching a settlement.

In conclusion, the Geneva negotiations remain an important station in the path of the Iranian-American conflict, but they remain fraught with risks and complexities. While diplomacy seeks a way out, the language of military threat remains present in the background, making regional stability dependent on difficult-to-achieve understandings between the two powers.

The talks witnessed positive developments and understandings were reached on key principles, but this does not mean that a final agreement is imminent.

Hebrew journalistic circles have discussed the expected trajectories of the relationship between the United States and Iran, in light of escalating field tensions and increased American military deployments in the region. Analytical readings questioned the possibility of a third option that transcends the dichotomy of a comprehensive nuclear deal or direct military confrontation, especially with recurring reports of aircraft carrier movements.

The sources considered that the current geopolitical reality might not be confined to two polar options, but rather that a tactical agreement might be being prepared, allowing all parties to exit the crisis without declaring surrender. This analysis comes at a time when the echo of American air reinforcements resonates, coinciding with diplomatic meetings between Trump administration envoys and the Iranian Foreign Minister in Geneva.

Military movements raise a fundamental question about Trump's objectives, and whether he is sending troops to launch an actual military campaign or to impose a new zone of control that makes the cost of refusing negotiations prohibitive for Tehran. Observers believe that this approach represents the core of Trump's negotiating doctrine, which relies on creating a tangible threat to break stalemates in complex issues.

Hebrew analyses recalled the 2017 experience with North Korea, when Washington used extreme rhetoric that ultimately led to the historic Singapore summit. Although that path did not lead to complete nuclear disarmament, it achieved a significant tactical shift in managing the conflict and mitigating direct threats.

In the Russian-Ukrainian arena, Trump applied a dual ultimatum strategy by pressuring all parties involved in the conflict to reach settlements. He hinted at stopping aid to Kyiv in the absence of flexibility, and threatened Moscow with a qualitative weapon to break the truce if it did not cease fire, reflecting a strict pragmatic approach.

The current military buildup against Iran indicates an attempt to use a 'big stick' to bring about political movement similar to what happened in other international issues. When the alternative to an agreement becomes dangerous and costly, parties begin to consider compromises that were previously classified as impossible, which may open the door for partial deals.

The 'third option' is known as a tactical deal that differs fundamentally from historical strategic agreements that seek to resolve conflicts from their deep roots. This path represents a practical mechanism for risk management, aiming to contain the current situation and prevent its explosion without the need for major sovereign concessions from any party.

This agreement's principle is based on 'silence for oxygen,' a solution designed to manage the crisis rather than perfectly end it. This path is expected to require the Iranian side to relinquish some tactical assets, such as reducing certain levels of uranium enrichment or restricting the movements of proxies in the region.

In return, Tehran will receive much-needed 'economic oxygen' amidst crippling sanctions, through exemptions allowing oil sales and the unfreezing of some financial assets. This trade-off aims to alleviate internal Iranian pressure in exchange for regional security guarantees requested by Washington and its allies.

As for the American side, this agreement achieves what is described as 'industrial peace' and freezes the status quo at a controllable point. This path allows Trump to fulfill his electoral promises related to avoiding involvement in costly and perpetual wars of attrition in the Middle East.

The Israeli reading confirms that Trump prefers tangible and quick results over lengthy negotiations that may not lead to immediate outcomes. Therefore, the display of military power serves a dual purpose: deterrence on the one hand, and improving negotiating terms at the table on the other, to ensure real Iranian concessions.

The question remains about the Iranian regime's ability to accept such tactical trade-offs without it appearing as a strategic retreat to its people and allies. However, increasing economic pressures may push decision-makers in Tehran to maneuver within the 'third way' to avoid a comprehensive confrontation scenario.

Movements in Geneva and the buildup in the region's waters indicate that we are facing an advanced stage of diplomatic and military 'finger-pointing.' The coming weeks are likely to see a clearer crystallization of this tactical path, especially if American pressure succeeds in pushing Tehran to the negotiating table with new conditions.

In conclusion, Hebrew sources believe that current American policy is redefining the rules of engagement with Iran by integrating direct military threat with conditional economic opportunities. This mix aims to create a new reality in which all parties are forced to accept half-solutions to avoid the major catastrophe that could result from any armed conflict.

The third way is a tactical agreement and a risk management mechanism based on the principle of silence for oxygen, not an ideal agreement to resolve the conflict from its roots.

Political and legal circles in Tel Aviv are witnessing a sharp division over the possibility of granting Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu a presidential pardon that would end his legal prosecution. Opposition leader Yair Lapid linked any serious movement on this issue to the necessity of submitting a new legal request that includes an explicit admission of guilt, an expression of remorse, and acceptance of what is known as 'legal stigma'. This came after consultations held by Lapid with the President of the entity, Isaac Herzog, emphasizing that these conditions are the only way to deal with the issue according to official frameworks.

For her part, the Attorney General Gali Baharav-Miara intervened in the crisis to clarify the legal position, denying reports that a final professional opinion on the matter was imminent. Baharav-Miara affirmed that the pardon request had not yet undergone thorough technical examination, stressing that this issue would be dealt with exclusively according to established legal procedures without favoritism or exceptions for any political party, regardless of its position.

In a related context, the Presidency's office clarified that the pardon file is currently with the Ministry of Justice to obtain the necessary legal advice before taking any step. The statement issued by the office indicated that President Herzog has not yet made a final decision, and that he intends to study the file away from any internal or external pressures that may be exerted on him. The office stressed the importance of maintaining the independence of the presidency in making sensitive sovereign decisions.

The crisis took an unprecedented international dimension after the sharp attack launched by former US President Donald Trump on Herzog, describing the refusal to grant Netanyahu a pardon as 'disgraceful'. Trump demanded that Herzog retract his position, considering that the continuation of the trial harms the status of the United States' most prominent ally. This intervention led Herzog to consider Netanyahu's behavior in this context as crossing red lines and a direct infringement on national sovereignty and independent decision-making.

In contrast, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's entourage quickly denied any prior coordination with the American side regarding these controversial statements. Sources close to the Prime Minister's office confirmed that Trump spoke based on his personal view of events without a request from Netanyahu. Despite this denial, observers believe that the current debate deepens the gap between judicial and political institutions in Israel, and puts Netanyahu's political future at stake in light of the opposition's intransigence and the judiciary's adherence to procedures.

Herzog considered Netanyahu's stance in this context as crossing red lines and an infringement on sovereign status.

Palestinian medical and local sources announced on Tuesday evening the martyrdom of a child and the injury of two others, one of whom was described as being in serious condition, due to the explosion of military remnants belonging to the Israeli occupation army in the town of Jiftlik in the central Jordan Valley, east of the occupied West Bank.

Local sources reported that the explosion occurred in the 'Froush Beit Dajan' community, part of Jiftlik town, where the ammunition was remnants of previous training by occupation forces in the area, leading to casualties among the children who were present at the scene.

For its part, the Palestinian Red Crescent Society confirmed that its teams received the body of the martyred child, aged 13, from the Israeli occupation army, and he was immediately transferred to Jericho Governmental Hospital for necessary procedures.

In a related context, occupation forces imposed a strict security cordon around the explosion site, preventing citizens and paramedics from approaching the area for a period of time, while the occupation army claimed that the injuries resulted from 'tampering' with ammunition remnants near the 'Tirtza' military base.

The Palestinian Jordan Valley is one of the areas most susceptible to such incidents, as Israel classifies vast areas of it as closed military zones or firing ranges, turning the lives of Palestinian residents into a constant danger that pursues them in their pastures and agricultural lands.

The Jordan Valley, which constitutes about 30% of the West Bank's area, is under full Israeli security and administrative control within the areas classified as (C), where training camps are spread, leaving behind large quantities of mines and unexploded ordnance.

Human rights reports indicate the presence of about 12 occupation army camps around Jericho and the Jordan Valley, surrounded by minefields and training areas that pose a direct threat to the lives of civilians, especially children who are unaware of the nature of these explosive objects.

With the martyrdom of the child in Jiftlik, the number of martyrs in the West Bank since the start of the Israeli aggression on October 8, 2023, rises to 1115 martyrs, including 231 children who were killed by occupation bullets or as a result of its military remnants and settler attacks.

This incident coincides with the escalating pace of Israeli violations in various governorates of the West Bank, which include field executions and mass arrests targeting about 22,000 Palestinians, in addition to forced displacement policies and settlement expansion.

Observers believe that leaving military remnants in populated areas or near Palestinian communities is part of a systematic policy of pressure to push residents to leave their lands, which exacerbates the suffering of Palestinians under siege and daily threat.

Occupation forces prevented Palestinian citizens from approaching the explosion site after it occurred in the Froush Beit Dajan community.

News Analysis

Israel’s claim that thousands of Americans are currently serving in its military raises more than a technical legal question. Based on newly released official Israeli military data, the number of American citizens currently serving in the Israeli military (IDF) is approximately 13,342—a figure lower than previous unverified reports.

Whether the number is 13,000 or 23,000 is not the core scandal. The scandal is what the number represents. A significant American presence inside a foreign military is a structural extension of the US–Israel alliance—one that quietly imports foreign violence into the American political sphere while allowing Washington to claim distance from the consequences.

A legal gap that is not accidental

Contrary to common assumptions, the United States does not broadly prohibit Americans from serving in foreign militaries. This permissiveness is often portrayed as a legal quirk, but in practice, it functions as a deliberate political arrangement. US law contains tools to restrict foreign recruitment, yet enforcement is uneven. When Americans fight for groups hostile to US interests, the state responds aggressively. When they fight for a close ally, the system becomes protective.

This is an enforcement hierarchy shaped by geopolitics. Israel sits at the top of that hierarchy. The Israeli military is armed, funded, and defended by US institutions. Consequently, Americans who enlist are treated as extensions of an alliance—and therefore politically insulated.

Dual citizenship: the mechanism that normalizes participation

Many of these Americans are dual citizens, or become Israeli citizens rapidly under the Law of Return. Once Israeli citizenship is secured, enlistment is reframed as civic duty. But this legal framing does not change the underlying reality: US citizens are serving in a foreign army engaged in operations widely condemned internationally, including in occupied Palestinian territory.

In Gaza and the West Bank, Israeli military actions have repeatedly produced large-scale civilian deaths. Major human rights organizations have argued these actions often violate international humanitarian law. It is statistically likely that some American or dual US–Israeli citizens have participated in military actions contributing to those deaths. Modern warfare distributes responsibility across units and command structures; accountability extends to the system—and to those who voluntarily joined it.

The US response: silence, denial, and selective outrage

If Americans had participated in killing civilians while serving with a group hostile to US interests, Washington’s response would be swift. Prosecutions, surveillance, and public condemnation would follow. But when the foreign force is the IDF, the US posture flips. The default becomes silence—and in some cases, active protection.

This is policy. The United States has created a political shield around Israel that also shields Americans who fight for it. The law is treated as optional when the ally is Israel. Impunity is not an accident of bureaucracy; it is the predictable outcome of alliance politics.

Should Americans who served in Gaza or the West Bank be prosecuted?

If a US citizen participates in acts that meet the threshold for war crimes—such as intentionally targeting civilians—there are pathways for investigation under US law. The obstacle is not the absence of legal architecture; it is the absence of political will.

The United States has systematically avoided legal confrontation with Israel’s military conduct and has blocked international accountability efforts. Prosecuting Americans who fought in Israeli operations would be politically explosive—and therefore institutionally resisted. The US state has chosen to treat this as a non-problem, and that choice has become a form of complicity.

War crimes vs crimes against humanity: why the distinction matters

Critics of Israel argue that patterns of conduct in Gaza—including repeated large-scale civilian casualties, mass displacement, and destruction of infrastructure—raise questions of not only war crimes but potentially crimes against humanity. This claim has entered mainstream discourse because the scale of civilian harm has become impossible to dismiss.

If that broader framing is accepted, the question of American participation becomes even more urgent. A US citizen serving inside a military engaged in systematic attacks on civilians could face liability not merely for discrete incidents but for participation in a wider campaign.

Impunity as doctrine

From Israel’s perspective, foreign volunteers strengthen its claim to global legitimacy. An army with Western volunteers becomes easier to frame as part of “the West” rather than as a regional occupying force. But this internationalization is one-sided: Israel welcomes diaspora participation but rejects international scrutiny.

The United States enables this by treating Israel as exceptional. Americans can fight in Gaza—where civilian death in the 10s of thousands is a documented outcome—and return home without investigation. That reality would be unimaginable if the foreign army were Russian or Iranian. The difference is alliance.

The question, then, is whether the United States is willing to treat Palestinian civilian life as worthy of the same legal concern it claims for others. So far, the answer has been a resounding no

Written by: Shira Efron

She is the Distinguished Chair of Israeli Policy and a Senior Fellow at the RAND Corporation.

The Middle East is not without its upheavals. In the wake of protests in Iran, Washington has threatened a military strike; violence continues in Gaza despite a ceasefire; Hezbollah is rearming itself in Lebanon; and factional conflicts destabilize Syria. But the next front that could erupt might be one that decision-makers consistently neglect: the West Bank.

Since October 7, 2023, and the Israeli military offensive in Gaza, the Israeli government has launched a de facto annexation campaign, intensifying its military presence in the West Bank, exerting continuous pressure on the Palestinian Authority to weaken it, accelerating the approval of Jewish settlements, and retroactively legalizing outposts. Acts of violence by settlers have become almost daily occurrences.

Then, on Sunday, the Security Cabinet, headed by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, approved an exceptional set of measures that transform the de facto annexation of the West Bank into legal policy. The timing of this move was extremely bold, preceding Netanyahu's visit to the White House. Israel will ease restrictions on land sales to settlers and will assume authority to determine how land is used in Areas A and B, which were officially under Palestinian Authority rule. Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich stated that the goal is to "eliminate the idea of a Palestinian state."

This move is but the latest development in a situation that has brought the West Bank to the brink of a real crisis. The Palestinian Authority may be unable to pay its debts within months, which would lead to a halt in essential services for millions of Palestinians and undermine security cooperation efforts with Israel that have so far prevented widespread unrest. Ramadan begins next week, a historical event that fuels tensions around the Al-Aqsa Mosque in East Jerusalem, known to Muslims as Al-Haram Al-Sharif and to Jews as the Temple Mount. Changes in Israeli police methods that weaken restrictions on provocative behavior, coupled with the absence of effective external mediation channels to help de-escalate tensions, pose a real risk that incidents at holy sites could spark wider unrest.

These hotspots are not accidental; they are an Israeli strategy. Influential Israeli ministers have long argued for the annexation of the West Bank into Israel's political and administrative sphere. A 2017 statement by Smotrich titled "The Decisive Plan" laid out a roadmap for this strategy: Israel should create an irreversible reality on the ground, eliminating any possibility of a Palestinian state, and forcing Palestinians to accept a status of permanent dependency or leave the West Bank.

Since October 7, Smotrich and other Israeli right-wing leaders have exploited the fog of war to turn this vision into policy. While Netanyahu's stance is more ambiguous – he has repeatedly insisted that Israel does not wish to assume full governance over Palestinian territories – his political survival depends on religious nationalist voters, limiting his ability and incentive to rein in leaders seeking annexation. Many Israeli moderates and international actors cling to the comforting assumption that upcoming Israeli elections later this year can reset the country's approach to the West Bank. But relying on such a reset is extremely risky. Many changes over the past two years are irreversible, especially since the Israeli opposition has not offered a clear alternative to the vision of annexation proponents.

Settler attacks against Palestinians and Israeli security forces in the West Bank increased by 27% between 2024 and 2025. The number of serious incidents classified as terrorism also increased by more than 50%.

Settler attacks against Palestinians and Israeli security forces in the West Bank increased by 27% between 2024 and 2025. The number of serious incidents classified as terrorism also increased by more than 50%.

If annexation proponents are not curbed soon, their cumulative actions will increase the likelihood of renewed unrest, necessitate continuous mobilization of the IDF, deepen Israel's diplomatic isolation, and force it to bear the burdens of civil governance in the West Bank, no matter how much Netanyahu claims otherwise. This will also seriously undermine the implementation of the 20-point peace plan for Gaza proposed by US President Donald Trump, which relies on the return of a reformed Palestinian Authority to administer that area. The conditions on the ground already make the stability of the Strip impossible and create the necessary conditions for it to become a permanent, irreversible insurgency zone.

According to the research institution "Tamror Politography," which collects data on Israeli control over Palestinian territories, this Israeli government has seen a massive surge in settlement expansion in the West Bank since 2023. In 2025 alone, it issued nearly double the number of approvals for housing units compared to 2019 and 2020. This recent surge far exceeds the usual multi-year totals of the previous decade and indicates a clear acceleration in both new settlement approvals and the retroactive legalization of illegal outposts.

"E1" Project

These moves are not only increasing the number of Israelis residing in the West Bank but are also weakening the Palestinian Authority day by day and fundamentally changing the face of the region. The Israeli government has begun establishing strategic control corridors by expanding administrative boundaries, creating bypass roads, and connecting infrastructure between settlements, making it difficult for Palestinian security forces and their political leaders to exercise their authority in the short term, and undermining any long-term opportunity for a geographically contiguous Palestinian state.

Rarely is there a clearer example of this process than the efforts to connect East Jerusalem to the large existing Ma'ale Adumim settlement, located 4.5 miles to the east, through the construction of thousands of housing units, as well as tourism and industrial infrastructure. Previous prime ministers, under international pressure, refrained from significantly advancing the development project – first proposed in the late 1960s and now known as "E1" – recognizing that it would effectively separate the West Bank and eliminate any chance for Palestinians to exercise their authority over a geographically contiguous area there. However, over the past year, the government has accelerated the implementation of the E1 project; in August, Smotrich officially approved the construction of 3,400 homes in the corridor, openly boasting that "the Palestinian state is being removed from the negotiating table not by slogans, but by actions. Every settlement, every neighborhood, every housing unit, is another nail in the coffin" of the two-state solution.

The E1 project is not an exception, but a adopted model. Similar logic underpins new construction projects and zoning plans around Gush Etzion, Ariel, and Ma'ale Adumim: they aim to strengthen Israeli control areas and fragment Palestinian territories. At the same time, small outposts are spreading throughout the West Bank. Some outwardly appear as pastures, but they serve a clear political function by seizing land and making Palestinian Authority over valuable areas impossible.

The Israeli government has even changed its rhetoric to legitimize outposts that were previously considered illegal. It is increasingly promoting the necessity of establishing "security farms," a rebranding process that transforms unlicensed outposts into alleged strategic assets. Just last week, in a video address at an "Appreciation Conference" for illegal agricultural outposts, attended by Smotrich and Settlement Minister Orit Strock, Defense Minister Yisrael Katz announced that he would legalize approximately 140 unlicensed agricultural outposts in the West Bank; he praised the illegal settlers as "pioneers of our era," "weakening Palestinian efforts to establish their presence in the area." Netanyahu himself recently indicated his support for official recognition of these sites. This type of land seizure may be less dramatic than annexation, but it is no less effective.

My Written Work

Palestinians are also facing a sharp escalation in violence committed directly by Israeli settlers, a type of violence implicitly endorsed by the Israeli government. In 2024 and 2025, settlers committed an unprecedented number of arson attacks, acts of vandalism, and physical assaults. According to statistics published by the Israeli army and the Shin Bet (internal security service) last month, settler attacks against Palestinians and Israeli security forces in the West Bank increased by 27% between 2024 and 2025. The number of serious incidents classified as terrorism also increased by more than 50%, mostly concentrated in hotspots such as Nablus, Hebron, and Ramallah.

However, the most significant characteristic of these attacks is not their frequency, but rather the Israeli government's allowance of them. Enforcement of laws prohibiting settler violence has been intermittent, often absent. Investigations are often minimal or non-existent. Prosecutions are rare, and the conviction rate is extremely low. The Israeli army does not believe its mission is to arrest Jewish extremists, and the police – controlled by Itamar Ben-Gvir, the controversial far-right National Security Minister – turn a blind eye. Last month, for the first time in Israel's history, the Israeli defense establishment reported more Jewish terrorist acts against Palestinians in the West Bank than Palestinian terrorist acts against Jews there and within Israel itself.

Decisions made at the highest levels of the Israeli government have given these perpetrators greater authority. In November 2024, Katz announced that his office would stop using administrative detention, a preventative measure allowing detention without charge, often used against Palestinians, against Jewish settlers, signaling the government's acceptance of settler violence at a time when Israel desperately needed to demonstrate more deterrence. In an interview with Fox News in late December, Netanyahu claimed that the international press exaggerated its coverage of settler violence, attributing it to the misconduct of "about 70 young people" who came from "broken families" outside the West Bank. Netanyahu did not clarify the source of his data, but his implication that most settlers do not support this violence is incorrect: in a poll conducted by Reichman University in June 2025, nearly half of respondents agreed that "violent resistance by Jews against Palestinians may be justified at this time," while slightly more than a third believed that such violence should be punished.

Hostile Takeover

Despite his political opportunism, Netanyahu has historically avoided pushing the Palestinian Authority to complete collapse. He understands that any short-term ideological gains such a move might achieve would come at a prohibitive long-term cost. Without the Palestinian Authority, Israel would be forced to assume responsibility for providing civil services – salaries, health, education, and security – to millions of Palestinians.

However, with Netanyahu prioritizing his political survival, he no longer has full control over the West Bank file; it is managed by Smotrich and his partners. They have deliberately sought to stifle the region's economy and undermine the Palestinian Authority's ability to function effectively, slowing its approval of Palestinian construction projects and restricting Palestinians' ability to earn a living in Israel. Since May 2025, the Israeli government has halted the transfer of customs and tax revenues to the Palestinian Authority; some – but not all – of these transfers are legally restricted due to the Palestinian Authority's practice of providing so-called "martyr payments" to prisoners, fighters, and their families.

The Public Works Authority can now only pay partial salaries to its 150,000 employees, in addition to a larger number of retirees and contractors. Schools have shifted to a four-day school week, limiting parents' ability to work. Healthcare and waste collection services have also been curtailed, leading to a deterioration in living standards.

The Israeli executive is leading the annexation efforts, but the Israeli parliament has contributed to the attempt to strangle the West Bank, making it even harder to reverse. Over the past two years, the Knesset has sought to enact legislation that tightens its financial, economic, and legal grip on the West Bank and directly weakens the Palestinian Authority. Additionally, lawmakers recently introduced proposals that would allow Israeli victims to retroactively file civil lawsuits against the Palestinian Authority for past terrorist attacks, which would overwhelm the Palestinian Authority to the point of collapse if passed.

Palestinian Authority Reform

The Palestinian Authority suffers from serious flaws and extreme fragility. Years of corruption, administrative failures, and inability to negotiate a state with Israel have eroded its credibility among Palestinians. But Israel needs a more effective Palestinian Authority, not a more fragile one. The same applies to Trump: his 20-point peace plan for Gaza states that an improved Palestinian Authority will eventually regain its authority over Gaza. The peace process cannot continue unless Palestinians have legitimate, competent, and stable political representation, which currently depends on the institutions of the Palestinian Authority, if not its current leadership. Arab and European donors, who are supposed to bear the responsibility for Gaza's reconstruction, have demanded a path towards a two-state solution, a path that only passes through the Palestinian Authority. There is currently no credible alternative with legal legitimacy and operational capacity. Burning down the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank undermines Gaza's recovery process before it even begins.

For this reason, immediate steps must be taken to halt the destructive Israeli approach towards the West Bank. Avoiding an explosion in the West Bank does not require resolving the entire Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but rather taking immediate steps to prevent the deliberate destruction of Palestinian institutions.

The only entity the Israeli government cannot refuse is Trump. If Washington wants to prevent another front from opening in the Middle East while on the verge of confrontation with Iran, it must also do more to ensure that Israel does not destroy the Palestinian Authority. This means working with Israel to restore revenue transfers, demanding that it stop enacting anti-Palestinian Authority legislation, and obliging it to enforce its laws against violent settlers. These concrete measures would remove immediate threats to the Palestinian Authority's existence.

The far-right in Israel seems to believe that destroying Palestinian governance will give Israel more power. Quite the opposite, it is a grave mistake that will become costly, bloody, and self-destructive, accelerating resentment and violence. Washington will also lose much by ignoring the situation in the West Bank: the collapse of the Palestinian Authority will remove any possible path towards regional stability and effective post-war settlement, which the Trump administration has relied on for much of its foreign policy legacy.

Israeli steps are accelerating to redefine vast areas of occupied West Bank land under the guise of 'state land,' a path that goes beyond the traditional legal dimension to reshape the economic and agricultural geography of the region. This systematic seizure does not only affect the land as a physical space but extends to strike at the Palestinian food basket and rural livelihoods on which thousands of families depend.

Recent decisions target vital agricultural lands that form the backbone of Palestinian food security, coming at a time when the agricultural sector is reeling under repeated attacks, including bulldozing, sabotage, and prevention of access to fields. These practices multiply economic losses and undermine the productive capacity of the Palestinian farmer in the face of settlement expansion, which has turned into a tool of financial and livelihood pressure.

According to official data, settlement expansion has transformed from mere urban sprawl into an economic strategy that reshapes the West Bank's infrastructure. Responsible sources have monitored a significant escalation in attacks on water sources and uprooting of trees. In the first week of February alone, approximately 777 olive trees were uprooted, causing material losses exceeding $600,000, concentrated in the Hebron and Nablus governorates.

This escalation is classified in Palestinian circles as 'economic settlement' proceeding at a faster pace than residential construction, as agricultural areas available to Palestinians are shrinking, especially in areas classified as 'C'. These areas, which constitute about 60% of the West Bank's area, have become the scene for the establishment of dozens of new pastoral outposts and settlement farms that are devouring pastures and fertile fields.

Recent confiscations have focused on the northern and central Jordan Valley areas, in addition to the vicinity of Salfit, Ramallah, Bethlehem, and southern Hebron governorates. Estimates indicate the loss of thousands of dunams of highly productive irrigated land, threatening the sustainability of the agricultural sector, which is one of the pillars of Palestinian steadfastness in the face of occupation.

The economic impact of these policies is evident in the decline of the agricultural sector's contribution to the GDP, where the percentage decreased from 7% to only about 5%. Technical reports also documented direct losses amounting to $103 million during the past year, in addition to the profound repercussions on supply chains and income in rural and marginalized areas.

In a related context, field reports revealed the classification of more than 26,000 dunams as 'state land' in preparation for the complete seizure of Palestinian control over them, in parallel with plans to legalize 140 settlement farms. These moves come amid escalating settler attacks, especially in the Masafer Yatta and Hebron governorate areas, to provide legal cover for land control operations.

Economist Dr. Thabet Abu Al-Roos believes that expanding the definition of 'state land' represents a legal cover for the Israeli side to impose facts on the ground without regard for international legitimacy. He explained that this path is not new but an extension of policies that began decades ago aimed at isolating Palestinians in narrow enclaves and depriving them of their natural and economic resources.

Abu Al-Roos warned that this economic aggression aims to exhaust the Palestinian productive base and weaken its ability to resist, linking what is happening in the West Bank to the ongoing aggression on the Gaza Strip as an integrated policy to destroy livestock and agriculture. This systematic destruction will necessarily lead to rising prices of basic goods and an exacerbation of unemployment rates among workers in this sector.

The economist also predicted an increased dependence of the Palestinian market on the Israeli economy due to the contraction of local production and the necessity for traders to turn to Israeli sources to cover the deficit. These developments intersect with major settlement projects such as the 'E1' project, which aims to separate the north of the West Bank from its south, thereby entrenching a geographical reality that prevents the establishment of a contiguous Palestinian entity.

What is happening is a systematic economic aggression targeting the structure of the Palestinian economy to exhaust the productive base and weaken the ability to resist.

Today, the West Bank is going through one of its most dangerous historical phases since its occupation in 1967, as systematic Israeli policies to reshape its geography and demography are accelerating. Benjamin Netanyahu's government, supported by the far-right current, seeks to impose a new reality on the ground aimed primarily at erasing any future prospect for the establishment of an independent and geographically contiguous Palestinian state.

These policies take multiple forms, starting from intensive military operations in refugee camps in the northern West Bank, specifically in Jenin and Tulkarm, to tightening the siege through thousands of checkpoints and iron gates. These measures work to transform Palestinian cities and villages into isolated enclaves, while settlements expand and random outposts are legalized to become an integral part of the region's fabric.

The occupation authorities use security cover as a pretext to achieve strategic goals that go beyond confronting armed resistance, as military operations aim to divide the West Bank into local administrative squares. This approach seeks to re-impose military rule in a disguised manner, reducing the powers of the Palestinian Authority and transforming it into symbolic roles lacking any real political or sovereign content.

Refugee camps are witnessing dangerous structural transformations, as Israel attempts to deal with them as ordinary residential neighborhoods affiliated with the surrounding Palestinian municipalities. This step aims to strip the camps of their political and legal status as symbols of the right of return, transforming the refugee issue from an international political file into merely a matter of services and simple local administration.

This targeting coincides with a deliberate and systematic marginalization of the role of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees (UNRWA) within the West Bank and Jerusalem. Through these pressures, Israel seeks to remove the camps from their international legal framework, paving the way for imposing direct Israeli administrative sovereignty over them under various organizational designations.

Regarding laws, the current government, led by the Religious Zionism party, is working to entrench what is known as 'creeping annexation' through unprecedented administrative and legal measures. These steps included appointing an additional minister in the Ministry of Defense to handle settler affairs, and transferring building permit issuance powers directly from the army to the civil administration to facilitate settlement expansion.

Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich affirmed in his statements that the West Bank is an integral part of the 'Land of Israel,' emphasizing efforts to thwart any attempt to establish a Palestinian state. This vision aims to equalize settlers' rights with those of Israeli citizens within Israel, while keeping Palestinians under a complex and unequal security control system.

Informed sources reported that the occupation intensified its efforts in occupied Jerusalem in parallel with the ongoing aggression on the Gaza Strip, where Judaization operations were accelerated unprecedentedly. According to researchers, the 'Shield of Jerusalem' campaigns launched at the end of 2025 led to the demolition of dozens of Palestinian properties in record time, reflecting a desire to resolve the conflict demographically.

Israeli scenarios for the future of the region range between three basic options, the first of which is the annexation of the Jordan Valley, which represents about 22% of the West Bank's area. This plan ensures control over the eastern borders and the mountain slopes overlooking them, while minimizing the Palestinian population presence in those strategic areas.

The second scenario is the implementation of the 'Trump Plan,' which stipulates the annexation of about 30% of the West Bank's area, including major settlement blocs and 17 isolated settlements. This plan relies on connecting these settlements with a sophisticated road network that ensures Israeli geographical superiority and creates a reality that will be difficult to reverse in any future negotiations.

The third option proposed is limited annexation targeting 10% of the area, focusing on settlement blocs close to the Green Line to ensure the lowest number of Palestinian residents within the annexation borders. Despite the variation in these scenarios, they all share the goal of reducing the area of the future Palestinian state and transforming it into scattered entities.

Ultimately, the facts on the ground indicate that the West Bank is gradually transforming into a system resembling apartheid, where Palestinian communities are surrounded by electronic gates. With the continued amendment of land registries and the facilitation of property purchases for settlers, it appears that the occupation is racing against time to impose a final reality that makes the two-state solution merely an inapplicable historical memory.

The ultimate goal of the occupation is to transfer the Jewish population weight from the coast to the Palestinian interior, so that cities like Hebron and Nablus become a model for reshaping the demographic composition.

The Supreme Leader of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Ali Khamenei, sharply criticized attempts to preempt the outcomes of negotiations between Tehran and Washington, describing such predictions as political 'foolishness.' Khamenei explained during a public meeting with a delegation from East Azerbaijan province that charting diplomatic paths before they begin reflects a limited understanding of international reality, emphasizing that the Iranian decision stems exclusively from supreme national interests.

In a direct response to the escalating statements by US President Donald Trump, Khamenei affirmed that the political entity of the Islamic Republic is immune to collapse or removal by any external power. He indicated that American rhetoric based on military showmanship cannot alter the existing balance of power on the ground, considering Iranian steadfastness to be the optimal response to intimidation policies.

The Iranian leader touched upon American boasting of military might, noting that possessing the world's strongest army does not protect it from receiving devastating blows that could cripple its ability to move and rise again. He considered that the language of threat adopted by the current US administration reflects a desire to impose a political will through military pressure, which Tehran completely rejects in its international dealings.

Khamenei raised the ceiling of military threat by speaking about his country's deterrent capabilities, hinting at the possibility of sinking American aircraft carriers if Iran is subjected to any direct aggression. He stated that these massive warships, despite being advanced destructive tools, remain targets for Iranian weaponry, which possesses the ability to send them to the bottom of the sea, in a clear reference to Tehran's possession of unique missiles or naval technologies.

These hardline stances come at a sensitive time when the region is witnessing an exchange of intense political and military messages between the two sides, amidst reports of the possibility of opening diplomatic channels. Khamenei's latest statements reflect the fragility of the negotiation process and the difficulty of reaching common ground given the wide divergence in visions and mutual threats dominating the scene.

Even the strongest army in the world can receive a blow that renders it unable to rise, and the weapon capable of sinking an aircraft carrier is more dangerous than it.

Israeli occupation forces continue their field escalation in various areas of the Gaza Strip, with sources reporting the martyrdom of a Palestinian child today, Tuesday, after being targeted by a drone strike in the town of Jabalia, north of the Strip. This attack coincided with a series of air raids and bombing operations targeting residential neighborhoods, reflecting the continued violations of existing truce agreements.

In the open sea west of Gaza City, occupation forces attacked a Palestinian fishing boat with live ammunition before arresting several of them and taking them to an unknown destination. Another citizen was also injured with varying degrees of wounds in the Maghraqa area in the center of the Strip, due to a drone dropping a bomb on a gathering of civilians, amid intense Israeli air traffic.

The northern and southern areas were not spared from the escalation, as the occupation army carried out extensive bombing operations inside residential squares where it penetrates around the town of Beit Lahia. In Khan Yunis, warplanes launched a series of raids accompanied by demolition operations of buildings, while Israeli artillery targeted populated areas in the city of Rafah, in the far south of the Strip.

On the humanitarian front, the spokesperson for the UN Secretary-General, Stéphane Dujarric, revealed the continued Israeli obstacles preventing the arrival of aid. Dujarric explained that the occupation only allowed half of the coordinated relief convoys to pass between February 6 and 11, exacerbating the living crisis for the besieged population.

Regarding travel through the Rafah crossing, the government media office announced limited statistics for departures and arrivals, with the total number of travelers not exceeding 925 people over two weeks. These meager figures come compared to the target number of 3,000 travelers, due to the strict restrictions imposed by the occupation authorities on the movement of the crossing.

Official data issued by the Ministry of Health indicate that the death toll from Israeli violations since last October has reached 603 martyrs and more than 1,600 injured. The ministry confirms that these numbers are constantly increasing as a result of the direct targeting of civilians and the violation of humanitarian protocols related to the entry of fuel and essential medical supplies.

In light of the deteriorating health system, there is an urgent need for about 22,000 injured and sick people to leave to receive treatment abroad to save their lives. These patients face a real danger as most hospitals are out of service and the war of extermination continues, which has almost completely destroyed the medical infrastructure in various governorates of Gaza.

Israeli authorities only allowed half of the coordinated relief initiatives to enter the Gaza Strip despite the ceasefire agreement.

The Magistrate's Court of the occupation in occupied Jerusalem issued a decision to extend the detention of independent Palestinian journalist Shireen Al-Obeid for an additional three days. This decision came after the occupation police charged the journalist with providing services to an organization described as 'terrorist' according to Israeli classifications, based on her professional activity in documenting field events.

The details of the case date back to last Sunday, when occupation forces arrested Al-Obeid while she was walking in a street in East Jerusalem. Hebrew sources claimed that the journalist was sending news videos to the 'Al-Qastal' media network, a platform that former occupation security minister Yoav Gallant placed on the banned lists in late 2023.

Journalistic reports stated that the video materials on which the indictment was based do not contain any incitement or calls for violence, but are merely documentation of public events. Nevertheless, the occupation authorities insist on prosecuting Jerusalemite journalists who provide local platforms with news content, in an attempt to restrict the Palestinian narrative in the Holy City.

During the court session, the occupation police requested to extend Al-Obeid's detention for seven days to complete the investigations, claiming a security risk in her activity. However, Judge 'Ghad Arnberg' decided to suffice with only three days, indicating that the narrative presented by the journalist needs legal examination and scrutiny before taking longer-term measures.

For his part, lawyer Muhammad Mahmoud, who is representing Al-Obeid, criticized the behavior of the prosecution and the police, stressing that the prosecutor tried to mislead the court by implying that the published materials were very recent. Mahmoud clarified that the videos under investigation date back to the end of last year and the beginning of January, which negates the alleged urgency or danger.

The defense questioned why the occupation resorted to direct field arrest instead of an official summons for investigation, especially since an arrest warrant had been issued against her a month ago without being executed. The lawyer considered that this laxity in execution proves that the security services did not see any real threat in the journalist throughout the past weeks.

Lawyer Mahmoud pointed out that it would have been more appropriate to officially inform the journalist of the ban on dealing with that media network if the goal was to apply the law, rather than surprising her with an arrest. He stressed that his client works independently and was not necessarily fully aware of the complex legal classifications imposed by the occupation on media institutions.

In a related context, informed sources stated that the targeted 'Al-Qastal' network continues its journalistic work by relying on open-source materials and field reports from Jerusalem and the West Bank. The targeting of its collaborators comes within a broader campaign launched by the occupation authorities against media institutions that report on settler violations and incursions into Al-Aqsa Mosque.

Despite an appeal against the extension decision, the Central Court in Jerusalem rejected the appeal submitted by the defense team and upheld the Magistrate's Court's decision. This decision means that journalist Al-Obeid remains in detention centers under ongoing investigation, raising human rights concerns about her detention conditions and her deprivation of exercising her work.

Data indicates that the occupation has begun to use the charge of 'providing services to terrorist organizations' as a legal pretext to prosecute anyone who contributes to conveying news from within Jerusalem. This policy directly targets independent journalists who do not enjoy major institutional protection, making them vulnerable to continuous arrest and abuse.

Human rights centers confirm that the prosecution of Shireen Al-Obeid falls within the systematic 'silencing of voices' policy in the Holy City, where professional journalistic work is criminalized. These centers consider the classification of media institutions as terrorist organizations to be a political tool aimed at isolating Jerusalem from its Arab and international media environment.

It is worth noting that journalist Al-Obeid had documented a series of important events in Jerusalem in recent months, including restrictions on worshippers and house demolitions. It appears that this intensive field activity is the real reason behind her prosecution, far from the security justifications put forward by intelligence agencies in courtrooms.

At the end of the session, the judge confirmed that the journalist did not deny sending the videos, but he acknowledged that this confession alone is not enough to prove criminal intent related to supporting terrorism. Nevertheless, he maintained the detention decision on the grounds of 'reasonable suspicion,' a vague legal term used by the occupation to justify administrative and temporary arrests.

Journalistic circles in Jerusalem await what the coming days will bring, amidst calls for international protection for Palestinian journalists who face the daily risk of arrest. Al-Obeid's case remains a stark example of the challenges faced by media professionals under the emergency laws and unjust security classifications imposed by the occupation.

Throughout this period, my client was not considered dangerous, and suddenly she became dangerous? And why was she not summoned instead of being arrested in the street?

When elections are announced under the banner of reform, it sends a political message to the outside world before the inside, about the ability to renew legitimacy and improve performance. However, what happens through consensual lists not only empties elections of their meaning but turns them into an indictment. When results are decided in cafes, the ballot box becomes an accessory, and democracy becomes a special privilege, not a public right. Here, we are not talking about administrative arrangements, but about a comprehensive redefinition, where the citizen does not choose, but rather blesses what has been decided by networks of interests and influence.

The danger of this extends from legitimacy and society to the general image of Palestine. Elections are not just a procedure, but a social contract that rebuilds trust and measures the extent of representation. When competition is replaced by conditional endorsement, legitimacy turns into mere decoration. The election law emphasized freedom, secrecy, and individuality, and left a window for endorsement in very specific cases. This window has turned into a gateway, and the exception has become the rule, pushing some towards a single list through partisan and family pressures, or balances of interests, and presenting what was not a consensus as if it were one.

Even if consensus is viewed as a way out of local divisions in normal circumstances, it becomes problematic under occupation. Local governance forms the first line of defense, from food and water security to steadfastness and relief, and from protecting lands to managing daily crises, especially in light of the suffocating financial crisis, or what resembles governmental paralysis. This makes the municipality more than just a service provider, but a pillar of steadfastness. When its leadership arrives through intermediaries, not through the ballot box, it becomes weak, distant from the street, and closer to networks of influence, thus reproducing a culture of dependency. This makes its leaders indebted to intermediaries, not to voters, and they tend to appease instead of engaging with people's real problems, and they seek to satisfy intermediaries, not to build their legitimacy through transparency and good performance, or to instill a culture of accountability.

The truth, understood by those who follow the scene, is that these agreements are merely a tool to evade the real test. Some replace competition with side arrangements that preserve their presence and influence, and postpone confronting the question of representation, amid a growing realization that public sentiment is no longer guaranteed to produce certain results. Consensus in this form turns into a deadly social epidemic, making expertise and competencies redundant, simply because the criterion for selection is loyalty, not competence; kinship, not ability; and appointment, not election. Over time, frustration turns into disengagement from public work, and then later hostility towards it, which opens the door to more dangerous social ills, making it easy to dismantle these societies, or make them prone to internal explosion, and less capable of organizing and confronting the successive shocks of the occupation.

Nor does the matter stop there; it also affects Palestine's image internationally. The Palestinian discourse presented it as a state project under occupation, demanding protection, recognition, and support. However, the world in general, and donors or international institutions in particular, no longer look only at the justice of the cause, but also at governance. When elections are repeatedly postponed, or turn into pre-arranged agreements, that is not just counter-propaganda, but a ready-made recipe for mixing cards, linking support to stricter conditions, and perhaps justifying circumvention of Palestinian institutions, thereby transforming the issue from national liberation to an administrative file.

The most bitter truth is that this is happening while the assault on the West Bank is escalating, and official silence has become policy, or part of the scene. Consequently, destroying the immunity of local governance is not just an administrative error, but also a danger to community security. When institutions weaken, the ability to steadfastness weakens, and salvation becomes an individual choice, not a collective act, which is precisely what the occupation seeks: a fragmented society, leaders without real mandate, and internal conflicts that drain energies and resources, instead of melting them into one crucible to confront imminent dangers.

Dr. Imtanes Shihadeh: Protest is not just anger, but an act of empowering society and a message of refusing submission and fear

Amir Makhoul: We need organized collective action alongside popular initiatives, as together they form the power of change

Sawsan Surour: What is happening can no longer be reduced to numbers but to real suffering, especially among bereaved families

Dr. Thaer Abu Ras: The Palestinian society inside has woken up and said: Enough, we want a solution to the cancer of violence and crime

Wadie Awawdeh: There are attempts to drown us in the search for safety instead of focusing on the core issue

Wadie Abu Nassar: Protest is important but not enough without strengthening education and awareness to reduce violent crimes and crime

Exclusive to Al-Quds

The national day of disruption, called for by the families of murder victims in the 1948 territories last Tuesday, represents an additional development in the course of popular protests against the escalation of crime and violence, in parallel with official neglect from the Israeli government.

According to writers, analysts, and specialists in separate interviews with "Al-Quds," crime in Palestinian society within the 1948 territories is not merely a disturbing social phenomenon or numbers that dominate headlines, but has transformed into an existential crisis threatening personal security, economic stability, and the cohesion of the entire social fabric. Amidst an unprecedented rise in the number of victims and the expansion of violence, there is a growing general feeling that society stands at a crucial crossroads: either surrender to the reality of blood and fear, or move towards organized collective action that forces real change.

In this context, popular protests emerged as a pivotal moment in the confrontation; not just as a cry of anger, but as a practical step aimed at moving the issue from the margin of suffering to the center of action. These movements carried a dual message: direct pressure on the Israeli government to assume its responsibilities, and an internal message confirming that society is no longer willing to remain silent or coexist with the imposed reality of crime.

Analyses indicate an expanding circle of accusation to include the ruling establishment and law enforcement agencies, amidst accusations of deliberate negligence, and even complicity, in light of glaring gaps in dealing with crime between Arab and Jewish communities. As calls for protest and escalation to civil disobedience increase, a broad popular movement is crystallizing, led by victims' families and various civil segments, in an attempt to secure safety and impose a change in policies.

Political Crime.. A Tool to Fragment Society

Dr. Imtanes Shihadeh, Director of Israel Studies Programs at Mada al-Carmel, believes that the phenomenon of crime and violence in the interior has clearly emerged over the past ten years within Arab society, under the patronage and complicity of the ruling establishment, especially the police.

He points to common interests between criminal gangs and some official bodies, whose goal is to fragment Arab society, weaken it, and spread fear among its ranks.

Shihadeh adds that part of these outcomes leads to emigration, as a significant percentage of middle-class individuals, including youth, intellectuals, and teachers, now see that personal security is no longer tolerable, and economic development has become difficult due to the spread of "protection money" and the control of criminal gangs, posing a direct threat to life and stability.

Shihadeh emphasizes that this phenomenon is a form of punishment directed against Arab society, and part of what can be described as social and economic genocide. While the Palestinian people in Gaza are subjected to a war of extermination, and the West Bank witnesses continuous occupation, settlement expansion, and incursions and attacks by settlers, Palestinians in the interior face the terrorism of criminal gangs.

Shihadeh stresses that the central address of responsibility is the police, who must bear their full responsibilities, asserting that without a clear political decision, the phenomena of crime and violence cannot be seriously addressed.

Protest as an Act of Empowerment, Not Just a Cry of Anger

Shihadeh adds that protests represent part of empowering society, and they are a cry of anger expressing rejection of this phenomenon. He says that they aim first to influence the ruling establishment through demonstrations and strikes, which may make it fear the accumulation of organized political action, and second, to send an internal message to Arab society about the necessity of staying away from this path, rejecting involvement in it, and not succumbing to fear of violence and crime gangs.

Shihadeh emphasizes that the phenomenon is very disturbing and dangerous, and threatens the cohesion of Arab society in the interior, both socially and economically, which necessitates a collective reaction from various components of Palestinian society in the interior, including civil society institutions, the Follow-up Committee, and trade unions, to confront this escalating phenomenon.

A Qualitative Leap in the Path of Struggle

Amir Makhoul, a specialist in Israeli affairs, says that the national day of disruption is effectively a blessed and necessary step.

He adds that there is a role for organizers and organizations, while the importance of the participation of new sectors, such as doctors and universities, stands out, which indicates broader prospects for future work, as he affirmed that this work is cumulative, as organized crime cannot be eliminated or policy changes imposed on the state in a short breath.

Makhoul points out that there is a broad struggle led by the Follow-up Committee and the political movement in general, referring to the High Follow-up Committee for Arab Citizens in Israel, as the entity framework for this society, which has been following this file for many years and seeks to change policies or impose their change.

Makhoul confirms that the disruption constitutes a qualitative leap, as happened days ago in the disruption march towards Jerusalem and the office of Prime Minister Netanyahu.

He says: "We stand by and support the movement we have witnessed recently. Our people in the interior need both: organized collective action and popular initiatives."

Escalating Popular Disobedience

Makhoul believes that there are hundreds of popular initiatives in every town, every residential gathering, and every city, playing a truly enormous role, and it is these, alongside the Follow-up Committee, that have kept the flame of struggle alive throughout the past years. This latest launch also came after the qualitative act of disobedience carried out by shop owners in Sakhnin, led by Mr. Ali Al-Zubaydat about two weeks ago, which stirred the street and launched a widespread popular solidarity operation, not just mere solidarity or political adoption.

He adds: "Today we are witnessing a major transformation in this context, towards multiple forms of disobedience against policies, leading to their change. However, we do not expect the Israeli government to change its policies, as it is not interested in doing so in the first place, because crime is part of its policy and not outside it. There is a political function for the crime system, which is to maintain right-wing rule, weaken society, and strike at the cohesion of Palestinian society from within, a policy applied to sabotage Palestinian society wherever it exists, not only in the interior."

The Importance of Protest for Policy Change

Makhoul adds: "Days ago, we heard about the scandal of smuggling goods into Gaza with the participation of the brother of the head of the Shin Bet, but more dangerous than that is the flow of tens of thousands of dangerous narcotic pills used to sabotage Palestinian society wherever it is, with the aim of undermining it, facilitating policies of displacement and ethnic cleansing, and distancing it from politics and work.

Makhoul believes that the crime file constitutes a top priority, with the need for organized collective action and spontaneous action, along with the importance of protesting every incident that occurs in any town, as well as supporting and strengthening popular work and popular initiatives, while emphasizing that all these paths converge in one path, which is the path of popular struggle to change policies, and this is the basis.

Makhoul explains that it is natural, given that the Palestinian people within the 1948 territories are a national group in their land and homeland, to have their own entities, and for all activities to support this basis, and for the Palestinian Arab masses to lead this struggle, whether at the national level, or through the Follow-up Committee, or through various popular bodies and initiatives, and for them to determine their own destiny.

He emphasizes the importance of organizing victims' families and their involvement in activities, which was clearly evident in the recent disruption actions, as this organization represents a moral voice that adds an important moral dimension to political work. Therefore, we need integration between all these efforts.

Makhoul explains that the Palestinian people in the occupied interior face real Israeli fascism, and need the support of all concerned forces, including progressive Jewish forces, not out of pity or courtesy, but in order to confront fascism and impose policy changes on the Israeli government.

Numbers Breaking Records and Escalating Bloodshed

For her part, journalist and critic of the political scene in Israel, Sawsan Surour, asks how many victims of crime have there been in Palestinian society in the interior?! This question is asked by every journalist from the Palestinians of the interior every morning!

She says: "So far, the number of Palestinian Arab victims in Israel has reached 45 killed since the beginning of this year, while the number of victims at the same time last year was 31, knowing that last year was burdened with the blood of victims and the heavy weight of rampant crime, reaching an unprecedented level."

She clarified: "252 victims is a heavy number that breaks the previous record set in 2023 with 244 victims, making 2025 the bloodiest year in the history of Palestinian society within the 1948 territories, and we are still in the middle of the second month of this year, so how many will the list of victims close with?!"

Surour adds, for comparison only, 66 Jews were killed in 2024, and 38 Jews in 2023, knowing that the number of Jews in Israel is about four times that of Arabs.

Israeli Police Negligence in Confronting Crime

Surour confirms that, according to data, the Israeli police solve 65% of murder cases in Jewish society, while this percentage does not exceed 20% in Arab society, all of which are data that cast their harsh and dire shadows on the reality and existence of Palestinians in the country.

Surour believes that the Israeli police's negligence in confronting the escalation of crime in Palestinian society in the interior is deliberate, and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu bears responsibility for it, as he almost never speaks about the phenomenon of crime in Palestinian society, but he touched upon it, days ago, by praising Police Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir following the police campaign carried out in the village of Tarabin Al-Sane in the Negev and the killing of citizen Muhammad Hussein Al-Tarabin by police gunfire.

She points out that according to data published by the Taub Center for Social Policy Studies in "Israel," until 2015, the ratio of murder crimes in Arab society to Jewish society was 4 Arab victims for every one Jewish victim, and this ratio rose in 2023 to 13 Arab victims for every one Jewish victim, and rose in 2024 to 14 Arab victims for every one Jewish victim. After these numbers, will silence remain the master of the situation for Palestinians in Israel? The answer, of course, is no, and this is what actually happened.

Surour says that because the public discourse among Palestinians in "Israel" has recently taken a remarkable turn in dealing with crime, it no longer focuses on the number of dead, and crime is no longer reduced to a daily number or an annual toll only. Bereaved and affected families, civil bodies, and activists have launched a remarkable social movement, playing a prominent and advanced role compared to official institutions and elected leaders, which has brought about an important transitional development in dealing with crime, especially if opportunities, fields, and capabilities are provided to them and to the social movement in finding a lifeline.

Surour continues, from the cry of pain of businessman Abu Ibrahim Ali Zubeidat, which gave birth to the dignity uprising and the rejection of extortion in Sakhnin, to the almost daily demonstrations or activities condemning the spread of crime and the compliance of official leaders with these pressures and their submission to the request to unify Arab parties and not continue the fragmentation among them and to re-form the Joint List for the sake of the supreme goal of protecting people, a step that, it seems, was necessary, and left no opportunity for any opponent to refuse.

Participation of Bereaved Families Translates the Pains of Crime

Surour emphasizes that the undeniable truth is that the steps taken by the National Committee of Heads of Arab Local Authorities, and the Follow-up Committee for Arab Citizens in "Israel," against crime and violence have proven ineffective in isolation from the social movement, which is led by the sighs and pains of bereaved families and orphans of crime, and those physically, psychologically, and economically affected, who can translate the losses of crime not only in numbers but in real pains and suffering.

Surour believes that the days of disruption witnessed by the country last week were important, but they attracted a very fragile segment from all over the country, not exceeding a few thousand, as this activity succeeded in attracting some Hebrew media outlets, after coverage was previously limited to Arab media.

She described it by saying: "The feeling and reality confirm that what happened in terms of activities was just a summer cloud that passed."

Surour clarifies the necessity of continuing and escalating the non-partisan civil social movement so that its impact remains noticeable and influential, both on the ordinary citizen and on decision-makers in the Israeli government.

A State of Emergency Before a General Strike

Surour considers the Follow-up Committee's decision to call a general strike for three days to condemn the spread of crime a blessed step, "but until the date of this strike (supposed to start two months from now), a state of emergency must be declared immediately, while continuing to organize and implement disruptions, demonstrations, and unifying activities, if not daily then weekly, leading to civil disobedience, if necessary, in order to make the struggle successful and not lose the compass that has long pointed and always points to the radical solutions that must first come from the Israeli government," according to her.

The Peak of a Movement Not Seen in the Interior for 25 Years

Political analyst Dr. Thaer Abu Ras believes that the national day of disruption is the culmination of several diverse activities in the interior over the past two weeks, and this is the central point in his opinion.

He adds: "We are facing the peak of political action or political mass activity that we have not seen for at least 25 years in the Palestinian interior. There is a general feeling that society has woken up and said: Enough, we want a solution to the cancer of violence and crime that has been spreading within society for many years."

Abu Ras emphasizes that under the current Israeli government, the data has reached numbers that people can no longer accept; the period between 2022 and 2023 witnessed an increase of more than 200% in murder victims, and from 2023 until today there has been a continuous and significant increase in the number of victims. Even in 2026, during the first month or month and a half, the number of deaths and shooting incidents reached unbelievable levels.

The Most Violent in the World

Abu Ras points out that if Arab society in the interior were an independent state, it would be among the most violent countries in the world, even more than countries with a bad reputation in this field such as Colombia or Mexico, for example.

Abu Ras believes that this mass organization alone is the most prominent event, and what helped it succeed is that, for the first time, it did not come from the leadership and was not imposed by political elites on society, but emerged from the womb of Arab society itself; those who practically initiated the first strike, and then the Sakhnin demonstration, which was the largest in the history of the Arab masses, were actually from the merchant class in Sakhnin, who protested against the phenomenon of "protection money" in Arab society, and against the state's inability or unwillingness, as well as the Israeli police's, to deal with this phenomenon.

An Election Year Changes the Rules

Abu Ras asked: Will there be continuity for this momentum? And will it be exploited to impose the crystallization of a real action plan on the Israeli government to deal with this issue, especially since we are in an election year, which is the most important variable?

Abu Ras says: "Being in an election year means that there are listening ears in the Israeli government and the Israeli political elite, which may allow the possibility of taking some step in the end."

He also points out that the Israeli government is not interested in the Arab masses coming out to vote in the upcoming elections, and it knows that the issue of violence provokes these masses, and may be an incentive for them to go to the polls, and perhaps this is what may push the Israeli government to feel the need to do something, so that the Arab masses do not use this file against it in the next elections.

A Strategic Threat Requires a Strategic Response

Israeli affairs specialist Wadie Awawdeh says that the Palestinian people in the occupied interior face a strategic threat, and therefore the reaction must be strategic from the Palestinian Arabs in "Israel."

Awawdeh emphasizes the need to prepare an action plan, a persistent plan, and a long breath, and to search for partners and allies on the Jewish side.

A Complicit Government Setting the House on Fire from Within

Awawdeh adds: "We are facing a government that is insensitive, blatantly and flagrantly complicit with criminal gangs against us, in an attempt to set the house on fire from within, and distract us from the core political issue, whether local or the Palestinian issue related to our people, and drown us in issues of searching for safety and security, which is the basic and primary right of every citizen and every human being."

Awawdeh stresses the need for pressure and continued protest. Palestinian Arab society in "Israel" stands before a major strategic challenge that threatens all that has been achieved previously, and that threatens the Palestinian past, present, and future.

Silent Displacement Through Spreading Despair

Awawdeh explains, describing it: "It threatens our past because it squanders what we have achieved in terms of steadfastness, development, and preservation of identity and its flame; it corrupts our present because it occupies us with side issues that should not have overshadowed our priorities, and distances us from fundamental and core issues; and it threatens our future because it opens the door to emigration, and perhaps that is the intended goal, which is to push young people to despair and emigrate from here."

Awawdeh adds that this is part of this government's vision to resolve the conflict with Palestinians through displacement, including silent displacement, by spreading despair and hopelessness and so on.

Awawdeh emphasizes that the response must be a long breath, perseverance, broad participation, and unity of ranks, based on the principle that what happens today to my neighbor may happen tomorrow in my home. And whoever thinks that he will be immune from these situations, and does not intervene or participate in the protest, is mistaken.

Awawdeh concluded by saying: "Unfortunately, political and civil activities and their capabilities in mobilization, rallying, and dealing with this file need a lot of support and a lot of reform. The discourse has become ossified, the mobilization language is weak, and there is no clear action plan or integrated vision. In fact, I doubt the existence of an action program and a clear vision among the leaders, as a result of obsolescence, political corruption, and the decline of political work, among other things."

Official Indifference Fuels Crime

For his part, political analyst Wadie Abu Nassar confirms that the escalation of crime within Arab society in the interior is dangerous and infuriating, and causes great concern, as there is no longer a safe place, nor a feeling that conditions are improving, but on the contrary, there is a sense of continuous decline.

He points out that the primary responsibility lies with the state, especially the Israeli government, which seems not only silent, but deals with a degree of indifference, as if it is fueling crime instead of seriously and effectively combating it.

Abu Nassar adds that despite the contribution of the majority of our community members to protesting the rampant crime through various means, the government and state institutions still ignore these movements, and do not play their role in fighting crime as they do in Jewish society.

Strengthening the Educational System Limits the Spread of Crime

In contrast, Abu Nassar stresses the need not to overlook the existence of an educational imbalance among some members of society, for while acknowledging the state's shortcomings, it must be noted that Arab citizens have suffered from racial discrimination since the establishment of the state, and this discrimination has significantly worsened in recent years.

Abu Nassar emphasizes that what is required is not limited to protest, despite its importance, but extends to strengthening education and awareness starting from the family and school, which contributes to limiting the spread of crime within society.

Abu Nassar believes that the matter requires great efforts, especially under the right-wing government that does not respond to strikes, demonstrations, and demands, pointing out the importance of seeking to internationalize the issue by urging influential international parties, especially the United States of America and diaspora Jews, to pressure the Israeli government to assume its responsibilities in this regard.

By: Dr. Saeed Sabry, International Economic Advisor, and Board Member of International Digital Transformation

When an economic decision-maker announces the adoption of an “austerity” policy, it is not merely a financial measure to balance the general budget, but an expression of a genuine moment of constraint in the margin for maneuver. In the Palestinian case, the austerity discourse goes beyond being a financial policy to being an implicit acknowledgment of the blockage of economic decision-making tools on the ground. Hence, the fundamental question arises: Have Earth's solutions truly ended, or has the era of economic dependency ended? This question is not a linguistic metaphor, but an accurate description of a long-term structural blockage that has shackled the Palestinian economy for decades, transforming it from an economy striving for development into an economy preoccupied with managing survival under the weight of accumulating financial, monetary, and sovereign crises.

Anatomy of the Crisis: When Numbers Expose the Limits of the Model

The Palestinian austerity cannot be understood without resorting to the language of numbers, not as rigid data, but as indicators of a deep structural imbalance. The Palestinian public debt is estimated today at about 15 billion dollars, including direct obligations, arrears to the private sector, bank debts, and pension authority obligations. When compared to the GDP, which actually ranges between 13 and 14 billion dollars after years of contraction, we find that public debt has exceeded 100% of the national economy's size. In any normal economy, this ratio is a red alert. However, in an economy that lacks monetary sovereignty, does not possess a national currency, and does not control its crossings or resources, it represents an entry into a phase of complete depletion of financial capacity.

The most dangerous aspect of the debt size is the cost of its service. Public debt service consumes between 250 and 300 million shekels monthly, which is equivalent to 60-75% of available local revenues in some months, before spending reaches salaries, services, or investment. Thus, the financial discussion shifts from “how do we direct resources?” to “how do we keep liquidity alive?”

And when the salary bill, approaching 900 million to one billion shekels monthly for nearly 150,000 employees, retirees, and quasi-salaries, is added to that, the general budget becomes governed by a zero-sum equation, where investment disappears from calculations, not as an option, but as an inevitable victim.

Pledging the Banking System: Paralyzed Liquidity and the Correspondent Banks Trap

The depth of the crisis is also evident in the situation of the Palestinian banking system, which is supposed to be a driver of growth, but instead becomes a victim of monetary strangulation. The annual wait for the “extension” of correspondent banks' relations with the Israeli side is no longer a technical issue, but has become a structural pressure tool that threatens the entire financial stability.

Refusing to receive surplus cash shekels is not an ordinary banking procedure, but a strangulation policy that paralyzes the function of liquidity itself. Local banks find themselves drowning in paper liquidity that cannot be disposed of externally or invested internally, which limits their ability to productive lending, increases the fragility of public finance, and deepens the private sector crisis.

Here, traditional “Earth's solutions” lose their effectiveness. Banks are without tools, the government is without sovereignty, and the economy is without growth engines.

Why Have Earth's Solutions Stopped?

In sovereign states, governments possess three basic tools: monetary policy, fiscal policy, and control over trade. In the Palestinian case, these tools are either disabled or forcibly restricted. Since the economy relies more than 70% on local consumption linked to public spending, any reduction in salaries or expenditures automatically turns into self-contraction.

Salary cuts reduce purchasing power, weakening demand, harming the private sector, leading to a decline in tax revenues, and returning the government to a deeper deficit. It is a closed loop that traditional austerity measures do not break, but rather exacerbate.

From Deficit Management to Model Redesign

If Earth's solutions have been exhausted within the existing model, the alternative lies not in searching for additional traditional tools, but in redesigning the economic model itself. This requires a shift from the logic of “deficit management” to the logic of “capacity building.”

First, productive austerity: any austerity that does not target investment or stifle growth-capable sectors, but rather focuses on reducing waste, reordering priorities, and linking all public spending to a measurable economic impact.

Second, digital sovereignty as a cumulative path: not as an immediate solution, but as a gradual path to disengage from the physical constraints of cash. An integrated national digital payment system can give the economy greater flexibility in liquidity management and alleviate the blackmail associated with paper currency circulation, without claiming to eliminate political restrictions all at once.

Third, transforming aid into risk mitigation tools, thereby opening the door for diaspora investments in strategic sectors such as food security and renewable energy, and reducing the import bill, which is the largest source of financial leakage outside the economy.

Conclusion: The End of Dependency or the Beginning of Transformation?

The austerity discourse is not the end of the road, but a final warning bell. The real question is no longer: how much will we cut spending? But rather: how do we rebuild the capacity to produce in an economy whose debt has exceeded its output?

Perhaps the Earth's solutions related to the dependency model have narrowed, but the spaces for innovation, digitalization, and redefining economic tools are still open. The real challenge is not a lack of ideas, but having the will to move from managing the crisis as a permanent fate to breaking the model that produced it.

We do not just need austerity, but a restoration of the ability to plan and create horizons, before austerity turns from a rescue tool into a permanent way of life.

Striking for its scientific analytical thought is a statement by one of the Zionist leaders, Chaim Weizmann, in 1919, that the goal of Zionism was to make Palestine as Jewish as England is English. This was more than a hundred years ago. At that time, there was no state of Israel, no Nakba of Palestine, no setback for the nation, and no occupation of the rest of Palestine, the Golan, and Sinai. There was no PLO or its various factions, no Stone Intifada, and no Oslo Accords or a Palestinian Authority capable of an independent state after five years.

Today, the discussion and debate focus on striking Iran, and whether America, along with Israel, which is nearly eighty years old, will carry out their threats, or if Iran will succumb to avoid this dark fate that is at its doorstep, looming from the muzzles of the death fleets lurking nearby.

 A quick review by Arab, Islamic, and regional decision-makers of this "Middle" East is enough to provide the answer, not necessarily for a century, but only for half of it or less. After the departure of the great Arab nationalist leader Gamal Abdel Nasser, his Egypt "drifted" towards peace with Israel, and the Front of Steadfastness and Confrontation was formed, which succeeded in moving the headquarters of the Arab League from Cairo to Tunis. Its pillars were Syria under Hafez al-Assad, Libya under Muammar Gaddafi, Iraq under Saddam Hussein, Algeria under Houari Boumédiène, and the PLO under Yasser Arafat. Most of these leaders were assassinated, and their countries fell into the clutches of Israel and America as if they had never existed. Their historical capitals were occupied, and their civilizations, some of which extend to pre-written history, were trampled. This front ended, and with it, steadfastness and confrontation. All of this happened in less than fifty years, and the "knowledgeable" and, of course, the ignorant, will not know when such a front will rise again.

 It is important, as we read this very, very recent history, because many of us lived through it and were witnesses to it, or at least to some of it, to note a striking development: the shift of targeting from Arabs to non-Arabs. Iran is not Arab, but regional, supporting the Palestinian cause as the Arab Front of Steadfastness and Confrontation supported it before. And if Iran is Islamic, then Venezuela, which was targeted with the arrest of its president at the beginning of the new year, is neither Arab nor Islamic. This, in turn, opens up the intellectual field: will Iran be the last to be targeted?

 In 1938, 19 years after Weizmann's statement, and ten years before the establishment of the state, Ben-Gurion made a statement in which he said: "I support forced transfer, and I see nothing immoral in it." So why do we seem surprised and open-mouthed at the "new developments" that are, in fact, old axioms?

 The great Egyptian writer Mohamed Hassanein Heikal was asked about the reason for his opposition to Hosni Mubarak, and he said that throughout his 30 years of rule, he had not read a book.

The Palestinian crisis is no longer reducible to an imbalance of power with Israel, nor to the bias of an American administration here or a retreat of a European stance there. We are facing a historical phase that goes beyond diplomacy and daily politics, to a question of meaning and function: What remains of the national project when the Authority, which was born as a transitional framework towards a state, contracts to find itself today closer to an apparatus managing a population under occupation, if not within the context of its own plan?

In light of the accelerating creeping annexation in the West Bank and the Judaization of Jerusalem, the continued siege and obstruction of Gaza's reconstruction, the fading of any political horizon during the Trump administration, and the international community's contentment with the rhetoric of a "two-state solution" without enforcement tools, the challenge is no longer solely external for Palestinians. The deeper danger is the gradual transformation from a supposedly temporary authority to a permanent administrative reality, stripped of sovereignty and horizon. The erosion here does not come in the form of a resounding collapse, but in the form of a slow habituation to contraction.

The most likely scenario in the foreseeable future is a formal survival of the Authority, more financial and political tightening, accelerating expansion of settlement facts, and a cumulative decline in popular trust. But it is not an entirely predetermined path. Even in the context of erosion, the question remains: Is the Authority's function redefined, or is the crisis managed with the bare minimum?

Redefinition means transforming the Authority from a service apparatus into a tool for societal resilience; from managing salaries to protecting land; from waiting for external transformation to investing internally. It means redirecting resources towards supporting productive sectors, fortifying Jerusalem and threatened areas, strengthening the resistant local economy, and opening up public space for genuine political participation that restores trust. Reform with its national content here is not a moral demand, but a condition for political survival. For an authority without societal legitimacy becomes more fragile in the face of any external pressure.

However, erosion may slide into functional disintegration or disorganized collapse, under accumulated financial-security pressure. Here, the issue is no longer managing contraction, but confronting a vacuum. And a vacuum in the Palestinian context is not a neutral space; rather, it is an open invitation for external arrangements, or for internal chaos, or for a forced reshaping and engineering of the political system. Therefore, thinking of a reserve national framework, "a broad consensus network of political and societal forces capable of managing an organized transition," is not a coup, but a preventive measure that protects society from collapse turning into liquidation.

In contrast, the possibility of re-establishment remains, even if it seems less spontaneous. This path can only be achieved by rebuilding national representation on comprehensive democratic foundations, redefining the relationship between the Palestine Liberation Organization and the Authority, and formulating a political contract that defines the Authority's function as a tool subject to the national project, not a substitute for it. The essence of the transformation is shifting the center of gravity from relying on external factors to restoring legitimacy from within, so that society itself becomes a lever of pressure to redefine the direction.

In this context, the call for National Council elections or engaging people with a draft constitution emerges. In principle, renewing representative legitimacy and drafting a new constitutional contract represent undeniable national entitlements. But the value of any electoral or constitutional process is not measured by its announcement, but by its political conditions. Elections held amidst deep geographical and political division, and without prior agreement on a comprehensive national program, may turn into a reproduction of existing power balances, or a mechanism for managing the crisis rather than solving it. And a constitutional discussion in the absence of actual sovereignty, and continuous erosion of geographical space, is nothing more than an illusory compensation for field impotence, or an internal rearrangement of the system without affecting the core of the predicament.

The problem is not with elections or the constitution, but with the danger of the compass shifting from the priority of the question of liberation to the question of administration. When the conflict shifts from protecting land to organizing texts, the national project becomes vulnerable to being reduced to limited governance engineering, while facts on the ground redefine borders and sovereignty without waiting.

Hence the central question arises: Who has the ability to break this path?

The answer does not lie in a single institution, nor in a specific faction, but in what can be called the "historical bloc," i.e., a broad alliance of social, cultural, trade union, economic, and political forces whose interests intersect at protecting the national project from final contraction.

The responsibility of this bloc is not limited to criticism or issuing statements. Its historical responsibility is on three interconnected levels:

First, imposing the priority of political unity as a condition for any electoral or constitutional process. There is no meaning in renewing procedural legitimacy without restoring the minimum level of unity and a common program.

Second, restoring the public space as an arena for discussion, accountability, and participation. Legitimacy is not restored by a top-down decision, but by re-engaging society in defining the path.

Third, transforming steadfastness from rhetoric into public policy through supporting local production, protecting land, fortifying civil peace, and building community solidarity networks capable of absorbing shocks.

The historical bloc is not a new party, but an organized collective consciousness, pushing to redefine the Authority's function before it is redefined from outside. It is the force capable of preventing erosion from becoming fate and collapse from becoming liquidation, and elections or the constitution from becoming cosmetic illusions to fill the vacuum.

The current moment of contraction carries a deep paradox: the narrower the political space, the heavier the burden of internal responsibility. Either the national project is reproduced from within, or it is reshaped from without. It is not enough to wait for changes in administrations or shifts in international positions. History does not grant peoples the luxury of long waiting when the land itself is in the process of redefinition.

So what is to be done?

Not a coup or an adventure, but a transition from crisis management to redirecting the path. And if the moment is one of contraction, the response is not withdrawal, but a rearrangement of power balances within society itself. Here, responsibility shifts from a moral question to a historical duty for the broad national bloc.

First: Establishing the minimum national base; the first step is not an election or a constitution, but a political agreement on undisputed priorities: stopping creeping annexation, lifting the siege on Gaza, protecting Jerusalem, and preventing the entrenchment of geographical and political separation.

This minimum is not a factional program, but a unifying umbrella under which secondary differences are suspended. Without this foundation, any political process "electoral or constitutional" becomes merely a reproduction of division, not its transcendence.

Second: Restoring the public space as an internal sovereign domain; legitimacy cannot be restored without reopening the public sphere.

Political freedom is not a luxury, but a condition for mobilization. What is required is to free trade union, student, and civil work from restrictions, and to restore the importance of public debate as a tool for correction, not a threat to stability.

For an authority that fears its society loses its ability to represent it. And a society that is excluded from decision-making loses its willingness to defend it.

Third: Practically redefining the Authority's function;

Instead of the Authority remaining an apparatus for managing salaries and services, it must be transformed into a tool for steadfastness:

•Redirecting budgets towards productive sectors, agriculture, and small industries.

•Supporting the steadfastness of areas threatened by annexation through real, not symbolic, empowerment plans.

•Transforming municipalities into community protection institutions, not platforms for administrative competition.

Here, the economic dimension becomes part of resisting imposed realities, not just managing the financial crisis.

Fourth: Rebuilding national representation;

Addressing the erosion of legitimacies controlling the national destiny must start from acknowledging their failure, leading to the building of democratic national representation that responds to current priorities in strengthening people's ability to steadfastness and preserving the unifying identity, the right to self-defense, and confronting plans to liquidate the right of return and self-determination. As for constitutional discussion, it must be linked to redefining the national project and the Authority's function, and not entrenching the current situation that has led the national cause to this impasse; otherwise, it becomes merely a distraction that contradicts popular priorities, especially in the absence of real sovereignty and imminent existential dangers.

Fifth: Building a transitional safety net;

In the event of collapse or forced transformation, a reserve national framework "non-confrontational" capable of managing any sudden transition must be established.

This framework includes personalities, community forces, and factions that agree in advance to protect civil peace and prevent the vacuum from turning into chaos or guardianship. For preparing for the worst-case scenario is a condition for preventing it from happening.

Sixth: Shifting the center of gravity from external to internal;

This does not mean closing the door to diplomacy, but reordering priorities. External reliance without an internal base turns into a long wait. But when the external relies on cohesive internal legitimacy, it becomes a supporter, not a substitute. Negotiating power is not derived from statements, but from the unity and resilience of society.

Seventh: Crystallizing the historical bloc as a carrier of change;

The historical bloc is not a slogan but a cumulative process through an alliance between cultural elites, trade unions, the business sector, youth forces, and political leaders willing to make mutual concessions for the larger project. Its function is not to overthrow the system, but to redirect it. And not to dispute legitimacy, but to restore it.

This roadmap does not promise quick solutions, but it prevents erosion from becoming fate, collapse from becoming liquidation, and elections or the constitution from becoming cosmetic tools or a distraction to buy time. It moves the question of "What is to be done?" from the level of rhetoric to the level of organized action.

The question is no longer: Will circumstances change?

But: Will a collective will capable of transforming the moment of contraction into a moment of re-establishment be formed, before Palestine is redefined from outside, not by Palestinians themselves?

The conflict over Palestine is not a dispute over a geographical name, but a deep conflict over the source of legitimacy: Is it an inherent right rooted in land, identity, and history, or a right created by force and clothed in legislative and theological garb?

The Palestinian whose ancestors lived in this land for continuous centuries derives his legitimacy from a stable historical and social presence, and from the right to self-determination affirmed by international conventions.

In contrast, the Zionist project emerged in a European colonial context, combining modern nationalism with the utilization of religious narrative, leading to the establishment of Israel as a political fait accompli.

Historically, Palestine was not a land without people. Multiple civilizations succeeded one another, and its local inhabitants remained its living fabric.

It is true that some Arab Jews lived in Palestine during historical periods, as did others, but religious or historical presence does not automatically transform into political sovereignty after a long interruption, otherwise the rules of contemporary international stability would collapse.

History proves diversity and continuity, and does not grant an exclusive privilege to a specific group.

Legally, United Nations resolutions have affirmed the principle of the inadmissibility of acquiring territory by force, and recognized the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination.

The West Bank, including East Jerusalem, as well as the Gaza Strip, are considered occupied territories since 1967 according to international law, and are subject to the provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention, which restricts the authority of the occupation and prevents it from changing the legal status of the territory or annexing it.

The occupation authority, by definition, is temporary and limited, and does not have the power to transfer ownership or impose permanent sovereignty.

In this context comes what the Knesset approved on February 15 regarding the initiation of procedures for settling and registering West Bank lands as "state lands" or "Israeli government property."

This decision is not a neutral administrative measure, but a political step with serious legal implications, paving the way for transforming the land from a temporary occupation status to an actual, disguised annexation.

Classifying the land as Israeli government property implies sovereignty, and sovereignty does not arise from occupation.

Legislating annexation internally does not grant international legitimacy. National law, no matter how strong within the state, does not supersede the peremptory norms of international law.

If the international community established after World War II the rule prohibiting the acquisition of territory by force, then violating it today opens the door to the erosion of the entire international legal system.

Therefore, any decision that exceeds the powers of the de facto authority and consecrates unilateral annexation remains null and void from the perspective of international legitimacy, even if implemented on the ground.

The danger in the decision lies not only in its legal effect, but in its political implication: the transition from managing an occupation to establishing unilateral sovereignty, which means undermining any prospect for a just settlement based on mutual recognition. For when the Palestinian's land becomes "state land" by an Israeli parliamentary decision, the owner of the land is redefined from an inherent owner to a resident under an administration claiming ownership.

Here lies the essence of the conflict between a deeply rooted natural right and a presumed right based on the logic of control.

In conclusion:

All Israeli measures in the occupied Palestinian territories — in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and in the Gaza Strip — remain, from the perspective of international law, null and void and have no recognized legal effect.

They are occupied territories that represent the territory of the occupied State of Palestine, the state that has been granted observer non-member state status in the United Nations, and recognized by more than 160 countries around the world.

The sovereignty of the State of Palestine over these territories is an existing legal sovereignty, even if it is suspended by the occupation.

Therefore, annexation decisions, or reclassification of lands, or imposing Israeli laws on the occupied territory, do not change the legal nature of these lands, nor do they create a sovereign right for Israel over them.

Falsehood does not turn into truth over time, and occupation does not turn into sovereignty by legislation.

The Palestinian right will remain firm, supported by the rules of international legitimacy, and bolstered by the increasing international recognition of the State of Palestine, until the occupation is lifted and the land is restored to its owners according to the principles of justice and law.