The settlers want to evict all families from their homes in preparation for turning the neighborhood into a settlement.

Civil defense teams are searching for missing persons under the rubble after the collapse of the building that was subjected to Israeli bombing.

The Palestinian Journalists' Syndicate has warned of the risk of death threatening the life of colleague journalist Ali Al-Samoudi (59 years old), due to the Israeli occupation court's decision to extend his administrative detention for the third consecutive time, for an additional four months, without charging him with any crime or providing him with a fair trial, in a blatant violation of international law and freedom of journalistic work.

The Syndicate holds the occupation authorities fully responsible for the serious deterioration in the health condition of colleague Al-Samoudi, confirming that the Palestinian Prisoners' Club reported that he has lost about 40 kilograms of his weight, and suffers from multiple diseases, including: scabies, diabetes, high blood pressure, stomach ulcers, continuous bleeding in the teeth, sudden increase in heartbeats, in addition to recurrent fainting, constant headaches, inflammation in the urinary tract, and problems in the left ear, all under deliberate medical neglect.

The Syndicate condemned what colleague Al-Samoudi is subjected to in "Majd" prison, including beating, suppression, and humiliations, and his detention in harsh humanitarian conditions, considering it a form of torture and degrading treatment prohibited under international covenants and agreements.

The Syndicate also issued an urgent appeal to the international community, human rights institutions, journalists' unions, and international media outlets, to take immediate action and exert serious pressure on the Israeli occupation government, in order to end the policy of administrative detention against journalists, and to immediately release colleague Ali Al-Samoudi, and hold accountable those responsible for the ongoing violations against Palestinian journalism.

The Syndicate affirmed that the continuation of administrative detention against journalists constitutes a systematic policy to silence the Palestinian voice and muzzle the truth, demanding the immediate and unconditional release of colleague Al-Samoudi, and ensuring the provision of urgent medical care for him.

Israel implemented the first phase of the ceasefire agreement in the Gaza Strip as it wanted and how it wanted, and transformed the agreement or used it to stop the comprehensive war into another war, low-intensity, understandable and unspoken about, and thus was able to breach the agreement hundreds of times, killing hundreds of Palestinians during it, and controlled the number of trucks entering the sector and determined the permitted and prohibited goods according to its criteria, no tents, no medicines, no high-calorie foods, and managed during that, in cooperation with others, a black market that generates millions as mentioned by international newspapers and others, more than that, Israel during the first phase did not commit to opening the Rafah crossing, and did not commit to the red line, but moved it westward several times, in addition to recovering its prisoners and killed, and took the entire sector hostage in order to release the body of a last Israeli killed, and accused the Palestinian side of delaying and not seriously searching for his body, despite Israel preventing the entry of heavy machinery to search under rubble weighing more than 70 million tons.
In short, Israel applied the first phase as it wanted without criticism or condemnation or restraint or accountability, and all this happened under the eyes of the American camp in Kiryat Gat, and under the hearing and sight of everyone who signed the Sharm el-Sheikh agreement and voted in favor of UN Resolution 2803, and it can be said that Israel benefited greatly from the first phase completely, as it controlled the entire sector security-wise and fire-wise, cleaned the area it fully occupies and leveled it, dealt with two hundred elements of Hamas elements in a way no one knew about, and works diplomatically and security-wise on settling parts of the sector, and did not withdraw from Salah al-Din axis, and more importantly, Israel was not held accountable and was not asked to apologize or pay compensation, and more than that, Israel is actually rewarded for its war against the Palestinian people, and considered itself the winning side, and therefore it can set complete conditions on the defeated side, and exchanged roles in all that with the American administration that provided it with all the financial, military, and diplomatic support it wants, and thus marginalized all mediators, guarantors, and signatories.
And if all that happened in the first phase, then the second phase, which is doubtful to enter, will also witness the Israeli style in its implementation, and will work to empty it of its content and purpose, as it wants to disarm the Hamas movement by the hands of the stabilization force or by its own hands, and it is clear that Israel wants to do that through disruption and conditioning and bargaining in the formation and operation of the stabilization force, Israel does not want at all to implement the second phase as stipulated in the Trump plan, Israel is against internationalizing the conflict and against rebuilding Gaza and against forming a Palestinian body whatever it is, and Israel is against there being even a distant indication of a Palestinian state in the future, and therefore, it will work on detonating the mines one after the other so that there is no second phase except on its terms and what serves its interests, and its interests are represented in occupying more than half the sector and turning the western area into an area afflicted with disease, poverty, overcrowding, and hunger, and in settlement and investment and dismantling the Palestinian society and separating its sector from its West Bank, and in overthrowing the Palestinian Authority and searching for other forms of regional or municipal or administrative representation.
For all that, and more, we expect there to be long negotiations and repeated threats, and perhaps scattered strikes and constant blackmail through aid and others, all that so that Israel makes the second phase a final phase, and here we are not talking about a political settlement, but rather arrangements or procedures for calm only, and in that, Israel is concerned with talking about procedures instead of final settlements, and thus imposes practically two operational scenarios in each of the sector and the occupied West Bank, unspoken occupation in the sector and unspoken annexation in the occupied West Bank.
————————————————————————
Israel does not want at all to implement the second phase as stipulated in the Trump plan, Israel is against internationalizing the conflict and against rebuilding Gaza and against forming a Palestinian body whatever it is, and Israel is against there being even a distant indication of a Palestinian state in the future,

On Sunday, US President Donald Trump threatened Iran that it would face a "very severe strike" from the United States if more protesters were killed during the protests that entered their second week, in a notable escalation of his rhetoric towards Tehran at a highly sensitive regional and international moment.

In statements to journalists aboard the presidential plane returning to Washington, Trump said his administration "is closely monitoring the situation," repeating a threat he issued days earlier: "If they start killing people as they did in the past, I think they will face a very severe strike from the United States." Western organizations claim that at least 16 people have been killed since the protests erupted in several Iranian cities, which is considered one of the most serious internal challenges facing the Iranian authorities in years.

However, Trump's threat to Iran does not come in isolation from a broader context, but fits within what the US President himself described as a "new phase" in American foreign policy, based on simultaneous escalation in more than one international arena. In just a few days, Trump combined military threats to Tehran, direct intervention in Venezuela, hints at overthrowing the state in Cuba, and reopening the file of control over Greenland, in a scene reflecting Washington's shift to a policy of maximum pressure relying on military force, and multi-directional.

In Latin America, Venezuela constituted the most prominent testing ground for this phase. Trump announced that the overthrow of President Nicolas Maduro, his kidnapping along with his wife, and his trial in a federal court in New York, represents the beginning of a "new phase" aimed, according to the American narrative, at dismantling "criminal regimes" that threaten regional security. The US administration asserts that its intervention came to combat drug trafficking and restore democracy, but several countries in Latin America, alongside major international powers, saw in the move a blatant violation of sovereignty and international law.

Despite Washington's announcement of its success in ending Maduro's rule, Venezuela continues to experience political and economic turmoil. Internal conflicts have not been resolved, the exhausted economic structure has not recovered, while anti-American sentiments are rising within the country. Nevertheless, Trump continues his escalating rhetoric, hinting at sanctions and harsher measures against any leaders who refuse to submit to the path set by Washington, alongside public talk of restructuring Venezuela's oil sector under the control of American companies.

The escalation did not stop at Venezuela. Trump expanded the circle of pressure to include Cuba, accusing Havana of playing a pivotal role in supporting Maduro and destabilizing regional stability. He went further by saying that Cuba "is ready to fall," in a statement that evoked Cold War language and raised widespread concern in the Caribbean region. Cuban authorities responded by accusing Washington of seeking to impose hegemony by force, warning that any aggression would be met with resistance, while several countries in the region expressed their fear of a new slide towards confrontation.

In a notable shift outside the traditional framework of American conflicts, Trump revived the Greenland file, considering American control over the polar territory a "vital" matter for national security in the face of Russia and China. These statements were met with outright rejection from Denmark and Greenland's leadership, which emphasized that the territory is not for sale, and that determining its fate is a sovereign matter. This move sparked tension within NATO and raised questions about the limits of American pressure even on its closest allies.

Overall, these moves reflect an American approach based on using threats and force as primary tools for managing international relations. Iran, Venezuela, Cuba, and Greenland, despite differing contexts, are all managed with one logic: impose facts first, then negotiate later. While the US administration sees this approach as a means to impose deterrence and restore prestige, experts warn that it threatens to undermine the rules-based international system and increases the likelihood of unplanned escalation.

The blatant American intervention in Venezuela sets a dangerous precedent in contemporary international relations. Overthrowing the leadership of a sovereign state without broad international authorization strengthens the logic of power at the expense of law. While Washington believes it has achieved immediate gains, the price will be weakening the legal deterrence system that protects weaker states. Such an approach opens the door for other powers to justify similar interventions, heralding a less stable world.

Moreover, re-portraying Cuba as an "imminent target" reflects a return to ideological rhetoric that ignores the complexities of reality. Excessive pressure does not necessarily lead to change, but may push Havana to strengthen its alliances with Washington's adversaries. Also, evoking the Cold War climate raises historical fears in the region and undermines any opportunities for building a regional system based on cooperation rather than polarization.

The Greenland issue reveals the tension between American geopolitical ambitions and the requirements of maintaining alliances. Seeking control over a territory belonging to a key ally sends a troubling message about the limits of mutual respect within Western alliances. At a time when international competition in the Arctic is increasing, pressuring allies may lead to counterproductive results, weakening unity instead of strengthening it.

Amid this "new phase" promoted by Trump, the question remains open: Will multi-front escalation lead to strengthening American influence, or to its exhaustion and opening the door to broader international chaos? The answer may determine the contours of the global system in the coming years.

Netanyahu was very decisive in his position regarding Gaza; that disarming Hamas is a necessary and fundamental condition for implementing the 20-point plan for the sector, and there is no other option in this regard.

Netanyahu placed "disarming Hamas" as a major obstacle and an indispensable condition for passing the American peace proposal.

The Israeli security apparatuses have completed all their field and logistical preparations to reopen the Rafah border crossing very soon.

The phenomenon of the rise of non-traditional presidents in the United States cannot be fully understood through moral or psychological lenses alone, nor by reducing it to personal traits or individual deviations. At its core, this phenomenon reflects a profound structural transformation in how the United States manages its power and role in the international system, as well as a cumulative crisis in its ability to sustain global leadership according to the frameworks established during the twentieth century.

During the era of stable hegemony, the United States successfully combined hard power with soft legitimacy, exercising influence through international institutions, alliances, legal frameworks, and value-driven narratives linked to democracy and human rights. This model allowed Washington to manage the international system as a leading power rather than merely a dominant one. However, this balance began to erode gradually after the end of the Cold War and accelerated with the rise of competing international powers, particularly China, as well as the declining ability of the U.S. to regulate the global system through multilateral consensus.

In this context, the civilizational discourse shifted from a source of power to a political constraint. The wider the gap between America’s strategic interests and its publicly declared values, the higher the cost of adhering to norms, and the less effective moral justifications became. It is precisely here that the non-traditional president emerges, a leader who feels little need to maintain institutional decorum or rhetorical consistency, treating politics as a direct exercise of power and replacing persuasion with confrontation, legitimacy with capability.

What is commonly referred to, in populist terms, as “clownish” or non-traditional presidents does not necessarily reflect a weakness in the American state; rather, it reveals its structural dilemma. A president who breaks norms, disregards institutions, and relies on performative and media-driven strategies grants the political system a broader margin of maneuver beyond the constraints imposed during the era of unipolar stability. In this sense, political performance becomes a functional instrument, not merely a behavioral deviation.

Historically, this function can be traced in pivotal moments. George W. Bush exemplified a president suited to the post-9/11 phase, when the United States needed to normalize preemptive wars, suspend international legal norms, and redefine the concepts of security and the enemy. Donald Trump, in contrast, represents a more radical transition, abandoning much of the civilizational mask and treating the presidency as a confrontational platform enabling the implementation of harsh policies without ethical or institutional justification.

These practices, however, cannot be separated from the deeper crisis of the U.S. system itself. The rise of China and other emerging powers has limited America’s capacity to maintain its position as the sole global superpower, revealing the boundaries of its power to prevent structural shifts in economic, technological, and political balances worldwide. As traditional instruments of containment became less effective, the inclination within Washington to adopt more direct and forceful approaches grew, reflecting an increasing perception of diminishing control rather than its enhancement.

In this context, the non-traditional presidency becomes a reflection of systemic crisis rather than a deviation from it. It is a political front that absorbs symbolic chaos and political shock, allowing enduring institutions to maintain core policies without shouldering the full burden of justification. What appears as deviation in form is, in essence, a redistribution of roles between political performance and strategic depth.

Entering the twenty-first century, this transformation appears neither temporary nor incidental but rather likely to deepen. The American system is undergoing a dramatic shift in its character and behavior, moving from a power that long sought to manage the international order through rules to a power striving to assert its position in a world no longer accepting unipolarity. This transformation will not affect the United States alone; the world will also bear the repercussions, whether through increased conflicts, erosion of regulatory norms in international relations, or the emergence of new forms of contestation that traditional instruments cannot contain.

We are thus entering a transitional phase in which the political reality is being redefined, not according to a clear plan but through a series of shocks, experiments, and tests. The American system, in its attempt to adapt, is likely to become one of the most significant sources of uncertainty. The new pattern emerging today may shape the global system in radically different ways from the model the United States crafted at the peak of its power—ways we cannot yet fully predict or comprehend.

In conclusion, non-traditional presidents in the United States are neither an incidental phenomenon nor a transient democratic flaw; they are a direct reflection of deep structural transformations in America’s position and role. They mirror the crisis of unipolarity and function as instruments to manage a historically critical transition, one that may determine the shape of the international system for decades to come. While this mode of leadership may provide temporary capacity for action and decisiveness, in the long term it exposes the limits of American power in an increasingly multipolar and unpredictable world.

His country "needs full access to the oil and other resources in Venezuela".

They want to see us weak, but they will not see us weak.

Danish Prime Minister "Mette Frederiksen" confirmed that America has no right to annex any part of the Danish Kingdom, describing talk of seizing the island as "utterly meaningless".

The new year began with changes for the Iranian people, and the pace of popular demonstrations has been expanding day by day. The main and primary reasons for this are the rising cost of living, the worsening water scarcity problems in Iranian cities, as well as the increase in inflation and the sharp collapse of the currency against the American dollar, and the country's entry into a crisis and a rapid collapse of the Iranian economy.

Millions of citizens are demonstrating in the streets of Iranian cities. The first blow started from the Iranian capital, and the clock stopped for the old regime, and Iran entered a new phase in its history titled the radical new change coming to the Iranian scene, and the ruling class entering a dead end where the power of the mullahs is diminishing day by day in parallel with the increasing intensity of the angry people's demonstrations in the streets of the Islamic Republic of Iran, and the huge high arrogant wall of suppressing the people is cracking, its prestige falls, and with it the people's fear is gradually overcome, erasing the shadows of the terrifying past, and the demonstrators' revolutions intensify, and their voices rise in the streets to enter a new phase and a strong start for the people and the demonstrators, expanding to the rest of the Iranian cities, and the revolutionaries' voice is heard as they chant for Shah Reza Pahlavi and strive to cling to the past to save them from the tyrant's rule and give them hope to continue strongly. The phase of silence has ended, and the elements of the ruling past symbols are falling day by day with the intensity of the demonstrations, and Iran enters a new phase with the strong voice of the people  which scatters the high repressive wall, and the angry people begin to break all barriers of fear and strive to get rid of the ruling mullahs' dictatorship starting from Tehran to Isfahan, expanding to Khuzestan and to the city of Mashhad and to the rest of the Iranian cities where the echo of the high voices of the demonstrators resonates, and with determination to overthrow this ruling system, and here the fear of the past turns into the strength of the Iranian people's anger, united strongly emanating from the bazaar merchants to the university students, and from everywhere pictures of Khamenei are burning, and with it the prestige of the regime's symbols is being erased day by day with the continuation of the demonstrations in parallel with the beginning of the new year that heralds relief for the Iranian people, asserting these demonstrations " Khamenei will fall and the Shah of Iran will return "  The nightmare of the 1979 regime has returned strongly, but the situations have reversed and changed in the 2026 new year demonstrations, and the roles have changed in it for the past revolution that overthrew the Shah's rule in 1979 from Khamenei coming from Paris and now the son of the Shah of Iran Reza Pahlavi from exile supporting the people in these revolutionary demonstrations from abroad to overthrow the ruling mullahs' regime, and on the other hand, President Trump threatens the mullahs' regime with intervention to protect the Iranian people if the demonstrators are suppressed or killed in a brutal way as happened in the past, as the Iranian leader Ayatollah Khamenei responded to the statements of the American President Trump " We will not submit to the enemy " and " We will triumph and defeat the enemy " as some officials stated that if America exceeds Iran's sovereignty and intervenes in the Iranian internal home, its response will be harsh  ,  It appears from the current developments and data that this regime will inevitably fall without any intervention from President Donald Trump because the people are determined and assertive to overthrow the current Iranian regime  where the pace of events accelerates, government buildings and police centers in several cities are burning, and the Shah in exile adds fuel to the fire, and his public appearance declaring support for the demonstrators stating " The final victory is ours " is considered an indicator of gathering himself with this group, and notably, the economic advisors of the current regime have submitted their resignations and distanced themselves from the scene, and on the other hand, Iran's allies like Russia are preoccupied with their problems and their current war with Ukraine, and it is difficult to intervene to save their ally from its people, and while China has remained silent and has not made any statement to support its ally Iran  , and since the outbreak of the demonstrations and the economic crisis, the rescue of the current regime from falling seems impossible, it seems that there is no one to save what can be saved and leave it destined to fall in this sensitive and difficult phase it is going through.

I believe that things have reached the explosion and the point of no return, and the demonstrators' voices are chanting everywhere " Enough is enough " and here specifically Iran enters the new era born from the womb of the angry people who may triumph over the dictatorship and the mullahs' regime of the Islamic Republic of Iran, and what increased the people's revolution and anger was Bazargan's statement when he admitted that the state treasury is empty and they are not able to distribute to the people as in the past, igniting the volcano of the demonstrators, especially for the bazaar merchants who closed their shops and joined the revolution for the overwhelming demonstrations supported by university students, and recently people joined chanting collectively " No to Gaza and no to Lebanon, let my life be sacrificed for Iran " criticizing the foreign policy of the mullahs' regime that supported proxy wars in the Middle East and unlimited financial support for arming its militias and armed parties, especially in Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, and Yemen at the expense of the Iranian people who are suffering economically, and instead of spending on its people, it supported and backed the Syrian Ba'ath regime for the deceased Bashar al-Assad with billions of dollars that unfortunately were not repaid, these amounts were spent to destroy and kill the peoples of the Arab East countries in the wars supported by Iran in Syria, Lebanon, and Iraq, and the Iranian people's situation is deteriorating where inflation has reached 41% as basic food commodities have risen by 70% with the deterioration of the Iranian rial, and unfortunately the Iranian citizen works for a full month in Iran to earn only an amount equivalent to one gram of gold, after 47 years of the mullahs' rule over Iran resulting in a collapsed economy, an empty state treasury meaning no money for the people, increasing administrative corruption, and worsening water scarcity, and Ayatollah Khamenei has been hiding for days, and the rule and its institutions are burning at the hands of the determined demonstrators to overthrow the regime, chanting at the top of their voices to overthrow it, and at Mashhad University the students chant " We prefer death over the situation we live in " it seems that the people's current battle intends to overthrow the  mullahs' regime, where Shah Reza Pahlavi breaks the silence and addresses the demonstrators yesterday from his exile in America calling on the army and security forces to defect from the rule and support the people in this revolution before it's too late, asserting that this regime will inevitably fall, and in contrast, the regime is collapsing day by day, and the security forces are dissolving in the face of the people's anger, fleeing from their burning cars, it is clear that the people have broken through and overcome the fear barrier, and this heralds the continuation of the demonstrations and the possibility of success of this popular revolution to overthrow the regime, especially when the army unites with the people and they defect together to shake the foundations of the rule and overthrow it, as the Shah's appearance and his public declaration of support for the popular revolution gives them the strength to continue and succeed in their revolution  .

The coming days are full of developments, and the Iranian street is burning and scorching on a hot plate, and all indicators point to the advancement of the demonstrations and their intensification to strive for success in overthrowing the mullahs' regime, and there are fears of the situation deteriorating into a civil war, and if this revolution succeeds in overthrowing the regime, it will inevitably lead to relief for the Arab East countries as well, especially from Iranian dominance over the joints and sovereignty of countries like Iraq and Lebanon in particular, and helping them to eliminate the weapon of the factions and parties loyal and supported by Iran, where the material and moral support for them will stop upon the fall of the mullahs' regime, as it will help to settle  the weapon only in the hands of the army, and the Arab East countries regain their sovereignty dominated by Iran, their strength, and impose their sovereignty and restore their resources and assets, and this will inevitably produce a new government in Iraq not loyal to Iran and enter a new phase  titled imposing the state's sovereignty and the army, and on its sovereign political decision, and Lebanon and Iraq get rid of and become independent from Iranian hegemony over them.

The transformations witnessed by American foreign policy in recent years cannot be understood solely through changes in administrations, but rather through a deeper shift in the tools and references that govern the behavior of American power in the international system. During Donald Trump's era, the strategic objectives of the United States did not change as much as the mechanisms for achieving them, where a clear trend emerged towards reducing the cost of foreign intervention, whether at the human, financial, or political level, while maintaining the ability to impose facts and achieve results.

This approach was distinguished by a relative departure from the traditional model of regime change that prevailed in previous decades, which relied on large-scale wars, long-term occupations, and often complex legal and ethical narratives that later proved to be fragile or selective. In contrast, the new approach shifted towards the logic of direct and time-limited intervention, based on targeting political decision-making centers, and employing economic, legal, and security pressure tools simultaneously, allowing for significant political impact without engaging in open conflicts.

This shift reflects a pragmatic mentality that sees foreign policy as an extension of the deal logic, where successes are measured by the balance of cost and return, not by the extent of commitment to value discourse. From this perspective, intervention is no longer presented as war, but as an executive, security, or legal measure, even if it inherently involves a clear violation of the principles of sovereignty and non-interference stipulated in international law. This method gives the American decision-maker a wider margin of movement, given the reduced likelihood of internal opposition linked to human losses or long-term financial exhaustion.

However, this shift cannot be isolated from the structural context of the international system. The new pattern in American thinking indicates a gradual transition from the hegemony model that characterized the twentieth century, based on managing influence through international institutions, alliances, and formal legitimacy, to a logic closer to imperial mentality, where power is exercised more directly and openly. This shift comes amid a growing awareness in Washington of its declining status as the sole superpower, and the rise of competing international powers, foremost among them China, seeking to reshape global power balances.

In this framework, the question arises about the role of the war on Gaza in crystallizing or accelerating this approach. The political and military coverage provided by the United States to Israel constituted a practical model for how to disrupt international accountability mechanisms, neutralize UN institutions, and provide full cover for the use of force to achieve specific political and military objectives. This support was not merely an expression of a traditional alliance, but a manifestation of a political will that allows suspending rules when they conflict with calculations of power and interest.

From this perspective, Gaza can be seen as a testing ground for a new phase where international legitimacy is redefined based on the ability to impose facts, not on commitment to the law. The international incapacity, or silence regarding what happened, contributed to consolidating this model, encouraging its generalization in other contexts, where direct force becomes a legitimate tool for reshaping political environments.

Although this type of intervention may seem less bloody in its direct form compared to traditional wars, it does not necessarily mean a reduction in violence or stability. The cost in this case does not disappear, but transforms into an invisible or deferred cost, often borne by weak societies, whether through economic exhaustion, dismantling of political structures, or perpetuating instability.

In conclusion, what American foreign policy is witnessing is not a withdrawal from the international system, but a repositioning within it, based on the transition from disguised institutional hegemony to a more explicit exercise of power. If this shift stabilizes as a permanent pattern, it portends further erosion of the rules of the international system, and poses serious challenges to the future of global stability in a phase where power centers are increasing and the ability of shared rules to regulate international behavior is declining.

The occupation government approved -under the cover of the world's preoccupation with the war- the establishment of 21 new settlements, in addition to 19 others still in the planning stages.

Rodriguez: The military operation carried out by Washington "bears a Zionist tint", hinting at the existence of some influence or intervention by "Israel".

Alaa al-Din was martyred by Israeli gunfire in the Jura al-Lut area south of Khan Yunis city in the south of the Strip, from which the occupation army withdrew according to the ceasefire agreement.

With the continued roar of planes in the skies, the targeted areas are experiencing a highly dangerous security situation.

The Palestinian Planning and Development Department issued its annual report for 2025 related to settler attacks and the demolition of houses and facilities, and here is the most important from the report:-

Settler Attacks

Armed settler militias, with direct support from the Zionist occupation authorities and their political and official arms, carried out during the year 2025 (5538) attacks against unarmed Palestinian citizens and their properties and lands. These attacks included the use of all means of killing and terrorism, from live fire to the use of stones and incendiary bombs, and resulted from these terrorist attacks, as follows:-

Human Losses: (17) citizens were martyred as a result of settler attacks, and most of the martyrs fell due to direct gunfire on them. (10) of the martyrs fell in towns northeast of Ramallah and Al-Bireh governorate, specifically Al-Mughayyir, Kafr Malik, Deir Jarir, Silwad, Turmus Ayya, and Al-Mazra'a Al-Sharqiyya. A boy from the town of Tuqu' south of Bethlehem was martyred, a martyr from the town of Beit Safafa in the occupied city of Jerusalem, three martyrs from the towns of Duma and Aqaba in Nablus governorate, two martyrs from Um Al-Khair in Masafer Yatta, and a martyr from the city of Hebron.

Meanwhile, (971) citizens were injured with various wounds, including (62) women and (59) children, as a result of attacks on them by beating, stone-throwing, pepper spraying, burning properties, live fire, and ramming operations.

Material Losses: These attacks resulted in the burning, uprooting, and destruction of (16795) fruit trees, damage to (600) vehicles, destruction, demolition, and burning of (187) residential, agricultural, and livestock facilities, and theft and killing of (5631) heads of livestock.

And during the year 2025, the policy of pastoral outposts expanded, where the department documented settlers establishing (100) new pastoral outposts in all West Bank governorates, aiming to control the largest area of land in a short time, to pressure the population and displace them from their lands and properties, in addition to separating Palestinian population centers from each other.

And settler attacks were distributed across all West Bank governorates and the occupied city of Jerusalem, with Ramallah and Al-Bireh governorate being the highest governorate exposed to settler attacks with (1178) attacks, followed by Nablus governorate (1128) attacks, then Hebron governorate (1097) attacks, then Tubas and Northern Jordan Valley governorate (418) attacks, Salfit governorate (412), Jericho governorate (350), Jerusalem governorate (348) attacks, Bethlehem governorate (315) attacks, Qalqilya governorate (143) attacks, Tulkarm governorate (84) attacks, and finally Jenin governorate (60) attacks, and October recorded the highest number of recorded attacks (787) attacks.

And the year 2025 witnessed a qualitative leap and a significant increase in the use of firearms against Palestinian citizens defending their land and properties, where (199) shooting operations were recorded against unarmed citizens, resulting in a number of martyrs and injured, and this unprecedented number reflects the criminal mentality of the Zionist government in arming settlers and providing legal cover and protection for them, and this indicates that settlers have turned into armed and trained militias seeking to kill, displace, and destroy, and that their war in the West Bank will escalate in the coming months in quantity and quality, including an increase in human and material losses, under the fascist government leading the Zionist political scene, and the impunity of settlers from punishment and accountability, including international.

Demolition of Houses and Facilities

Zionist occupation forces demolished during the year 2025 (2047) houses and facilities, including (610) houses, and (1437) facilities, and this number does not include the houses demolished in the camps of Jenin, Tulkarm, and Nur Shams.

And demolition operations covered all West Bank governorates, and were concentrated in the governorates of Jerusalem, Hebron, Ramallah and Al-Bireh, Tubas and Northern Jordan Valley, Nablus, and Bethlehem.

And in the towns and neighborhoods of the occupied city of Jerusalem, the year 2025 witnessed the demolition of (256) houses and facilities, including (138) self-demolition cases where owners demolished them themselves to avoid paying large financial fines, and it is the highest demolition rate recorded in the history of the occupied city ever, and demolition operations included the towns of Silwan, Jabal Al-Mukabbir, Beit Safafa, Al-Issawiyya, Sur Baher, Um Tuba, Al-Tur, Beit Hanina, Shu'fat  and Al-Sawana, Wadi Al-Joz, Ras Al-Amud, and Al-Thuri.

And demolition operations also included the demolition of (37) houses of families of martyrs and prisoners accused by occupation forces of carrying out martyrdom operations, and it falls within the framework of collective punishment, and was distributed to Hebron governorate (7) houses, Jenin governorate (5), Tulkarm governorate (5) houses, Nablus governorate (4) houses, Tubas governorate (4) houses, Salfit governorate (4) houses, Jerusalem governorate (4) houses, and Qalqilya governorate (3) houses and Ramallah and Al-Bireh governorate one house.

And settler gangs played a prominent role in demolition operations during the year 2025, where these gangs demolished (187) houses and facilities, concentrated in the governorates of Hebron, Bethlehem, Jerusalem, Nablus, Ramallah and Al-Bireh, Tubas and Northern Jordan Valley, and Jericho governorate.

And Zionist occupation authorities distributed (1878) demolition and stop-work notices, covering all West Bank governorates, and they indicate that demolition operations will escalate in the coming months and years.

In an early and decisive political move, New York City's new mayor Zohran Mamdani sparked widespread controversy within the United States and abroad, after canceling upon assuming office a set of executive orders issued by his predecessor Eric Adams, which were widely considered biased towards Israel and restrictive to freedom of expression. The decision, which came in the first hours of his term, was met with great welcome from supporters of Palestinian rights, and strong condemnation from the Israeli government and the administration of U.S. President Donald Trump.

Mamdani, who took the constitutional oath on the first of the new year, canceled all executive orders issued after September 26, 2024, the day on which bribery charges were brought against Adams. Among the most prominent of these orders was a decree prohibiting New York City from entering contracts with entities "that discriminate against the state of Israel or its citizens", including support for boycott campaigns. He also canceled another decree that adopts the definition of the "International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance" (IHRA) for antisemitism, a controversial definition that human rights activists see as being used to criminalize criticism of Israel and link anti-Zionism to antisemitism.

Palestinian and Islamic organizations in New York saw in this step a correction of a deviated constitutional path. Where Nasreen Issa, from the Palestinian Youth Movement in New York, considered that Israel and its supporters have been seeking for years to "criminalize opposition", and that canceling these orders represents protection for the city's residents' rights and the dignity of Palestinians. In turn, Afaf Nashash, director of the New York branch of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), described the canceled decree as an unconstitutional attack that puts Israel first at the expense of freedom of expression.

In contrast, the Israeli response came swiftly and sharply. Where the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs said that Mamdani "reveals his true face", and considered his decisions "pouring fuel on the fire of antisemitism". As for Minister of Diaspora Affairs Amichai Chikli, he went further by using language described as Islamophobic, accusing Mamdani of being "sympathetic to Hamas", and linking him to London mayor Sadiq Khan, in reference to what he called "political Islam". These accusations were met with outright rejection, as there are no known connections between the two men and the Muslim Brotherhood.

Activists believe that this Israeli escalation does not actually relate to municipal policies, but to an attempt to control the general narrative amid Israel's declining global image. Nasreen Issa  said in a press statement that Israel, after losing in the court of public opinion, has resorted to pushing towards criminalizing discourse critical of it, considering that any support for Palestinians or objection to occupation policies is unacceptable from Tel Aviv's point of view.

The criticisms did not come  from Israel alone, where the Trump administration expressed its concern, and warned Harmit Dillon, Assistant Attorney General for Human Rights, that her department would monitor "any violation of religious freedoms" in New York, threatening investigation and legal prosecution. This position reflected the continuation of interference between federal politics and local debate on the limits of freedom of expression, especially when it comes to Israel.

In the midst of this controversy, Mamdani was keen to affirm that he clearly distinguishes between criticizing the policies of the state of Israel and antisemitism. During his inauguration ceremony, he pledged to maintain the mayor's office for combating antisemitism, confirming that his administration will celebrate and protect the Jewish community. These messages came in the context of his attempt to defuse the accusations that have long pursued him due to his positions supportive of Palestinian rights.

Mamdani's rise represents a notable shift in American local politics. The 34-year-old young man, and first Muslim mayor of New York, took the oath on a copy of the Quran, in a symbolic scene reflecting the city's diversity. Despite his limited fame when announcing his candidacy late in 2024, he succeeded in building a broad popular base by focusing on housing issues and living costs, achieving a resounding victory over former New York Governor Andrew Cuomo in the primaries, then in the general elections.

Some of Mamdani's supporters believe that his explicit support for Palestinian rights played a role in mobilizing voters, especially amid the growing popular anger from Israel's war on Gaza and what many describe as genocide. In contrast, his opponents tried to portray these positions as a political burden, but election results showed that the general mood in New York has become more accepting of discourse that criticizes Israel without it being automatically viewed as antisemitic.

Mamdani's decisions reveal a growing rift in the traditional American consensus on protecting Israel from any institutional criticism. Canceling municipal orders does not have a direct international impact, but it symbolizes a deeper cultural and political transformation, where the automatic link between criticizing Israel and antisemitism is no longer acceptable to broad sectors of public opinion, especially in multicultural major cities.

Experts believe that the angry Israeli response may be a double-edged sword. Instead of deterring American local officials, this escalation may lead to enhancing Mamdani's image as a defender of constitutional freedoms in the face of external pressures. Moreover, employing rhetoric of betrayal and Islamophobia threatens to undermine traditional sympathy for Israel, and gives its opponents more space to affirm their narrative about silencing critical voices. 

Occupation forces repeatedly target Palestinian farmers in the border areas of the Gaza Strip.

Since the start of the genocide war in Gaza, the Israeli army and settlers have escalated their attacks in the West Bank.

Rodríguez stated that Maduro is the "only president" of Venezuela.

Live footage showed the Venezuelan President surrounded by elements from the Federal Bureau of Investigation as he descended from a US government plane.

International journalists have never been allowed to enter Gaza, while the Israeli army targets local journalists and kills them.

The participants called on the French government and the European Union to take a firmer stance towards these unilateral actions carried out by Washington.

A state of anticipation prevails in the area, as the concerned authorities continue to assess the situation and identify the source of the launch.