Dr. Ammar Qana: From a military technical perspective, there are preparations and data indicating that a strike is almost inevitable, but it is more likely that threats and warnings will continue without implementation.
Dr. Kholoud Al-Obaidi: Several indicators point to the inevitability and proximity of a US strike against Iran, and there are a number of factors that reinforce and support this scenario.
Dr. Sinan Shaqdih: As the American military presence approaches completion, the risk of confrontation increases, but it is not imminent or inevitable, and its development is linked to the Iranian response.
Moain Odeh: A strike is likely, but it will be in Trump's style, who does not want a long or even medium-term war, but rather quick and limited operations.
Dr. Muhammad Mehran: The unprecedented American military movements we are witnessing in the Gulf raise serious questions about Washington's true intentions towards Iran.
Imad Abu Awad: The strike is gradually approaching, and America is concerned with directing it, and the Israeli handling of the Iranian file indicates a high probability of its implementation.

Exclusive to "Al-Quds"-

The United States' deployment of more military force to the Middle East and the Gulf region raises fears that a military strike against Iran has become almost inevitable and is gradually approaching, amid American efforts to exploit the opportunity of internal protests in Iran to change the regime, driven by American fears fueled by Israel regarding Iran's nuclear and missile program.
Writers and analysts for "ye" believe that forecasts indicate the possibility of a strike within a month, but they questioned the repercussions and political goals that the United States could achieve from such a strike, and whether it would be an operation to weaken the political system in Iran and eliminate the Iranian nuclear project, or merely a show of force to demonstrate new American power to impose an international political situation that re-establishes unipolarity, despite the geographical and political isolation Washington faces in the current international scene.

 

Possibility of a strike within a month

Dr. Ammar Qana, Director of the Center for Strategic Studies and Political Forecasting in Moscow, says: If we look from a military technical perspective, there are preparations and data indicating that the strike has become almost inevitable, noting that the timing will not depend on military data alone, but on political data first, from within the Middle Eastern system, and secondly on the partially confused internal American situation, in addition to the international situation on the other hand.
Qana adds that forecasts indicate the possibility of a strike within a month, but he questioned the repercussions and political goals that the United States could achieve from such a strike, and whether it would be an operation to weaken the political system in Iran and eliminate the Iranian nuclear project, or merely a show of force to demonstrate new American power to impose an international political situation that re-establishes unipolarity, despite the geographical and political isolation Washington faces in the current international scene.
Qana indicates that the most likely scenario is the continuation of threats and warnings without implementing the strike, a pattern that President Trump's foreign policy has become accustomed to, which keeps the Middle East in a state of instability.
Regarding the second scenario, Qana believes that the implementation of a military strike is the worst, as its repercussions will be completely different from the previous strike and the twelve-day war, expecting it to lead to a direct response against Israel and an expansion of the military conflict, which will affect international peace and security, especially in the Middle East, in addition to economic repercussions on energy supply chains and oil prices.

Clear goals to overthrow the Iranian regime

Regarding the overthrow of the Iranian regime, Qana confirms that the United States and Israel have clear goals in this direction, but he considered that overthrowing any regime without a direct military presence on the ground is almost impossible, especially since Iran is not a weak or marginal state, but an influential regional player in the Middle East and a state of institutions, which makes assassinations or security operations insufficient to bring about radical change.Qana indicates that economic pressures are being used in an unprecedented way, but he stressed that overthrowing the Iranian regime through a military or security strike is not likely to be that easy.

Trump seeks to provide international legitimacy for his foreign interventions

Dr. Kholoud Al-Obaidi, a specialist in political science and international law, says: There are many indicators that point to the proximity and inevitability of a US strike against Iran, noting that a set of factors support this scenario.
She points to "an internal reason, as we see media portraying the United States in an internal crisis, and that an opposition will soon eliminate Trump. However, anyone who heard President Trump's speech at the recent Davos conference realizes that Trump feels after a year in office that he has achieved great accomplishments. Therefore, he is moving forward with his policies, and does not feel that they will be an obstacle or that there will be internal opposition that will stand in his way."
Al-Obaidi adds: "Trump seeks to provide international legitimacy for his foreign interventions, contrary to what is published about him, and that the arrest of former Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro, for example, used a US court decision to arrest him as a defendant in drug crimes. And about the legitimacy of the justifications for striking Iran, there is no end to it. Iran is a fundamental threat to Trump. Therefore, there will be no legal impediment to a strike on Iran."
She points out that "Trump's policy can be understood through his writings. Trump published books on foreign policy since the end of the last century. In his book 'The America We Deserve' published in 2000, he wrote that Iran is a terrorist threat to the United States because of its capabilities and has called it a rogue state ever since."
She adds: Also, there is a second reason, which is that Trump sees Iran as threatening Israel's security, while Trump considers protecting Israel a duty of the United States. Since then, he has not backed down on the issue of the necessity of eliminating Iran, noting that the idea of hostility towards Iran is part of his foreign policies, and that getting rid of the Iranian regime may weaken Russia and achieve stability in the Arab region, and secure his interests in the Arabian Gulf.
Al-Obaidi confirms that Iran itself has chosen the path of direct and indirect confrontation, and has no intention of abandoning its nuclear program, missile industry, and its relationship with Russia and China. 
She also indicates that Iran still constitutes a state of instability and a threat to security in the region, adding that in Iraq it is still interfering in the selection of the next prime minister, there is tension on the border with Syria pushed by the Popular Mobilization Forces, then Masoud Barzani sends brigades to help the separatist QSD forces in Syria and announces it, in addition to the possibilities of igniting areas in Lebanon and Yemen and the continuation of tension in the region.

Three possible scenarios

Regarding the possible scenarios, Al-Obaidi indicated that there are three expected scenarios:
The first scenario is the continuation of threats without military action, and reliance on internal change carried out by the people. This option from previous attempts and the current attempt is ruled out, as it will take longer than the situation can bear, adding that this scenario is unlikely due to the damage caused by Iranian provocations, as it uses violence against demonstrators, and regionally it is still waiting for an opportunity to restore its old influence, and the region will not feel safe in light of the threats and tensions and the presence of American aircraft carriers.
Al-Obaidi indicates that the second scenario is a sweeping attack by the United States of America similar to the invasion of Iraq. This is difficult and costly, and it is a danger internally for Iran to become a hotbed of instability in an important region. And it threatens the security of the Arabian Gulf. The Gulf Arab states have expressed their unwillingness to allow their airspace to be used to strike Iran. In my opinion, this is a wise and far-sighted policy because Iran is a neighbor, and good neighborliness must be maintained.
She explains that the third scenario is a limited strike by the United States targeting the Supreme Leader and bringing about a change in the regime, as happened in Venezuela, and the destruction of facilities. This scenario is plausible because Iran is infiltrated and does not need an army to overthrow the regime.
Al-Obaidi confirms that "the issue concerns our Arab security, our policy must be non-interference, demanding the preservation of freedom of navigation in the Arabian Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz, and supporting the independence of the Arab state of Ahwaz. Iran is a Persian state, without Ahwaz it will not pose a threat to the region."

The likely scenario: a limited and symbolic strike

Dr. Sinan Shaqdih, a specialist in American affairs, confirms that with the approach of the American aircraft carrier "USS Abraham Lincoln" to the Gulf and other American military reinforcements, the indicator of a possible American military strike on Iran rises.
He points out that the background of these movements came in the context of American efforts to exploit the opportunity of internal protests in Iran to change the regime, driven by American fears fueled by Israel regarding Iran's nuclear and missile program.
Shaqdih adds: In response to the American build-up, there is an escalation in Iran's rhetoric through its warning that any attack will be met with "all-out war," and it even went so far as to threaten American carriers with its missiles.
Shaqdih says: Away from the language of escalation, the facts indicate that a strike is possible, but it is not inevitable and not immediately imminent, and even if there is an American decision to launch this strike, the final preparations for it will take at least a week.
He explains that there are estimates (such as the Eurasia Group's estimate) that put a 65% probability of American or Israeli strikes on Iran before April 2026, especially if nuclear negotiations fail.
Shaqdih believes that within the escalation scenario, and although it was reported that Trump is pressuring his war department to submit proposals for a decisive strike - meaning one that succeeds in changing the regime - the likely scenario, if a strike occurs, is that it will be in the form of limited and symbolic strikes targeting nuclear or missile facilities to weaken Iran without an all-out war, but it may extend for weeks or months with the possibility of an escalation leading to a comprehensive regional war if Iran responds strongly, such as striking American or Israeli bases, or closing the Strait of Hormuz, which could lead to a large-scale war with potential nuclear risks. This includes a strong Iranian response through missile attacks on American assets in the region, which could cause significant losses and affect the prestige of the United States.
Shaqdih adds: As for a full American military intervention, it is the least likely because it involves a ground invasion or extensive support for the opposition, which is a scenario full of risks and significant consequences, and it is clear that the internal American situation does not allow for this, especially in Trump's isolationist electoral base that rejects foreign wars.
Shaqdih concluded that with the approaching completion of the American military presence, the risk of confrontation increases, but the strike is not imminent or inevitable. The decision for war depends on American political calculations. As for the possibility of its development, it is linked to the Iranian response. And here specifically, both the American and Iranian sides realize the great risks of escalation that could lead to a wide regional conflict that could develop rapidly.

Multiple scenarios

As for the American affairs specialist, lawyer Moain Odeh, he indicates that there is more than one scenario proposed for an attack on Iran. The first scenario is the continuation of the maximum pressure policy on Iran.
He confirms that the situation on the ground shows that Iranian forces are on high alert, and that this attrition is very exhausting for Iran, and may push it to a stage where it requests negotiations before any actual attack occurs.
Odeh explains that the threats emanating from Iran are very significant, but they are essentially, in his opinion, threats aimed at negotiation rather than a desire for conflict, citing the common saying: He who intends to act does not threaten.
He believes that the continuation of statements about a devastating, rapid, and comprehensive response reflects a state of fear and extreme confusion within the current Iranian regime, in addition to a desire to try to reach a compromise, and perhaps the existence of back channels between the American administration and Iran, likely between Jared Kushner and Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi. Therefore, the first scenario may be a return to negotiations.
As for the second hypothesis, as Odeh says, it is difficult to believe that all this American military build-up is merely a show. He asks: Why all this size of forces and these huge costs if there is no intention for a real strike?
Odeh suggests that there will be some kind of strike, but in Trump's style, who does not want a long or even medium-term war, but prefers quick and limited operations, as happened in Venezuela when the strike targeted the head of the regime, and the forces quickly returned to their bases.
 He believes that the same scenario may be repeated if Washington decides to launch a strike against Iran, despite the unclear ability of the American and Israeli armies to achieve their goals, especially with American bases within range of Iranian missiles, as well as Israel.
He points out that Iran has proven its great ability to launch missiles, and its ability to withstand a strong first strike, and to launch a second strike, but the matter will depend on the size and strength of the first strike and its accuracy, especially after intensive intelligence activity to identify additional targets inside Iran.
Odeh also confirms that the internal situation in Iran is completely unstable, with talk of tens of thousands killed during the recent protests, in addition to a significant deterioration of the economic situation.

War on Iran could be Trump's last resort

Odeh believes that a war on Iran could be Trump's last resort, and he may wait until the last moment before making a decision, especially with Iran's ability to respond and target wide areas in the region, and some surrounding countries have informed Washington that they do not wish to be part of this confrontation.
Odeh adds: The global situation cannot tolerate an additional war, and the internal American situation is unstable due to the events in Minnesota and the immigration file, which makes the option of a long or medium-term war currently out of the question, but Trump's unpredictable nature leaves all options open.

The danger of American military escalation in the Gulf

For his part, Dr. Muhammad Mehran, Professor of Public International Law and member of the American and European Societies of International Law, warns of the danger of American military escalation in the Arabian Gulf region, which was manifested in the completion of the arrival of American aircraft carriers to the region, considering that this massive military build-up represents a blatant violation of the principles of international law and a direct threat to regional and international peace and security.
Mehran says: The unprecedented American military movements we are witnessing in the Gulf raise serious questions about Washington's true intentions towards Iran, adding: According to the United Nations Charter, specifically Article Two, Paragraph Four, the threat or use of force against the sovereignty or political independence of any state is internationally prohibited, unless it is in self-defense under Article 51 or authorized by the UN Security Council.
The international legal expert explains that the current American military build-up is not based on either of these two legal bases, noting that Iran has not directly attacked the United States or its allies in a way that justifies the application of the right of self-defense, and the UN Security Council has not issued any resolution authorizing military action against Tehran, and therefore, any American military strike against Iran would be a clear aggression under international law.
Dr. Mehran indicates that the potential scenarios for escalation range from limited air strikes targeting Iranian nuclear or military facilities, to large-scale military operations that may include intensive bombing of Iran's infrastructure, explaining that both scenarios carry catastrophic consequences for the entire region.
The professor of international law points out that historical experience confirms that American wars in the region have never been to protect democracy or human rights, as Washington claims, but have always been to achieve strategic and economic interests related to controlling vital resources and passages, noting that what happened in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and Syria proves that the declared goals of American military interventions differ fundamentally from the real goals.
He points out that Iran has a vital strategic location that controls the Strait of Hormuz, through which about 20% of global oil supplies pass, in addition to its enormous oil and gas wealth, considering that these factors make it a constant target for American ambitions, especially under the Trump administration, which adopts a policy of maximum pressure and military threats.
Mehran warns that any military strike against Iran will open the gates of hell in the region, noting that Iran is not Iraq or Afghanistan, it is a state with advanced military capabilities and strong regional allies, and any aggression against it will lead to a wide regional reaction that may include closing the Strait of Hormuz, targeting oil facilities in the Gulf, and a military escalation that could turn into a comprehensive regional war involving several countries.
He stresses that Arab countries are required to take a clear and decisive stance at this critical moment, and cannot remain silent about American threats to Iran under any pretext, because aggression against any country in the region is aggression against the entire region, emphasizing the importance of activating diplomatic mechanisms in the United Nations, the League of Arab States, and the Organization of Islamic Cooperation to condemn American escalation and demand the resolution of disputes by peaceful means.
Mehran confirms that international law is clear in prohibiting aggressive wars and the use of force in international relations, adding: What the United States is doing in terms of military build-up in the Gulf is a direct threat to international peace, and the international community is required to take immediate action to prevent a new humanitarian catastrophe in a region that has not yet recovered from the scourges of previous wars, noting that the best and only legally and morally acceptable scenario is dialogue and diplomacy, not more blood and destruction.



Imad Abu Awad, a specialist in Israeli affairs, believes that the strike against Iran is gradually approaching, noting that the United States of America is concerned with directing this strike, and that Israeli internal behavior and handling of the Iranian file also indicate an increasing probability of its implementation day by day.
He adds that the question is no longer whether the strike will happen, but when it will happen, wondering about its timing during the next week or the one after, confirming that the strike has become generally expected.
Abu Awad explains that the most likely scenario is that the strike will be aimed at reaching a certain settlement with Iran on a number of issues, including the issue of selling Iranian oil to China and other issues, expecting the strike to be wide but within a specific timeframe, meaning that it will not be long-term, but precise and specific, because the United States realizes that the most Iran needs is a corrective strike to adjust its positions.
Abu Awad indicates that the other scenario, which is going to a wide and open war, will have negative repercussions on American interests in the region and on the United States' relations with many countries, and may lead to chaos within Iran, which is not in the interest of any party, and may lead to the absence of an authority capable of controlling the Iranian reality, which will leave additional negative repercussions.
Abu Awad stresses that the most likely scenario is the implementation of a limited strike within a short timeframe with the aim of softening and adjusting Iranian positions, with the possibility of things escalating, but he believes that the political scene indicates a swift and quick strike, not a long-term war.

In light of the multiplicity of initiatives and frameworks proposed under various political and administrative headings, the need for a free Palestinian stance emerges as a clear national popular position governed by a single, unambiguous authority, which states that Palestinian legitimacy, represented by the Palestine Liberation Organization and the Palestinian National Authority, is the sole framework authorized to represent the Palestinian people and manage their political and administrative affairs, away from any internal disputes or negativities.
Based on this principle, any framework or body that does not emanate from this legitimacy, does not have an explicit national mandate, and is not based on the decisions of its official institutions, is considered an unrecognized framework by Palestinians, regardless of its name, the stated intentions behind its formation, or the context in which it is proposed. Palestinian legitimacy is not a procedural or circumstantial matter; rather, it is a comprehensive political and legal foundation formed through a long struggle, national consensus, and Arab and international recognition.
In this context, what is called the “Peace Council” is viewed by Palestinians as an unelected and unmandated framework, not based on the decisions of the Palestinian National Council or the Palestinian Central Council, which are the only bodies exclusively authorized to make fateful decisions related to the national political path. The free Palestinian position emphasizes that the absence of national authorization cannot be compensated by good intentions, nor by its advisory nature, nor by the claim that this council does not constitute an alternative to legitimacy. Experience has shown that establishing parallel frameworks, even if presented in unofficial forms, practically leads to confusion of representation, multiplicity of authorities, and weakening of the unity of national decision-making, and this is the goal of the American administration, Israel, and their allies, near and far.
Therefore, the free Palestinian position is not to recognize any “peace council” proposed as an alternative, parallel, or bypass channel to the Palestine Liberation Organization, the national leadership, or the adopted political program, whether directly or indirectly. At the same time, the free Palestinian position is keen to make a clear distinction between rejecting these frameworks and the firm commitment to the option of peace, as peace from the Palestinian national perspective is not a matter of dispute, but it is a just and comprehensive peace based on international legitimacy decisions and guarantees the legitimate national rights of the Palestinian people, and cannot be reduced to individual initiatives from Trump or others, or vague paths used to bypass national consensus, but rather imposed “within a pressing American strategy that includes political, economic, and military pressures” that, without exaggeration, is a “war council” led by Trump and Netanyahu against all that has been achieved by Palestinians.
Regarding what is known as the “Administrative Committee,” the Palestinian position considers that any committee established outside the Palestinian legal and institutional framework represents an illegitimate measure, even if presented under pretexts of necessity, temporary nature, or managing emergency situations. Necessity does not create political legitimacy, and the management of Palestinian affairs must be exclusively through a legitimate government, a national unity government, a national consensus government, or through legally recognized institutions operating within the Palestinian political system.
The free national position also confirms that administrative committees, when not resulting from a comprehensive national consensus, do not constitute temporary solutions but practically become a consolidation of the status quo, deepen division, and weaken the unity of the Palestinian decision and its ability to confront escalating political challenges, which contradicts the supreme national interest and the requirements of the current stage.
The summary of the popular Palestinian position, internally and externally, is that the unity of representation and authority is not a formal or technical matter, but a fundamental condition for any serious political path or sustainable administrative arrangement. The Palestinian people are open to any sincere effort to achieve a just peace, but at the same time, they adhere to their national legitimacy and reject any attempts, no matter how they are formulated, to bypass or circumvent this legitimacy.
From this standpoint, the Palestinian message to the international community remains clear and unambiguous: Peace is a strategic national option, but the path to it passes exclusively through respecting the legitimate representation of the Palestinian people, adhering to international legitimacy decisions, and strengthening the unity of national decision-making, not through councils or committees established outside this framework.
It is clear that the establishment of the “Peace Council” - “War Council” - is part of a broad American-Israeli strategic vision towards Gaza and the Palestinian issue, as it is viewed not as part of Palestinian land but as an area of economic and geopolitical value employed within regional and international arrangements that bypass Palestinians, while giving Israel the green light to impose annexation and sovereignty over the West Bank and Jerusalem. From this standpoint, the free Palestinian position emphasizes that any framework that does not respect Palestinian legitimacy and attempts to impose solutions outside a comprehensive national consensus will not be recognized nationally or politically, and its rejection will remain a fixed pillar in defending national rights and the authority of the unified Palestinian decision.

Despite what is being promoted about the decline of the displacement project from the Gaza Strip, political and field facts indicate that displacement has not been dropped, but rather postponed and reformulated with softer and more complex mechanisms. Today, these mechanisms intersect with ongoing negotiations under fire, the implementation of division with colored lines, the second phase of Trump's plan, and the arrangements for the "day after" the administration of the Strip.
Israel has never abandoned its strategic goal of reducing the Palestinian presence in historical Palestine between the sea and the river, and achieving a Jewish majority within a colonial, replacement apartheid system. What has changed today is only the method. After the failure of direct forced displacement during the war of extermination, as a result of popular steadfastness and regional and international calculations, the project shifted to a policy of direct and indirect coercion and oppression through comprehensive destruction, systematic impoverishment, collapse of services, political deadlock, and the formation of "new independent committees" in addition to the "National Committee for the Administration of Gaza," which establishes forms of new chaos, and pushes segments of our Palestinian people to emigrate as a "survival option" or a "voluntary option," not by military force.
Trump's and Kushner's ideas about "New Gaza" appear today with a different facade. The second phase of the plan is not based on ending the occupation or recognizing Palestinian national rights, but on managing the conflict in a way that serves American-Israeli interests, by politically separating Gaza and linking reconstruction to security and political conditions, and opening "regulatory" paths for the movement of residents under humanitarian titles that conceal long-term demographic goals, to serve the interests of American capital and companies.
The leaked draft resolution of the "Peace Council" reveals that Trump will head the council, which grants itself full legislative, executive, and judicial powers over Gaza, including "emergency powers," with Palestinians excluded from membership and their role confined to administrative committees under the supervision of a foreign representative, Nikolay Mladenov. The council controls laws, legislation and their annulment, resources, crossings, and reconstruction, and transforms Palestinians into implementers of American-Israeli decisions, without real political representation or accountability mechanisms.
As for the proposed "humanitarian zones," "civil protection corridors," and an international military stabilization force led by the US, these are nothing more than population control tools, through which the disaster is managed instead of ended. Linking aid, freedom of movement, and political participation to compliance with the plan turns basic rights into tools of blackmail, and makes suffering a means of pressure to reshape the demographic and political reality of the Strip.
What is striking in this context is the blatant political paradox represented by the welcome of the "Hamas" movement to the so-called "Peace Council" and considering it a political victory, in contrast to the complete absence of the Palestinian National Authority from the council's membership and its paths. Hamas's welcome reflects a shortsighted reading of the nature of the council, which does not aim to end the occupation or lift the siege, but rather to re-engineer the Palestinian scene to serve the guardianship project and recycle control. As for the absence of the Authority, it does not mean a decline in its role as much as it reflects intentions to confine any potential return for it within an administrative framework stripped of powers and sovereignty, within a "sovereignty-free administration" model, emptying official representation of its political content.
Within this scene, the Rafah crossing transforms from a humanitarian lifeline into a central political and security tool. It was recently announced that a very limited number of Palestinians, not exceeding 150 people, will be allowed to leave daily after their names are monitored by the Israeli occupation and electronic facial recognition technology, and those returning to Gaza will be transferred to an Israeli point for inspection and confirmation of their entry, which reflects the continuation of the policy of coercion and tight control over movement. Linking the opening of the crossing to these details raises fundamental questions, namely, will it be a Palestinian-Egyptian border crossing? Is it a gateway for reconstruction, or a gateway for gradual emigration that empties the Strip of its inhabitants and controls its trajectory? And is the idea of "temporary exit" being reproduced, which practically turns into permanent displacement? Keeping Rafah a pressure tool that can be disrupted means keeping Gaza in a state of suffocation, and keeping displacement a postponed option, not canceled.
In this regard, the Egyptian position rejecting division projects and parallel entities cannot be ignored, which reflects an understanding that any displacement or guardianship over Gaza does not threaten Palestinians alone, but also affects the national security of neighboring countries, foremost among them Egypt. In parallel, influential European capitals expressed clear reservations about the "Peace Council," and refused to grant it political or legal cover to bypass the United Nations and international legitimacy, warning that turning Gaza into a precedent for international guardianship will undermine regional and European stability alike.
In the West Bank, Israel continues its Judaization and settlement expansion in it and around Jerusalem, where it recently included control over the lands of Qalandia Airport and the demolition of shops on Kafr Aqab Street and threats to evacuate citizens, within a settlement project aimed at annexing lands and expanding settlements around Jerusalem to reach the borders of Ramallah city, in addition to publishing tenders for the construction of thousands of settlement units in the Al-Eizariya area and uprooting olive trees in the Kafr Malik and southern Bethlehem and Hebron areas to expand settlement roads and besiege Palestinian villages, which confirms the continuation of the plan to reduce and annex Palestinian lands and impose control and entrench the apartheid system over the entire West Bank to destroy any prospects, if any remain, for the establishment of a Palestinian state.
In contrast, Washington and Tel Aviv continue their policy of buying time, by fabricating superficial differences, exaggerating side issues, and talking about technocratic committees or a return of the Authority without real powers, while facts on the ground are completed and the time of suffering is extended awaiting the moment of exhaustion that the occupying state seeks.
Today, displacement is not presented as a crime, but is re-marketed as a humanitarian solution to a crisis that Israel itself created. What the occupation failed to impose by force, it tries to pass through negotiation, exhaustion, guardianship, and recycling the form of occupation. Gaza, in this sense, is not just a battlefield but a test of the will of Palestinian steadfastness and survival and of national responsibility in confronting these challenges as the most dangerous organized projects to liquidate the cause by "soft" means that will roll down to the West Bank with different conditions and pressures that the American-Israeli project is trying to succeed, while time is passing rapidly.

The number of martyrs in the Gaza Strip has risen to 71,660 and injuries to 171,419 since the start of the aggression, while the occupation continues its organized aggression carried out by settlers on the Bedouin community of Khillet al-Sidra near the town of Mikhmas, northeast of occupied Jerusalem, destroying homes and barns, accompanied by the occupation army, and assaulting residents and foreign solidarity activists, injuring several of them, then declaring the area a closed military zone for one year with the aim of forced expulsion and preventing the presence of any Palestinians. Meanwhile, occupation bulldozers demolished shops and commercial establishments around Qalandia refugee camp, and occupation forces escalated their attacks during the past months on the Minya wilderness south of Bethlehem. These attacks included demolishing tents and agricultural rooms, assaulting shepherds, and stealing many sheep.
 
These repressive practices adopted by the occupation government constitute a blatant example of state terrorism and settler gangs, and a policy of ethnic and spatial cleansing and illegal land seizure. The declaration of military zones and giving free rein to settlers to use force and terrorism does not change the legal status of the occupied land. These practices and violations are considered war crimes according to international court resolutions and necessitate international accountability and prosecution.
 
What the occupation is doing in various governorates of the West Bank, through harassment, intimidation, seizure, demolition, repeated assaults, and imposing new colonial outposts with a fait accompli policy, and that silence on the displacement of residents of Palestinian communities and villages means opening the door to uprooting other communities and Judaizing Palestinian land, and that the plan does not stop at the borders of these communities but targets the entire Palestinian presence in the Jordan Valley and the entire West Bank.
 
The international community must reconsider its policies and assume its legal and moral responsibilities and take deterrent measures against the occupation, and work to stop its colonial ambitions and respect international resolutions. In light of the latest developments in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, including Jerusalem, efforts must continue to establish a ceasefire in the Gaza Strip, deliver humanitarian aid, alleviate the suffering of our people, rebuild, prevent displacement and annexation, stop settlement expansion and settler terrorism, stop measures to undermine the institutions of the Palestinian National Authority, and work to consider the Gaza Strip an integral part of the State of Palestine, and the importance of the Palestinian Authority playing its central role in managing the Strip, and the importance of linking the Authority's institutions in the West Bank and Gaza, and not creating administrative, legal, and security systems that perpetuate duality and division.

The timid and weak stances of the international community and the continuous silence of the world, which encouraged the extremist occupation government to persist and openly rebel against international laws and resolutions, and disregard all legal and moral obligations towards the Palestinian people, cannot continue. This has led to organized chaos and the closure of any political horizon or hope for the establishment of a Palestinian state. The absence of accountability constitutes complicity in the crime, perpetuates the policy of impunity, and deepens the suffering of our people and deprives them of their legitimate right to self-determination and to live freely and with dignity on their land and build their independent state.
 
The UN Security Council must assume its responsibilities under international law, hold the occupation authorities accountable for repressive practices that violate international law, and ensure the continuation of international efforts to confront Israeli arrogance and implement resolutions of international legitimacy, and the necessity of practical steps by the international community and the United Nations to provide international protection for the Palestinian people and confront the occupation government that refuses to recognize international legitimacy and international law as the basis for resolving the Palestinian issue.

The suffocating siege, from all sides and crossings, has been and still is a tool of war waged by Israel on the Gaza Strip since October 7, 2023, and for many years before that, for seventeen years, as it completely closed the land crossings, especially the Rafah land crossing, which connects the Palestinian borders in the Gaza Strip with the Arab Republic of Egypt. It is the only crossing that connects the Gaza Strip to the world, and arrangements for it were made under the 2005 agreement between the Palestinian Authority, Israel, the European Union, and Egypt, where the European role was an observer in the crossing area, while the role of the occupation, which withdrew its forces and settlers from the Strip in 2005 as part of the disengagement plan adopted by Sharon, was limited to monitoring the operation of the crossing from a distance for security purposes. The crossing has undergone several transformations, the most important of which were the unfortunate events in 2007 that enabled Hamas to control the Strip, so the Palestinian police force that was supervising the passage of citizens withdrew, as did the European observers, and they were replaced by new employees affiliated with the Hamas government that controlled the Strip.
Today, after the two-year war waged by Israel on Gaza and which ended with a ceasefire according to US President Donald Trump's plan, the opening of the Rafah crossing was a clause in the first phase of the agreement, but Israel, which unilaterally interpreted the terms of this agreement in a way that achieves its goals and reduces its obligations, made the return of all its living and dead prisoners a condition for taking a position on opening the Rafah crossing. When the last body of an Israeli soldier, retrieved from the Al-Batsh cemetery in the Shujaiya neighborhood a few days ago, returned, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu stood in the Knesset to say, “Now the second phase begins with the disarmament of Hamas,” ignoring his obligations in many matters stipulated in the first phase, especially the opening of the Rafah crossing in both directions as stipulated in the agreement.
Under American pressure, which was recently represented by the presence of Steve and Dekov, the US President's assistant and his son-in-law Jared Kushner, it seems that the occupation government has agreed to reopen the crossing according to what it deems appropriate for its interests, and according to the plans it sets, as this crossing, from the side controlled by Israel, as it still occupies and completely controls the city of Rafah, will place a direct governing security checkpoint in front of the Gazans before reaching the crossing, meaning that anyone who wants to leave the Strip, whether sick, a student, or an ordinary citizen, must pass through the Israeli security check, and based on that, he is allowed, returned, or arrested, as are those arriving. Moreover, as Israeli newspapers and media agencies report, the Israelis will control the number of departures in advance, provided that the number of departures does not exceed two hundred per day.
The matter was not limited to those departing, whom the Israelis hope and work to ensure that the exit indicator is much greater than the entry and return indicator, in implementation of the displacement policy that they have not dropped from their agenda. Israel demands that both Egypt and the European observers receive lists of those departing and entering twenty-four hours before their movement in both directions, in addition to what one of the leaders of the groups cooperating with Israel in the Gaza Strip, “Ghassan Al-Dahini,” stated, that his groups will inspect those departing or arriving in Gaza through the Rafah crossing.
The opening of the Rafah crossing, being an important item of the first phase of the ceasefire agreement in the Gaza Strip according to the Trump plan, is intended, as was the case with the other Israeli clauses and obligations, to be in a new form and arrangements, far from the spirit of the original agreement that established its mechanism of action in 2005, and that it will be added to Israel's security and political vision with the stated and unstated goals, and linked to statements that Israel has always made through its political and military leaders, which is adherence to the Salah al-Din “Philadelphia” axis and the Rafah crossing, within the trend of not completely withdrawing from the Strip, and forming new borders connecting the Strip to Israel, and a permanent Israeli military presence in an area of no less than twenty percent of the Strip's area, to be a security depth for the Gaza envelope settlements, no matter what stages of implementing the agreement points are reached, and what Israel is doing and practicing on the ground is nothing but the application of this vision, and the re-manufacturing of the Rafah crossing by Israeli hands.

The "New York Times" reported on Wednesday that the so-called "Peace Council" is preparing to grant US President Donald Trump broad and unprecedented powers related to the future administration of the Gaza Strip, a move that reflects the shift of the Palestinian issue from traditional international settlements to a new formula effectively managed by the White House. Under a plan drafted by the emerging international group, chaired by Trump, the US President will have the final say on governance, security, and reconstruction, as well as in defining the features of the "welfare" of the population in the war-torn strip.

The Peace Council held its first constitutive meeting last week at the Davos Economic Forum in Switzerland, where member states, including Azerbaijan and Qatar, signed the council's founding charter, which bears the slogan of seeking "lasting peace in conflict-affected or threatened areas." However, according to observers, this vague slogan conceals a fundamental shift in the nature of conflict management, based on centralizing power instead of distributing it, and on bypassing UN frameworks instead of working through them.

Although many details of the council remain under wraps, a draft resolution seen by the Times reveals a clear intention to grant Trump the authority to nominate senior officials who will manage Gaza, define their tasks, and even suspend or approve their decisions in "emergency circumstances." These include an official with the title of "High Representative for Gaza," alongside the commander of an international stabilization force, which is supposed to handle security aspects in the Strip.

The draft resolution is dated January 22, and has not yet been signed by Trump, meaning it has not officially entered into force. However, three informed officials, on condition of anonymity, confirmed that the text is under serious discussion within the US administration, with the possibility of amendments before its final adoption.

In terms of form and content, the document appears similar to UN Security Council resolutions, which observers see as a clear attempt by the Peace Council to confer quasi-UN legitimacy on arrangements effectively managed outside the UN framework. The idea of establishing the Peace Council was first proposed as part of Trump's twenty-point plan, announced last September, to end the two-year war between Israel and Hamas.

Last November, the Security Council granted the Council a limited mandate in the context of US efforts to establish a ceasefire in Gaza. However, the Trump administration later announced its intention to expand the Council's scope to include other conflicts, without clarifying the criteria or geographical limits of this expansion.

Despite the enthusiastic accession of a number of countries to the Council, influential Western countries, such as France and Britain, refrained from participating. Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez also announced his country's refusal to join, considering that the Council excludes the Palestinian Authority and operates outside international legitimacy.

The leaders of the signatory states will form the Peace Council, chaired by Trump, who even has the authority to appoint his successor, alongside an executive council whose members were announced on January 16, including Jared Kushner and Tony Blair. The draft resolution also revealed for the first time the inclusion of Susie Wiles, Trump's chief of staff, and Martin Edelman, a real estate lawyer close to the president.

The text confirms that the United States will be the "responsible party" for Gaza, while the role of other parties is limited to support, not partnership. The resolution includes overseeing the reconstruction of the Strip, at an estimated cost of tens of billions of dollars, and establishing "humanitarian zones" for aid distribution, while excluding any individuals or institutions suspected of having ties to Hamas, a condition that raises broad problems given the composition of the civil apparatus in Gaza.

The project also designates Nikolay Mladenov, the former UN envoy, as the first High Representative for Gaza, overseeing a Palestinian committee of technocrats responsible for daily administration and supervision of the local police.

The Peace Council project reflects a structural shift in Washington's approach to the Palestinian issue, where the traditional concept of "mediation" is being replaced by the role of an effective ruler. The plan does not merely manage the post-war phase, but re-engineers power in Gaza according to a purely American vision, marginalizing local actors and reducing "peace" to security stability. Here, peace becomes an administrative function, not a political path based on rights.

According to experts, the exclusion of the Palestinian Authority and working outside the UN framework cannot be separated from a broader path aimed at redefining international legitimacy itself. The Peace Council, in its current form, resembles a "modern mandate" model, where distressed regions are managed in the name of aid and reconstruction, while the concepts of sovereignty and representation are emptied of their content. The fundamental question remains: Is a new Gaza being built, or is an old crisis being managed with more centralized tools?

The occupied West Bank is witnessing a significant escalation in attacks by Israeli settlers against Palestinian civilians, amidst increasing warnings from human rights and international organizations about the seriousness of this phenomenon on the lives of civilian residents and the future of stability in the region. This escalation has brought renewed attention to the issue of settler violence, in light of accusations that the occupation authorities are failing to hold those involved accountable, and growing criticism within the United States regarding unconditional military support provided to Israel.

In this context, US Senator Chris Van Hollen (from Maryland) said in a tweet published on the X platform on Wednesday that "violent settlers in the West Bank are burning Palestinian villages and assaulting residents without accountability," considering that these attacks are taking place "under the silence of the Trump administration and the Israeli government led by Benjamin Netanyahu." Van Hollen added that American taxpayers "should not give the Netanyahu government an open check for three billion dollars annually to buy weapons," referring to US military aid to Israel.

The US Senator's statements come at a time when reports from the United Nations and human rights organizations confirm an unprecedented rise in settler attacks, including burning homes and properties, physical assault on village residents, and destruction of agricultural lands, especially in areas near settlements and illegal outposts. These reports indicate that many of these attacks occurred in the presence of occupation forces or without effective intervention to stop them, which reinforces accusations of "impunity."

For her part, Francesca Albanese, the UN Special Rapporteur on Palestine, said in a tweet on the "X" platform: "Let's stop calling it settler violence. It's settler terrorism. These criminals roam the West Bank with impunity, and the world remains silent."

The southern West Bank areas, especially the villages located around Masafer Yatta, are among the most exposed to attacks recently. In this context, the incident of the violent assault on Palestinian citizen Abu Ayoub in the village of Fakhit sparked a wide wave of anger and condemnation, after surveillance camera footage circulated showing him being directly assaulted, resulting in serious skull fractures that required his transfer to the hospital and an emergency operation. Abu Ayoub is still receiving treatment amidst concerns about his health condition.

Observers believe that this incident reflects a recurring pattern of organized violence, aimed at intimidating Palestinian residents and forcing them to leave their lands, within a broader context of settlement expansion and demographic change in the West Bank. Human rights organizations confirm that the attacks are not limited to individual cases, but represent a systematic policy accompanied by the expansion of settlement outposts and the construction of bypass roads, which leads to a reduction in the areas available to Palestinians and threatens their livelihoods.

On the political level, Van Hollen's statements sparked a renewed debate within the US Congress about the nature of military aid to Israel, and the possibility of linking it to conditions related to respect for human rights. Analysts indicate that this debate reflects a growing division within the American political arena, where a growing number of lawmakers are demanding a review of the traditional policy of supporting Israel without restrictions, in light of repeated reports of violations in the occupied Palestinian territories.

In contrast, international organizations warn that the continued settler violence without accountability threatens to undermine any opportunities for a just political settlement, and deepens the state of instability in the West Bank. These bodies affirm that the protection of civilians, accountability for those responsible for attacks, and respect for international humanitarian law are essential elements to prevent further escalation.

Experts in international law agree that Israeli settlement in the occupied West Bank is illegal under the Geneva Conventions, and that attacks on civilians and property may amount to grave violations requiring accountability. They also warn that the absence of deterrent measures encourages the repetition of these violations, and increases the daily suffering of the Palestinian population.

In light of this situation, the issue of settler violence remains at the heart of international attention, with escalating calls for practical steps to stop the attacks and ensure the protection of civilians. Senator Chris Van Hollen's statements highlight the growing voices within the United States demanding a review of existing policies, and linking political and military support to clear standards that respect human rights and international law, in an attempt to curb the escalating cycle of violence in the occupied West Bank.

Few words

Visible evidence on the ground, and in the warm sea foam, indicates that war is just two statements away from the master of the White House; in light of the repeated threats issued by the "guardian of hell" that time is running out, and the desperate Iranian reactions to negotiations that seemed like "dictates" to them.
"Speak softly and carry a big stick," Theodore Roosevelt's phrase that Trump evokes today as he mobilizes the "Armada" off the Iranian coast. The man fascinated by his excess power will not hesitate to crush the regime's bones if it does not submit to his harsh conditions.
What confirms the inevitability of confrontation is that Trump is offering Iran "an offer with the intention of rejection"; to give himself legitimacy before the world that war was "the last resort." He is asking Iran to commit suicide: zero enrichment, dismantling the missile arsenal, and severing regional arms... These are conditions that their owner knows, more than anyone else, mean the demise of the regime by its own hand, not by "Trump's."
These destroyers did not travel thousands of miles for recreation or merely to flex muscles, but to wage a war aimed at creating "soft areas" in the vast Iranian geography, and dismantling national cohesion in favor of lurking ethnicities, so that the regime becomes unable to regain its balance, just like its arms that have been receiving painful blows in the silence of the helpless.

Israel has no legal authority to prevent humanitarian aid workers from entering Gaza and the rest of the occupied Palestinian territories.

The occupation is taking revenge on us and wants to deport us from our land and our birthplace.

Hamas has no role in governing Gaza, directly or indirectly.

The General Secretariat of the National Popular Conference for Jerusalem affirmed that the arbitrary measures of the occupation in Jerusalem and its surroundings, especially what is happening in the Bedouin communities in Jabal al-Baba, Mukhamas, and others, in addition to the continuous incursions into Qalandia refugee camp, the airport road area, Hizma town, and Shuafat refugee camp, aim to achieve a major political goal, which is "annexation" that Netanyahu's government has announced more than once. It noted that this operation, which violates the political agreements signed with the Palestine Liberation Organization and under international patronage, is being implemented on the ground today to become a fait accompli over time. 

The General Secretariat added that these dangerous measures also aim to displace the Bedouin families living in the mountains and desert of Jerusalem to make the area free of an authentic advanced Palestinian front that constitutes the first line of defense against settlement and replacement colonialism, which has come to control strategic locations in the occupied city and the Palestinian West Bank. 

The General Secretariat considered that the invasion by the occupation forces over the past few days, which is still ongoing, of Qalandia refugee camp, Kafr Aqab, and Hizma town, and the targeting of the UNRWA headquarters in Shuafat refugee camp, under the pretext of enforcing the law and removing encroachments and violations on streets and sidewalks, aims to mislead and obscure the political goal of this operation, which is annexation and isolating these areas from the capital Jerusalem, and imposing Israeli will in this vicinity, which includes about 300,000 people, most of whom were displaced from the holy city and currently reside in the Kafr Aqab area. 

The General Secretariat, in a situation assessment issued by the Media Unit of the National Popular Conference for Jerusalem today, Wednesday, indicated that Israel has practically begun to confine Jerusalem to the Old City and the city to be of a Jewish majority and a Palestinian minority, after succeeding in the forced displacement plan in which it used economic warfare and the weapon of geography against Jerusalemites, forcing them to search for an alternative for their livelihoods and secure suitable housing for their families after the occupation municipality, the executive arm of the Likud government, tightened the noose on them from all sides, which forced them, under the weight of these great pressures, to move towards the outskirts of Jerusalem. 

The General Secretariat added that what is happening in Qalandia refugee camp and Kafr Aqab specifically aims at annexation par excellence, explaining that the occupation authorities announced that their operations in the area aim to remove random encroachments, illegal buildings, and collect illegal cars, while the undeclared goal is to create a buffer security zone extending from the airport area to the end of the back street of Kafr Aqab, which connects it to the city of Al-Bireh. This means that the occupation authorities want to provide this security depth to secure the families of settlers who will reside in a new settlement being built in the heart of Qalandia International Airport, comprising about 9,000 settlement units, with an average of 45,000 settlers who will be a ticking time bomb capable of exploding at any moment in this highly sensitive area. 

It continued in its assessment of what is happening: The military operation in Qalandia, Kafr Aqab, and Hizma specifically cannot be separated from what happened recently in the neighboring town of Qalandia, where demolition notices were distributed and implemented quickly under the pretext that they were built in "Area C," which constitutes 61 percent of the total area of the West Bank, while a new separation wall is being built in the Qalandia airport area and all buildings adjacent to the current wall are being removed, meaning that the occupation is working to establish a security depth to provide protection for settlers who will come to the area within a year at the latest. This refutes Israel's claims that it is carrying out a "municipal campaign" aimed at organizing the area. 

The General Secretariat added: Even if we assume for the sake of argument that the goal is to organize the area, is this area under the jurisdiction of the occupation municipality? And does it receive services from it? The answer is "no," as it is a neglected area located in the middle, meaning that the Palestinian Authority cannot provide services to it, while Israel has withdrawn its hand from it since the Oslo Agreement until today, as the area suffers from randomness, continuous water and electricity outages, and unequal provision of health services to all residents, as medical centers affiliated with "Clalit" and "Kupat Holim" provide treatment to patients holding Jerusalem IDs in particular because they hold Israeli insurance, while the majority of residents hold green IDs, i.e., issued by the Palestinian National Authority, where they are forced to seek treatment in private hospitals in Ramallah and Al-Bireh at their personal expense. 

The assessment stated: The Israeli pretext is a big deception, and the real intentions are annexation and expansion at the expense of Palestinians in the area, while there is another undeclared goal, which is to demolish UNRWA facilities in Qalandia, such as the Industrial Training Institute, and this may extend to include UNRWA clinics and schools in a serious attempt to cancel all symbolic manifestations of the refugee issue and the right of return, and this also applies to Shuafat refugee camp and the UNRWA institutions located there. "

The General Secretariat stressed that Israel, with American green light, is working to liquidate the Palestinian issue through the silent annexation of the West Bank after the destruction of the Gaza Strip and the establishment of an international peace council there, and the termination of the existence of UNRWA institutions that symbolize the existence of a historical political issue titled "right of return." In contrast, it is reactivating the civil administration and its affiliated institutions, which means reducing the role of the Palestinian Authority in the administrative and service fields, or rather undermining it, to become merely an "ATM" dependent on foreign aid. 

The General Secretariat warned that Israel is currently working to invent a "new Jerusalem" for the displaced from the capital Jerusalem, with Kafr Aqab as its center, while the Qalandia training institute will be the most prominent address for this invented city by completely seizing it and establishing a huge attractive tourist and commercial area on its ruins, knowing that its area is about 90 dunams and it was built more than 70 years ago, i.e., after the great Nakba in 1948. 

In light of this, the General Secretariat demanded the following in its assessment: 

First: To be aware of the inherent security danger behind the military operation carried out by the occupation authorities in the mentioned areas under the title of "municipal campaign."

Second: UNRWA must take concrete steps through the United Nations to stop the robbery of its headquarters with the aim of liquidating the symbolic address of the refugee issue.

Third: The residents of the area must thwart the opportunity for the Israeli occupation and not be drawn into the trap set for them, especially in Qalandia refugee camp, where there are hidden intentions to turn it into a disaster-stricken area similar to the northern camps. 

Fourth: The Palestinian National Authority and the leadership of the Palestine Liberation Organization must act urgently with the Security Council and United Nations organizations to take measures aimed at stopping the Israeli aggression and its malicious actions, which aim to impose a new political reality on the ground. 

Fifth: The international community must break its silence regarding this massacre to which Jerusalemites are exposed through comprehensive Israeli measures aimed at detaching them from their city and replacing them with extremist settlers who desecrate Al-Aqsa daily with protection provided by the Israeli Ministry of War. 

Sixth: We appeal to the brotherly Jordan, in its capacity as the custodian of the Islamic and Christian holy sites in Jerusalem, to act in this framework because its position and word have an echo that may affect the official Arab level and society. We also call on our brothers in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia to stand by the residents of Jerusalem's camps to provide them with protection from the danger of liquidation and engulfment by the Israeli occupation.

The Rafah border crossing will officially open for pedestrian movement in both directions next Sunday.

News Analysis 

Politico magazine surveyed the opinions of 17 leading foreign policy experts, diplomats, and academics from around the world, in an attempt to answer a pressing question: What remains of the global order led by the United States since the end of World War II?

This article is an analytical summary of what was reported in an extensive 18-page investigation published by Politico on Tuesday, re-deconstructed and its key findings extracted, in light of the tumultuous transformations the world is witnessing with Donald Trump's return to the White House, and the accompanying political earthquakes that shook the foundations of Western alliances and the rules-based international order.

The discussion is no longer about whether the international system is eroding, but about the fact that this system has entered its death throes. Trump's return was not merely a change in style or rhetoric, but revealed a structural shift in the position of the United States itself: from a guardian of the global order to a power that treats it as a burden, and even a tool that can be dismantled and reshaped according to the logic of power and immediate self-interest.

From Guarantor of the Order to Source of Threat

The moment of the American threat to take control of Greenland – despite the subsequent retraction – constituted a deep symbolic shock. The issue was not in the execution, but in the principle: for the first time, an American president openly threatened to use force or blackmail against the territory of an Atlantic ally. At this point, many Western capitals began to realize that the American umbrella was no longer an absolute guarantee, and that the idea of a "safe ally" had become questionable.

At the Davos forum, Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney expressed this shift with unprecedented clarity, speaking of a "rupture" in the rules-based order, and calling on what are known as "middle powers" to unite to build a new global order. This was not rhetorical speech, but an announcement of the realization that Washington was no longer the ultimate authority of the international system.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky went further, demanding that Europe abandon the illusion of strategic dependence on the United States, and build its independent military and security capabilities. The war in Ukraine, as many experts see it, not only revealed Russia's brutality, but also the fragility of Western commitments when their cost becomes politically or economically high.

The Crisis of "Middle Powers": Between Incapacity and the Search for Alternatives

The experts surveyed by Politico agree that middle powers – such as Canada, Europe, Japan, Australia, India, and Turkey – find themselves today in a highly complex position. They are neither great powers capable of imposing an alternative order, nor marginal states that can seek refuge in neutrality. They are caught in the void between rusty American hegemony and unsettling Chinese ascendance.

Europe, in particular, seems the most confused. Since the end of the Cold War, it has built its security on the assumption of stable American commitment. Today, it finds itself required to build "strategic autonomy" in the fields of defense, energy, and industry, after decades of deliberate dismantling of its military capabilities. However, experts warn against the illusion of quick solutions: building a real deterrent force requires many years, huge investments, and a missing political consensus.

As for Canada, its problem is deeper. Geography and economics link it to the United States in an almost fated way. Therefore, some analysts warn that any Canadian attempt to directly confront Washington might remind Ottawa of the meaning of the "Monroe Doctrine" in its modern form. Talk of middle alliances does not negate the reality of the imbalance of power.

The Disintegration of the Illusion of Multilateralism

One of the most pessimistic conclusions in the Politico survey is the skepticism about the ability of "middle powers" to act as a cohesive bloc. These countries differ in their geopolitical priorities, threats, and economic calculations. The experience of previous blocs – from "BRICS" to various multilateral initiatives – has shown that slogans are not enough to build an effective front.

However, this does not mean the absence of options. The prevailing trend today is what experts call "strategic hedging": diversifying partnerships, reducing dependence on one power, and building self-capabilities in economy, technology, and defense. It is a policy of "risk management" not "system creation."

India is presented as a model for this approach. New Delhi maintains close cooperation with Washington, without severing its strong ties with Moscow, and at the same time seeks to manage its relationship with Beijing. This pragmatic balance does not reflect confidence in the international system, but a deep awareness of its fluidity and danger.

Asia and the Pacific: Silent Concern

In East Asia, Japan and Australia appear to be in a critical position. They rely on the United States for security in confronting China, but they have become doubtful of the reliability of this dependence. Japan, for example, chose not to openly challenge Washington, but quickly increased its defense spending, strengthened its economic security, and invested in alternative supply chains, in anticipation of any shake-up in the alliance.

Australia, in turn, realizes that the Greenland lesson does not concern Europe alone. If an Atlantic ally is not safe from American pressure, what guarantees the security of a geographically distant ally in the Pacific?

The End of the System... and the Beginning of the Unknown

The conclusion that almost all experts agree on is that the world has entered a phase of "between two systems." The old system is disintegrating, without a stable alternative on the horizon. The United States is no longer willing to play the role of guarantor, and China is unable – or unwilling – to offer a unifying model, while the logic of power and coercion returns to govern international relations.

In this vacuum, middle powers find themselves facing two choices: either slow and painful investment in resilience, flexibility, and building flexible cooperation networks, or drifting into a world governed by deals and blackmail, where sovereignty becomes a privilege, not a right.

What this survey reveals is not only the decline of the American role, but the collapse of the illusion that accompanied the liberal order for decades. The system did not fall because it was just, but because it was supported by American power. When this power declined or its political mood changed, the fragility of rules and institutions was exposed. We are facing a world not governed by laws, but by the ability of states to protect themselves from the fluctuations of the great powers.

The dangerous aspect of the current stage is not the rise of China (as some promote) or Trump's tendencies (as others exaggerate), but the world's habituation to the logic of coercion. When open threats, sanctions, and the blackmail of allies become normal tools in international politics, sovereignty loses its legal meaning. Middle powers are today required not only to protect their interests, but to defend the very idea of order, even at its minimum, before the world turns into an open arena of conflict without controls.

US President Donald Trump's warning about the potential return of Nouri al-Maliki to the premiership has once again shed light on a highly sensitive chapter in Iraqi political history. Maliki is not merely a name put forward in the race for power, but rather a symbol of an era characterized by sectarian polarization, state fragility, and the erosion of trust in the political process in post-American occupation Iraq.

Trump, known for his direct rhetoric, stated in a social media post that Iraq "slipped into poverty and chaos" during Maliki's rule, adding that the United States "will not provide any support" to Baghdad if the man returns to office. According to political analyses, the message was not directed solely at Maliki, but rather targeted the entire Iraqi political class, which continues to recycle the same faces more than two decades after the American invasion.

Nouri al-Maliki, leader of the Islamic Dawa Party, served as prime minister for two consecutive terms between 2006 and 2014. These years witnessed the entrenchment of the sectarian quota system, the expansion of security apparatus influence, and widespread marginalization of social components, particularly in Sunni areas. This period also saw the peak of sectarian violence, severe tensions with the Kurdistan Region, and ended with the sudden collapse of the military institution in the face of ISIS in the summer of 2014.

Today, Maliki's name returns to the forefront with the support of the Shiite "Coordination Framework," which holds parliamentary weight and advocates for his nomination under the pretext of "political and administrative experience." However, this experience, in the eyes of his critics, has been associated with the politicization of state institutions, the instrumentalization of the judiciary, and the exclusion of opponents, making Maliki a symbol of the failure of the national state project launched after 2003.

The last parliamentary elections, held last November to elect 329 representatives, did not break this cycle. Shiite alliances maintained their majority with 187 seats, while the electoral process seemed more like a mechanism for recycling elites than for renewing them. In this context, Iraqi President Abdul Latif Rashid's congratulation to Maliki on his nomination, and the call to "strengthen national partnership," raised questions about the gap between official rhetoric and the actual experience of governance.

Maliki was born in 1950 and joined the Dawa Party early on. He was forced to leave Iraq in the late 1970s after being sentenced to death under Saddam Hussein's regime. After the American invasion in 2003, he returned from exile as part of a political wave that rose under a system hastily crafted by Washington, based on the equation of quotas and sub-identities under the banner of "building democracy."

Analysts believe that Maliki's rise was not separate from American will. After 2006, Washington considered him a "manageable" partner in terms of security, even at the expense of internal balance. This support, according to those readings, was a narrow-minded pragmatic choice that ignored early indicators of an authoritarian tendency and contributed to deepening societal division, making the United States an indirect partner in the failures of that period.

The 2010 elections are considered a pivotal moment, when the "Iraqiya" list led by Ayad Allawi won the largest number of seats, but Maliki retained power with American and regional support. This circumvention of ballot box results dealt, in the eyes of many Iraqis, a severe blow to the credibility of the democratic path and reinforced the conviction that the final decision is not made within the country alone.

Trump's warning about Maliki's return presents a clear paradox: How can Washington today warn against a figure who was part of the engineering of his rise? Is it a belated acknowledgment of the failure of American policy in Iraq, or a selective use of political memory? Between these two interpretations, the question remains open about Iraq's ability to break the cycle of the past, or whether the balances of yesterday still hold the threads of the future.

PhD Researcher in Educational Administration

As we reflect on our world today, a troubling question may come to mind: What occupies the minds of our adolescent children? The answer, often, lies in a small screen glowing in their hands, a window overlooking a noisy world of “influencers” and “trends.” This world, which at first glance seems innocent and entertaining, conceals a real crisis of values. What we see is not influence in the positive sense of the word, but rather a disguised void, superficial content that glorifies appearances and celebrates triviality, sometimes even promoting absurd challenges that could cost a young man or woman their physical safety. Here, it becomes imperative for us to pause and ask: What is our role as educators and mentors? And how can our educational institutions regain the initiative and reorient our youth's moral compass? Delving into the nature of the content our youth consume reveals a bitter truth. The numbers do not lie; a study issued by the Pew Research Center in 2024 indicates that a large percentage of teenagers spend daily hours on social media platforms. YouTube tops the list with a daily usage rate of 73%, followed by TikTok at 60%, then Instagram and Snapchat at 50% each. Even more concerning is that the percentage of those who use these platforms “almost constantly” reaches 16% on TikTok and 15% on YouTube. This precious time is wasted following content that offers nothing but a mirage of false fame and disguised superficiality. What is more alarming is that this digital void is not just a waste of time, but a real danger lurking for our youth's psychological and physical health. Several studies have sounded the alarm, with the U.S. National Institutes of Health linking in a 2025 study the excessive use of these platforms to increased rates of anxiety and depression among adolescents. In our Arab context, a study conducted in the Middle East confirmed the significant negative impact of these “influencers” on the social, moral, and health aspects of our youth, by promoting excessive materialism and irresponsible consumer behavior. We cannot overlook the dangerous “trends” that spread like wildfire, pushing adolescents, in their frantic quest for attention, to imitate actions that could endanger their lives. “The adolescent, in their journey of self-discovery, is like a sponge that absorbs everything around them. When the surrounding environment is saturated with triviality and superficiality, we risk creating a generation that measures a person's worth by the number of their followers, not by the depth of their thought and the nobility of their morals.” Faced with this overwhelming torrent of low-quality content, the solution cannot be isolation or prohibition, but rather building a “moral immune system” in our youth. Here, the responsibility of our educational institutions grows, as they must go beyond their traditional role of imparting knowledge to become lighthouses that guide minds and refine souls. It is no longer enough to fill our students' minds with information; we must plant in their hearts the first seeds of critical thinking and provide them with the tools to distinguish between what is beneficial and what is harmful. The inclusion of “media literacy” and “digital culture” at the core of our curricula is no longer an intellectual luxury, but an existential necessity. Our children must learn how to read between the lines and how to analyze the hidden messages broadcast by this content. Our classrooms must transform into safe spaces for dialogue and discussion, and in contrast to “influencers” with empty content, we must highlight positive and inspiring role models in our societies. This battle cannot be fought by the school alone; bridges of communication must be built with the family, which bears the greatest burden of follow-up and guidance. It is a shared responsibility that requires concerted efforts to protect our future generations. Ultimately, we are at a dangerous crossroads. Either we leave our future generations easy prey to this digital decline, or we work to awaken awareness with all our might. It is a comprehensive societal responsibility, for the future we aspire to will not be built by hands that applaud emptiness, but by enlightened minds and hearts full of values. The question that should trouble us all today is: Which future do we choose to build?

It is superfluous to remind that Palestine is experiencing an unprecedented historical turning point, and a decisive stage whose basic features have become completely clear, including:-

First, the decision of the Zionist movement, with all its components, to use decisive force in the conflict with the Palestinian people and to attempt to liquidate their Palestinian cause with all its components, and to complete the project of settler-colonialism throughout Palestine.

Second, the transformation of Israeli racism and the Israeli occupation system towards fascism in goals, methods, and practices.

Third, the alliance of Israeli fascism with contemporary global imperialist fascism, and its attempt to assume the role of a sub-imperialism dominating the entire Middle East and the Arab periphery.

Fourth, the lack of hesitation in using war crimes, including genocide, collective punishment, and ethnic cleansing again.


Fifth, Arab and regional disintegration in the face of the colonial onslaught and Israeli encroachments on the sovereignty and interests of states, from armed aggression against Syria, Lebanon, Yemen, and Iran, to conspiring against Egypt, Turkey, and Algeria.

Sixth, the lack of hesitation in violating international law, international humanitarian law, and international resolutions, and even attacking international institutions, foremost among them UNRWA and United Nations institutions, in parallel with waging war on international humanitarian institutions to prevent them from contributing to supporting the humanitarian needs of the Palestinian people.

Seventh, the tearing up (and liquidation) of the Oslo Accords, and all international agreements with the Palestinians, and stripping the Palestinian Authority of its authority, powers, and capabilities, and attempting to completely separate the Gaza Strip from the West Bank, and the systematic destruction, through settlement and repression, of the possibility of an independent Palestinian state.

All these dangerous facts cannot be dealt with by continuing to cling to the approach of betting on compromises and negotiations that Israel rejects, and the Oslo Accord that is dead, and lingering in the depths of a past that has vanished... Perhaps the most strange thing is the attempt to impose what is called the violated "international legitimacy," and the commitments (and agreements) of the Palestinian Authority, which Israel has undermined, on the rest of the Palestinian forces, and making that commitment a condition for participation in Palestinian elections.

Nor can, on the external level in relations with powers and states, the methods of the past continue to be used in an era where state policies are entirely managed on the basis of interests, and in the near complete absence of ideologies and principles among most states, especially Western ones. Is there clearer evidence of this than the death of international law in Gaza and elsewhere, and the attempts by US President Trump, in partnership with Israel, to abolish the United Nations and its institutions and replace them.

The Palestinian people and their living forces do not have the luxury of waiting, hesitation, or lingering in the methods of the past, as they face an existential threat in the literal sense of the word, and it is not enough to describe the situations and challenges, instead of developing an effective strategic program and action plan to confront them. Despite the enormous losses suffered by the Palestinian people as a result of crimes of genocide and collective punishment, and the desecration and terrorism of the settler-colonists, they possess three elements of strength that their adversaries cannot liquidate.

First, a steadfast human presence on the land of Palestine in all its parts, which is an active presence, stubbornly adhering to the justice of its cause and its rights to return, full freedom, and self-determination.

Second, an unprecedented massive popular solidarity movement, which has made its cause a matter of consensus as the foremost humanitarian issue of our era, inheriting the struggle and humanitarian status of the Algerian struggle against settler-colonialism, the Vietnamese struggle against imperialist aggression, and the South African struggle against racism and apartheid.

Third, a rich history of struggle extending over more than a hundred years against settler-colonialism, occupation, and the racist apartheid system, and a stubborn youth determination to reject humiliation, subservience, and excessive compromises, and boundless devotion to the values of justice, dignity, and national struggle. However, what Palestinians lack is consensus on an alternative national struggle strategy for what has failed, one capable of unifying the Palestinian struggle to change the balance of power in favor of the Palestinian people.

Through various movements, initiatives, and numerous dialogues, the National Initiative has crystallized six elements for a strategy that can be adopted, discussed, developed, or enriched and modified, to be what can be called the six pillars of the Palestinian national struggle for the next stage, and their summary:- First, a strategy to support the steadfastness of the Palestinian people and their survival on the land of Palestine by all means, and to adopt the components and elements of this steadfastness, starting with supporting the Palestinian people in the Gaza Strip in repairing what the occupation has destroyed and rebuilding it, and passing through the West Bank and supporting its people, especially the residents of villages and camps, to stand firm in the face of the colonial onslaught, or by supporting the active Palestinian presence within. The majority of the eight million forcibly displaced Palestinians abroad can play a major role in supporting this steadfastness, and this will be, as in the past, an embodiment of their participation in the national struggle of their people.
Second, resisting the occupation's measures and oppression in all forms, and there is no doubt that the pattern of popular resistance that previously reached its peak in the First Intifada, the ships breaking the siege, and the demonstrations of return and breaking the siege will be the most likely to spread and have an impact in the next stage.

Third, escalating the international solidarity movement, including the boycott movement, imposing sanctions, and divesting investments, which will transform international solidarity into an effective material force in the balance of power.

Fourth, the unity of the struggle of the components of the Palestinian people and their work inside, in the occupied territories, and abroad within a strategy of building, steadfastness, and changing the balance of power in favor of the Palestinian people.

Fifth, penetrating the ranks of the adversary and its supporters in countries and movements, which proves its effectiveness and feasibility, as we have seen from the shifts in American public opinion specifically during the war of extermination on the Gaza Strip.

Sixth, crystallizing a unified national leadership for the struggle on a national, militant, resistance strategy against the liquidation project and the fascist onslaught. This will not be achieved by statements and meetings whose results are not implemented, or fleeting alliances, but by actual participation in the field of struggle and its tasks. It is necessary here to draw lessons from what happened with the marginalization of the Palestine Liberation Organization, and its containment within the components of the Authority that the occupation violated, and after it has been definitively proven impossible to build a real and independent authority under occupation.

What the Palestinian people need from their militants, cadres, and energies is not to be preoccupied again with conflict and division over an authority under occupation, but to rebuild and strengthen their national liberation movement and harness energies for that, and to give young generations hope and a correct and honest vision to engage in the national struggle.

When "Walter Russell Mead," one of the most important current strategic thinkers in the United States, was asked about the significance of the disputes between Washington and Tel Aviv in light of the Israeli war on Gaza, Lebanon, and Iran, he emphasized the essence of the utilitarian American-Israeli relations, stating: "American-Israeli strategic interests have never been as aligned as they are now... America wants Israel to be strong and not to be defeated in Gaza, Lebanon, or Iran... It does not give Israel weapons for war out of good or evil, but because it wants Israel to win and remain strong!"
There is no doubt that Israel is working in the Middle East on behalf of the United States, but the matter does not stop at agency. Israel seeks much more than that. Recently, Israel joined a US-led alliance called "Pax Silica." According to the US State Department, it is an economic security alliance designed for the age of artificial intelligence, and it includes a number of countries that control advanced technological production sectors. Simply put, the mission of this group is to shape and define the upcoming global economic and security policy. US officials liken it to the current "G7" group that leads global economic and security policies throughout the twentieth century and to this day. I expect that in the very near future, G7 meetings will disappear, and Pax Silica will replace it in economic leadership. By joining this alliance, Israel ensures itself a seat at the table that organizes the global economic scene, thereby solidifying its political future within the framework of the American ally and what that entails in overcoming any obstacles or sanctions as an occupying state. In addition, the "Pax Silica" alliance divides the world into two parts: allies and clients. Allies are the infrastructures (leading technologically participating countries) that will enjoy close, integrated, financial, security, and of course political relations with each other, while clients are the rest of the countries that buy products. Since Israel has become part of these cross-border infrastructures, it aims to strengthen its presence as a regional power without the need for neighbors and the requirements of normalization!
Each country in the Pax Silica alliance is entrusted with a mission that ensures integration and coordination with the other countries in the group. Israel is the financial investment base. Two days ago, an agreement was reached between Washington and Tel Aviv to establish a global technology center covering an area of 16,000 dunams, leased for 99 years under American management and investment, with Israeli partnership. It is scheduled to be built in the vicinity of the Gaza envelope and the Negev under the name "Fort Foundry One" for the development of artificial intelligence applications and the manufacture of electronic chips and semiconductors for military and civilian purposes. And because these advanced industries require enormous energy and electricity needs, the agreement spoke about the possibility of establishing a nuclear reactor!
And they are still dedicating pages of analysis to disputes between the two countries, and we are still chanting outdated slogans...

The Israeli electoral scene is witnessing a period of escalating tension with the renewed discussion about the possibility of Arab parties uniting into a single list. This possibility is met within the Israeli political establishment with increasing concern that goes beyond narrow electoral calculations to a structural apprehension about a change in the rules of the political game established by the right-wing in recent years. The mere proposal of this scenario as a realistic possibility reflects the extent of the transformation in the position of Palestinians inside Israel, from a containable political margin to a bloc capable of disrupting the balances of power.
In this context, the actions of the far-right emerge, foremost among them Itamar Ben-Gvir's efforts to pass bills in the Knesset that practically aim to curb any possibility of forming a unified Arab list or reduce its expected impact. These initiatives are not separate from the right-wing's realization that its parliamentary strength has become hostage to narrow margins and that any increase in Arab representation could undermine its ability to form a stable government or impose its political agenda without obstacles.
The upcoming period is poised to witness a comprehensive mobilization by the Israeli right-wing, politically and media-wise, in an attempt to frighten the Israeli public about the repercussions of what it calls the danger of Arab influence on the future of governance. The conflict is no longer just between right and left camps but has become centered on who possesses the ability to tip the scales within a political system suffering from successive crises in stability and legitimacy.
Opinion polls circulating within Israel reflect the importance of this factor, indicating that the unification of Arab parties could raise their parliamentary representation to around fourteen seats. This number is not only measured by its quantity but by its ability to disrupt traditional governance scenarios and impose new equations during moments of forming government coalitions, which explains this early tension within the right-wing camp and its repeated attempts to change the rules of the game before reaching the ballot boxes.
However, the ability to translate this numerical weight into actual political influence remains conditional on internal factors related to the nature of the relationship between the components of the Arab parties themselves and their ability to overcome ideological differences and narrow electoral compromises. It also remains dependent on their ability to withstand Israeli pressures that will seek by all means to dismantle any unifying path or empty it of its political content.
In contrast, the escalation of inflammatory right-wing rhetoric against the idea of unification reveals a deeper battle concerning the status of Palestinians inside Israel and their role within the Israeli political system. The coming days are likely to turn into an arena for noisy debate about what is called in Israeli discourse the danger of the Palestinian inside, a description that reflects an existential anxiety about this public transforming into a political actor capable of influencing the directions of governance and breaking the monopoly on decision-making.
Ultimately, the ongoing debate about the unification of Arab parties cannot be separated from the structural crisis that the Israeli political system itself is experiencing. The narrower the margins of maneuver for the right-wing, the greater its tendency towards exclusionary legislation and racist incitement as tools to manage the imbalance instead of addressing it. Therefore, any step towards genuine Arab unity will not be just a fleeting electoral event but a pivotal station in reshaping the boundaries of the political conflict within Israel and the nature of Palestinian participation in it.

No sooner is one knot untied than the wolf conjures another, in an unending series of traps and high obstacles strewn along the long path of pretexts; that path, which every time the observer thinks he has reached its end, appears to him as if he is at its beginning.
After handing over the last corpse, and after much evasion, there is nothing left in the magician's bag to deceive his disciples from the followers of "Smotrich" and "Ben Gvir." These who seemed as if cold water had been poured on them as they watched "the King" how he succumbed to "Trump's" demands to open the crossing, breaking his promises he made to them to ensure the cohesion of his tottering coalition.
Today, the wolf returns to his old records and ancient "no's," inaugurating his election campaign with them, at a time when protests demanding his departure are escalating. And while he tries in vain to win over his audience, opinion polls indicate that his allies; the kingmakers in his balance, will not cross the threshold of decision, and the public that was deceived for so long has finally realized that the magician's tricks have run out, and that what is left in his bag is nothing but a mirage and grasping at wind.

Estimates indicate that about 50 patients will leave daily.

The two-state solution is not being abolished, but rather left to die without a funeral announcement. This is not a rhetorical phrase, but an accurate description of how the Palestinian issue is being managed today, especially under what is called the “Trump Peace Council,” which is presented as a new international framework, while in practice it is an intense expression of the conflict's transition from the political arena to the administrative arena, and from the logic of solutions to the logic of management.

The approach of the so-called Peace Council is not limited to managing the post-war phase, but is deeply rooted in economic perceptions circulating within American decision-making circles that view Gaza as an area capable of being reshaped from scratch, not a political society with the right to self-determination. In these perceptions, the Palestinian issue is reduced to a long-term reconstruction matter managed by investment contracts extending for decades, during which sovereignty is suspended in the name of stability, and political rights are postponed indefinitely under the pretext of “rehabilitating society” and “de-radicalization.” The conflict here is no longer a conflict over land and rights, but a problem of managing a population that can be temporarily relocated, redistributed, and subjected to externally imposed educational and legal models, while guardianship is presented as a transitional necessity, and occupation is redefined as investment, and control as partnership.

In this council, Gaza does not appear as part of a Palestinian national geography linked to the West Bank in the path of establishing an independent state, but as a separate area managed independently of any comprehensive political horizon. Gaza here is not a question of sovereignty or the right to self-determination, but a file of reconstruction, security, stability, and investment. In this sense, the Trump Council does not come to replace the two-state solution, but to make it irrelevant without officially announcing its demise. The old solution is left on the shelf, while a new approach is built that bypasses the idea of a state from its very foundation.

What is most clear is that this approach reflects President Trump's mindset: he does not see the Palestinian Authority as an official decision-making body, nor does he believe that Palestinians are capable of giving up their rights. In Trump's view, Palestinian demands based on the application of international legitimacy – such as the right to self-determination, the right of return, and the cessation of settlements – are considered too many demands, and that Palestinians will not bear the burden of any concessions. Therefore, a direct solution has become undesirable. The result: imposing ready-made solutions and managing the reality on the ground without consulting the Palestinians, which is an entirely new approach in the history of the conflict, placing Palestinians outside the equation and transforming the Authority into a silent observer rather than an influential party.

What is happening in Gaza today is not an exception, but a model for managing a devastated land outside international law, without a binding international reference, and with a single political will that has the right to interpret, amend, and veto. When the President of the United States becomes the ultimate reference for the “peace” charter, the idea of international legitimacy is negated, and replaced by the logic of power and deal-making. It is precisely here that the two-state solution is fatally wounded, because this solution, however fragile, assumed the existence of an international system that recognizes the occupation, the rights of the people under it, and a clear negotiation path leading to its termination.

The Trump Council does not even recognize these assumptions. It deals with the conflict as if it were a local governance crisis in a troubled region, not a national liberation issue. Therefore, questions are raised such as: Who governs Gaza? Who oversees security? Who funds reconstruction? While the fundamental question is excluded: What is the legal and political status of Gaza within occupied Palestine? This deliberate displacement of politics is the latest form of burying the two-state solution, not by rejecting it, but by ignoring it.

More dangerously, this path intersects with Israel's interests as never before. Israel, which openly rejects the two-state solution, does not need to announce this rejection today, as long as reality is being reshaped in a way that makes the solution impossible without noise. Separating Gaza from the West Bank, transforming the former into an internationally managed entity, and accelerating the swallowing of the latter by settlements, are all steps that produce a new reality that does not require negotiations, but rather long-term management. In this reality, talk of a Palestinian state becomes closer to a linguistic exercise than to a political project.

In addition, there is a very important Palestinian factor: the Palestinian Authority has not yet realized the extent of the danger, and has mostly contented itself with silent disapproval or indirect blessing for its exclusion from the equation. This silence or practical absence allows the United States and Israel to gradually reshape Palestinian reality without strong confrontation from any Palestinian party. Some believe that the Authority thinks it currently lacks the ability to influence due to its focus on ending the war and humanitarian suffering in Gaza, which makes its position less effective and increases the fragility of its political presence.

In this scenario, the two-state solution is left in a state of clinical death. No one declares it over, because such an announcement forces a confrontation with the next question: What is the alternative? And no one is prepared to bear the cost of this question. A single state with equal rights is rejected by Israel because it ends the Jewish character of the state. The continuation of the occupation in its traditional form is morally and politically costly. Therefore, the easier option is to manage Palestinians without sovereignty, granting them extended autonomy here, international administration there, and economic projects that alleviate tension without touching the core of the conflict.

Gaza, in this context, transforms into a laboratory for post-sovereignty management. If the formula of international administration without sovereignty succeeds, and if reconstruction can be separated from politics, and resistance contained without a radical solution, then the model becomes generalizable. Then the two-state solution will no longer even be a problem, but merely a memory from a previous era when the world spoke of international law with greater seriousness.

The real dilemma is that the absence of alternatives does not mean the correctness of the current path. Letting the solution die slowly does not abolish the conflict, but changes its form and prolongs its duration. And what is presented today as realistic peace may tomorrow turn into a permanent management of an open crisis, without horizon and without end. At this moment, the question is not whether the two-state solution has ended, but whether the international system itself is capable of producing any solution that transcends the logic of naked power.

Under the Trump Council, and a managed, not liberated, Gaza, it seems the world has chosen the easier path: silently burying grand solutions, and postponing the confrontation with reality indefinitely.

The project is a 'cover for forced displacement'.

The occupation's 'unannounced' goal of these projects goes beyond improving infrastructure, as it aims to remove all obstacles.

Any talk of launching a reconstruction process in Gaza before disarmament 'will not happen'.

Occupation estimates indicate that President Trump's administration may set a final deadline of no more than two months to complete this step.

The Palestinian Prisoners' Club condemned these legislative trends, describing them as a "full-fledged war crime."

Mladenov, with his previous experience as UN Coordinator for the peace process, is seen as a pivotal figure capable of communicating with all parties.