Brazilian activist Thiago Avila arrived in São Paulo on Monday, following the Israeli occupation authorities' decision to deport him after a ten-day detention period. Upon his arrival at São Paulo-Guarulhos International Airport, Avila stated that he had been subjected to various forms of abuse and torture, describing what happened to him as a full-fledged kidnapping rather than a legal arrest.

Avila clarified in his statements that the violations were not limited to him alone, but also included his companion, Spanish activist Seif Abu Kishk, as they faced harsh conditions inside Israeli detention centers. The Brazilian activist also conveyed painful testimonies of what he witnessed behind bars, confirming that Palestinian prisoners in adjacent cells are subjected to more brutal and cruel treatment that exceeds all international conventions.

In the context of legal responses, the occupation authorities rejected the accusations made by the human rights center 'Adalah', which undertook the task of defending the activists before Israeli courts. Israeli sources claimed that all measures taken against international solidarity activists were in accordance with the law, which was denied by the Brazilian and Spanish governments, who considered the detention an illegal and blatant transgression.

Avila and Abu Kishk had participated in the second 'Global Freedom Flotilla', which set sail from the Spanish coast on April 12th. The flotilla aims to try to break the unjust naval blockade imposed on the Gaza Strip for years, and to deliver urgent humanitarian and relief aid to the besieged population suffering from severe living crises.

Sources reported that Israeli naval forces intercepted the flotilla at sea and prevented it from proceeding towards its destination, where Avila and Abu Kishk were arrested and transferred to the occupied territories. At the same time, the occupation authorities diverted the course of more than a hundred other international activists who were on board the ships, forcibly deporting them to the Greek island of Crete.

Both activists faced serious security charges brought against them by the Israeli prosecution, including 'aiding the enemy' and 'communicating with terrorist organizations', accusations that the activists completely denied before the court. After international and human rights pressure, the authorities decided to release them last Saturday and hand them over to immigration departments in preparation for their expulsion from the country.

A crowd of solidarity activists and campaigners welcomed Avila at the airport, raising banners demanding that the Brazilian government cut diplomatic ties with Israel in response to its crimes. For his part, Avila called on the international community to work seriously to defeat those he described as 'war criminals', specifically mentioning Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and the policies supporting him.

Israel kidnapped me, and I was not a prisoner. My return today is merely a correction of a serious legal and humanitarian violation.

A human rights report issued by the Israeli organization "Bimkom" revealed a dangerous escalation in the discriminatory planning policies pursued by the occupation authorities against Palestinian residents in the occupied city of Jerusalem. The report clarified that the year 2025 witnessed a huge gap in the approval of housing units, as only 600 Palestinian housing units were approved, compared to the approval of about 9,000 housing units for settlers and Jews in the city.

These shocking figures indicate that the Palestinians' share of approved housing plans did not exceed 7%, a figure that is absolutely inconsistent with their demographic size, as they constitute about 40% of Jerusalem's population. This reality reflects a continuous deterioration in housing rights, as Jerusalemites currently benefit from only 26% of the total existing housing units in both parts of the city.

Compared to the previous year, data shows that 2024 saw the approval of two thousand housing units in Palestinian neighborhoods, meaning that 2025 recorded a sharp decrease of approximately 70% in building rights granted to Palestinians. In contrast, Jewish neighborhoods and settlements in 2024 received approvals covering 15,700 housing units, including thousands of units on lands occupied in 1967.

The human rights organization described this situation as an exacerbated freeze of urban planning allocated to Palestinians in East Jerusalem, coupled with a widespread acceleration of settlement projects. This dual policy aims to stifle the natural growth of Jerusalemites and expand the Jewish presence throughout the city, serving clear political and demographic agendas.

Among the most prominent obstacles set by the occupation authorities is the tightening of procedures related to proving land ownership as a basic condition for approving any building plans or issuing permits. This policy is a fatal blow to the Palestinian population, given that the majority of lands in East Jerusalem are still not officially registered in the land registry known as "Tabu" for decades.

The report links the planning freeze to the resumption of "land settlement" procedures pursued by the Israeli government since 2018, a process aimed at registering land ownership whose procedures have not been completed since 1967. Although this process is marketed as a regulatory measure, field results prove that it is a tool for land confiscation and legitimizing control over it for the benefit of Zionist institutions.

The figures reveal that settlement procedures included about 9,000 dunams, but out of 2,300 dunams whose procedures were completed, only 1% was registered in the name of Palestinian owners. In contrast, about 82% of those lands were registered in the name of the occupation state, the Jerusalem municipality, and other public bodies, while the remaining percentage was allocated to private settlement entities.

Human rights sources confirmed that the majority of lands subject to this settlement are immediately allocated for the establishment of new settlements, with work currently underway to push for eight settlements comprising nearly 20,000 housing units. A large part of these massive projects is planned on lands newly registered in the name of the state after being seized from their original owners through the aforementioned settlement mechanism.

For their part, urban planning experts explained that what is happening in Jerusalem is no longer just administrative discrimination, but a systematic process of "demographic engineering" aimed at reshaping the city's identity. While obstacles are removed for thousands of settlement units behind the Green Line, impossible conditions are placed on Palestinians, preventing them from exercising their basic right to housing on their historical lands.

The occupation government had decided last February to end all procedures for settling and registering Jerusalem lands by 2029, with huge budgets allocated for this purpose. Human rights organizations warned that this step aims to entrench Israeli sovereignty over occupied East Jerusalem and facilitate the uprooting of Palestinian communities that lack official documents consistent with Israeli standards.

Jerusalemites face impossible difficulties in providing official documents, especially since registration operations that began during the Jordanian administration were forcibly stopped after the occupation of the city in 1967. Experts estimate that only 5% to 10% of the lands are officially registered, leaving the vast majority of the population vulnerable to demolition or confiscation under the pretext of unlicensed construction.

The fragmentation of ownership and the distribution of heirs between inside and outside make proving the right to land an almost impossible task before Israeli courts and committees, which the occupation authorities exploit to implement their plans. These policies continue to push Jerusalemites towards forced migration outside the city limits, as part of a silent struggle over land and identity that intensifies day by day.

Planning policies in Jerusalem have become a central tool for the city's demographic and political engineering, aiming to exclude Palestinians and dispossess them of their lands.

The current global transformations towards a new world order compel Arabs to reformulate their national identity and their vision for their strategic interests. The recent military confrontations have produced a set of undeniable facts, foremost among them being that the Palestinian issue remains the primary central issue, no matter how much some try to diminish its importance or prioritize other security concerns over it.

The Palestinian issue derives its weight from being the core of the conflict with the Western colonial project embodied by Israel. Facts confirm that Israeli ambitions do not stop at the borders of Palestine but extend to target the wider Arab region within an expansionist vision that seeks to control the region's resources and sovereignty entirely.

The war has revealed that exclusive reliance on the United States to ensure regional security and stability is a losing bet par excellence. Despite the presence of nineteen American military bases in the Gulf region, they did not provide the necessary protection for their host countries when military tensions escalated in the region.

These military bases often turned into a security burden on the countries that hosted them, as they were a direct cause of targeting their infrastructure. It has become clear that the American decision to wage or engage in wars is issued exclusively in favor of the Israeli agenda, without regard for the interests or positions of allied Arab countries.

Political readings indicate that the foreign military presence aims primarily to protect Israel and undermine the unifying Arab identity. These forces seek to transform the region into warring national or sectarian entities, which facilitates the destabilization of the strategic security of major states in the region.

Regarding military capabilities, Arabs have spent hundreds of billions on armaments without achieving real technological superiority, as international restrictions dictate providing them with outdated generations of weapons. Arabs possess wealth and intellect, but they still lack the political will to develop independent national military industries that free them from dependence on foreign powers.

The Joint Arab Defense Treaty, signed in 1945, remains shelved without real activation on the ground. Despite signs of a theoretical awakening towards establishing a political-military alliance led by Saudi Arabia, American and Israeli pressures remain the biggest obstacle to achieving this national ambition.

Arab decision-makers must realize that successful nations formulate their strategies based on a future vision and an accurate reading of changing power balances. The United States is no longer the only power to bet on, which opens the door to wide options for moving towards other international poles such as Russia, China, and Europe.

Exiting from under the American-Israeli umbrella first requires rebuilding national and pan-Arab identity on solid foundations. This transformation requires courage in decision-making and seeking international alliances that ensure balance and protect supreme Arab interests away from absolute dependence on one pole.

Regarding the relationship with Iran, the fact emerges that geography dictates the necessity of coexistence for both sides, as ancient civilizations located on both sides of the Gulf cannot be displaced. Tehran has affirmed on several occasions that it does not seek hostility with its Arab neighbors, and that tensions are often linked to the presence of foreign bases that provoke regional security.

Internal Arab conflicts, as seen in Sudan, Libya, and Yemen, have contributed to weakening the overall national position and allowed external interventions. Instead of directing efforts towards building a joint deterrent force, these conflicts have drained Arab resources and led to sharp divisions that served projects hostile to the region.

The long Palestinian experience, leading up to the events of 2023, has proven that the will to resist is the decisive factor in any conflict. Despite the imbalance of military power, adherence to rights and insistence on confrontation imposes a new reality that traditional war machinery cannot easily resolve.

Arabs today need to move from the stage of condemnation and denunciation statements to the stage of organized strategic action. The cry of 'we are alone' that Palestinians have long echoed is now reverberating in other Arab capitals, necessitating unity of destiny and purpose to confront common existential challenges.

In conclusion, the ongoing war remains a harsh school for learning political and military lessons, where there is no place for the weak in a world order shaped by power. Restoring the initiative requires self-reliance, activating joint Arab action, and understanding that the security of Jerusalem is an integral part of the security of Riyadh, Cairo, and Baghdad.

The ongoing war has proven that the American military presence in the region exists only to protect Israel, not to protect Arab sovereignty.

The Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO) in the United Kingdom has issued a ruling affirming the legitimacy of British newspapers using the term 'genocide' when referring to Israeli military operations in the Gaza Strip. This decision came after a thorough review of professional standards, with the organization asserting that this description falls within the scope of freedom of expression and journalistic editorial discretion available to media institutions in the country.

IPSO officially rejected a complaint filed by a reader against 'The National' newspaper, which had used the term in a headline for a report published last October. The report at the time covered a visit by a delegation of 27 British MPs to Israel, describing the timing as coinciding with what it called the 'genocide of Gaza,' which sparked widespread controversy in political and media circles.

For their part, Jewish organizations and groups expressed strong protest against this trend, considering that labeling it as genocide lacks legal accuracy and represents an insult to the victims of the historical Holocaust. These groups clarified in protest memos that the repetition of such descriptions contributes to the escalation of antisemitic sentiments and creates a hostile environment against Jewish communities in Britain and abroad.

In the context of angry reactions, media sources quoted a spokesperson for the Campaign Against Antisemitism describing IPSO's decision as 'ridiculous' and ignoring objective facts. The spokesperson criticized IPSO's focus on procedural aspects without considering the seriousness of making grave accusations such as genocide without relying on rulings issued by independent and competent international judicial bodies.

This decision opens the door for new legal and ethical discussions about the limits of political terminology in the Western press, especially given the ongoing conflict in the Palestinian territories. Observers believe that IPSO's ruling may encourage more media outlets to adopt harsher language in criticizing Israeli policies, despite continuous pressure from pro-Israel lobby groups.

Do people still not realize that the repeated assertion that the Jewish state has committed genocide contributes to creating an atmosphere of hostility towards the Jewish people?

American writer Nicholas Kristof shed light on widespread sexual violence and rape practices against Palestinians in Israeli occupation prisons. In a lengthy report based on field interviews in the West Bank, Kristof affirmed that these violations are committed by prison guards, soldiers, and interrogators, calling for the necessity of unequivocally condemning these practices by all international parties.

In his documentation, the writer relied on live testimonies from 14 Palestinian men and women, who spoke bitterly about being subjected to severe sexual assaults during periods of detention and interrogation. Kristof did not stop at these testimonies but reinforced his report with interviews with lawyers, aid workers, and international investigators to verify the accuracy of the accounts given by the victims about what happens behind bars.

Among the most painful testimonies cited in the article was the account of Palestinian journalist Sami Al-Sa'i, who was arrested in 2024. Al-Sa'i described how he was stripped naked, severely beaten, and assaulted with various tools amidst the mockery of the guards, emphasizing that the goal of these practices was to psychologically break him to pressure him into working as an informant for Israeli intelligence.

Kristof pointed out that despite the absence of evidence of direct orders for rape from the high command, Israeli authorities are responsible for creating an environment of 'inhumanity.' The writer believes that the prevailing policy of impunity gives a green light to security personnel to commit these crimes without fear of legal prosecution or judicial accountability.

Regarding the American role, the writer directed sharp criticism at Washington, considering that American taxpayers' money directly contributes to supporting the Israeli security establishment. He clarified that the United States becomes a partner in this violence if it does not link its military aid to stopping sexual violations and ensuring regular access for the Red Cross to Palestinian detainees.

The report cited UN data issued in 2025, which described sexual violence as having become part of 'routine procedures' in Israel's dealings with Palestinians. It also drew attention to reports from the Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor, which concluded that systematic sexual violence has become a widespread practice within the Israeli detention system and is not limited to individual cases.

Detainees in their testimonies spoke of recurring patterns of violations, including forced naked searches, deliberate beating of genitals, and constant threats of rape. A number of released detainees confirmed that they received direct threats from Israeli authorities to prevent them from speaking to the media or human rights organizations about the sexual humiliations they faced inside the cells.

Regarding child protection, the writer quoted 'Save the Children' organization's shocking survey results, which showed that more than half of Palestinian children detained by Israel witnessed or were subjected to sexual violence. These figures reflect the scale of the humanitarian catastrophe affecting minors inside Israeli detention centers, which lack the minimum international protection standards.

The Committee to Protect Journalists also revealed statistics indicating that about 29% of released Palestinian journalists were subjected to various forms of sexual violence. Some of these journalists reported actual rape, indicating the use of these vile means as a tool to intimidate media personnel and prevent them from performing their professional duty of conveying the truth.

The statistics in the article indicate that Israel has detained more than 20,000 Palestinians in the West Bank since the events of October 7, 2023. About 9,000 detainees are still in prisons to date, most of them held under 'administrative detention' without clear charges, and deprived of visits from lawyers or representatives of the International Red Cross.

In the context of the absence of justice, Kristof quoted lawyer Sari Bashi as saying that hundreds of complaints submitted by her organization did not result in any actual trials for the soldiers involved. The article recalled an incident in 2024 when charges were dropped against reserve soldiers who sexually assaulted a Palestinian detainee until he was seriously injured, amidst desperate defense from right-wing politicians for these soldiers.

Violations were not limited to prisons but extended to include settler attacks in the West Bank, who use the threat of rape as a means to displace Palestinians from their lands. A report by the 'West Bank Protection Coalition' confirmed that this pattern of sexual violence practiced by settlers primarily aims to force Palestinian families into forced displacement and expand settlements.

Israeli authorities have created an environment of inhumanity and impunity, allowing such violations to occur without accountability.

Groups of settlers carried out a robbery operation today, Sunday, targeting livestock in the village of Kafr Malik, located east of Ramallah city. Local sources reported that the attackers seized about 80 sheep belonging to a Palestinian farmer in the area, amidst the escalating pace of systematic attacks targeting the livelihoods of Palestinians in the occupied rural areas.

Eyewitnesses stated that the settlers stormed the farm suddenly and brandished weapons at its owners, enabling them to forcibly lead the flock towards one of the settlement outposts established on the village's lands. This incident reflects the extent of the dangers faced by livestock breeders in the West Bank, as their properties have become a direct target for organized looting operations that take place under the eyes of the occupation forces.

Field observers believe that these thefts are not just random incidents, but rather part of a broader strategy aimed at pressuring the indigenous population to force them to leave their pastoral lands. These practices seek to empty areas classified as 'C' of Palestinian presence, in preparation for expanding the settlement area and gaining full control over natural resources and pastures in the Ramallah countryside.

Hundreds of Palestinian families who depend on livestock farming face existential livelihood threats as a result of these repeated attacks, which also include burning agricultural crops and cutting down ancient olive trees. These attacks often occur with direct protection from the occupation army, which provides cover for the settlers and prevents citizens from defending their property or recovering what was stolen from them by force of arms.

Amidst this escalation, residents of villages east of Ramallah renewed their demands for urgent international protection for farmers and citizens in areas threatened by settlement. Residents stressed that the failure of the occupation authorities to curb settler attacks contributes to deepening human and economic suffering, and opens the door to further violations affecting all aspects of life in the occupied West Bank.

Settlers stormed the farm and seized the livestock at gunpoint before retreating to a settlement outpost.

The Israeli occupation state currently adopts an excessive security doctrine, which over time has transformed into a permanent functional structure that necessitates the continuous existence of a 'necessary enemy.' This strategic quagmire in which Israel is sinking is not merely a fleeting situation, but a deep manifestation of the settler mentality crisis that conflates actual existence with geographical expansion.

The multiple fronts extending from the Gaza Strip to Tehran demonstrate a comprehensive depletion of the geopolitical, military, and symbolic resources of the occupation. The failure of the cumulative deterrence doctrine turns every operational arena into a spatial and temporal trap, offering no sustainable victory or long-term political investment.

The chasm between mobilizing political discourse and the reality on the ground now represents an existential shift towards a complete collision with geographical facts. The slogan of 'absolute victory' raised by the Israeli leadership in Gaza has become merely a linguistic ritual devoid of content, concealing an inability to translate military might into political achievements.

On the northern front, promises to crush Hezbollah clashed with the geography of entrenched resistance, turning the region into a scene of reverse demographic displacement for settlers. This field failure reflects the army's inability to protect its strategic depth against unconventional threats that exceed the capacity of aerial bombardment.

Iran represents the major knot in the Israeli mind, where decision-makers imagine the possibility of liquidating a geopolitical entity comprising eighty-eight million people through military force. This perception ignores the complex demographic and political reality, and plunges Israel into a fantasy of uprooting that cannot be achieved on the ground.

The geoeconomic cost of these open wars is increasing, causing erosion in the infrastructure of historical Western alliances with the occupation state. Furthermore, the rise in energy prices resulting from regional instability has begun to hit the economies of allies, generating structural discontent within the halls of the US Congress.

Israeli political capital erodes with every new airstrike, accelerating the pace of complete international isolation that has begun to loom. The current leadership embodies a personification of the Zionist project's crisis, where the prime minister reduces political being to media appearances and narrow personal gains.

In this context, the concept of 'investing in calculated loss' emerges as an entry point for redefining victory away from destructive instinct. History confirms that addiction to direct power generates strategic blindness that hastens self-fall, just as happened in the experiences of previous empires that exceeded their capacity limits.

The current situation can be likened to sumo wrestlers, where a temporary withdrawal becomes a means to destabilize the opponent rigid in their positions. Tactical withdrawal in military science is not surrender, but a process of rationalizing the conflict that allows pressure to be transformed into a collapse in the enemy's offensive structure.

Historical memory recalls Menachem Begin's model when he returned Sinai to Egypt according to the Camp David Accords, despite being accused at the time of humiliating concession. Subsequent decades proved that withdrawal was the most profound step in securing the southern front and disengaging between biblical myth and national interest.

The current geopolitical stalemate and adherence to every inch of land as an identity doctrine transforms inflexibility into a self-destructive tool for Israeli society. This hybrid alliance between religious fundamentalism and media populism paralyzes the ability to produce any rational regressive option that protects the entity from a major collision.

In the confrontation with Tehran, a distinction must be made between the actual nuclear threat and the illusion of being able to change the Iranian regime by brute force. Simplistic discourse conflates the necessity of containment through diplomatic tools with daydreams that call for the uprooting of regional powers entrenched in geography and history.

Any future regional system will force parties to coexist with complex actors instead of attempting their failed liquidation, as happened between the major European powers. The principle of comprehensive containment is the procedural model that can spare the region mutual wars of annihilation in which there are no victors.

Recognizing that the 'real enemy' sometimes resides within closed decision-making rooms is the first step out of the dilemma of permanent attrition. The small step backward is what pulls the rug out from under the instigators, and redefines power as the ability to freeze and wisely manage conflict.

The slogan of absolute victory in Gaza has turned into a hollow linguistic ritual that conceals a structural inability to translate military power into political gain.

The pace of Israeli violations of the ceasefire agreement in the Gaza Strip has escalated since dawn on Monday, with scattered attacks resulting in the martyrdom of four Palestinians and the injury of eight others with varying degrees of wounds. Medical sources reported that the bodies of the martyrs arrived at Deir al-Balah and Khan Yunis hospitals, noting that among the injured were a woman and a child who were hit in targeting operations that affected populated areas.

In field details, a Palestinian citizen was martyred by the bullets of the occupation forces stationed on Salah al-Din Street in the southeastern part of Gaza City. An Israeli drone also targeted another citizen while he was collecting firewood and plastic materials near Bani Suhaila roundabout, east of Khan Yunis city, leading to his immediate death.

Beit Lahia town in the northern Strip witnessed intense artillery shelling targeting the vicinity of the Nabi Yusuf Mosque in the Tal al-Dahab area, which resulted in six citizens being injured with various wounds. The injured, including a woman and her child, were transferred to Al-Shifa Hospital in Gaza City for treatment, amid difficult health conditions suffered by the Strip due to the ongoing siege.

In the center of Gaza City, a young man was injured by bullets fired by Israeli cranes stationed in the eastern area known as the 'Yellow Line' while he was passing near Al-Samir intersection. This coincided with indiscriminate firing by the occupation army targeting passersby and residential areas near the contact lines where the army had recently redeployed.

A violent explosion shook Gaza City at dawn today, which was later revealed to be caused by a massive demolition operation carried out by the occupation army of residential buildings in the eastern part of the city. The demolition operation was accompanied by intense artillery shelling and gunfire from military vehicles, causing a state of panic among citizens who are trying to return to check on their homes in those areas.

The coast of Khan Yunis city was not spared from the attacks, as Israeli warships fired their shells and heavy machine guns towards the beaches and western areas of the city. This naval shelling coincided with ground movements of military vehicles that fired heavily towards the eastern and central neighborhoods, hindering the movement of citizens in those areas.

The Palestinian Ministry of Health revealed a heavy toll of Israeli violations since the ceasefire agreement came into effect, with the number of martyrs reaching about 854 Palestinians. Medical teams also recorded 2,453 others injured with various wounds, as a result of shelling and direct firing operations that did not stop in various governorates of the Gaza Strip.

Local sources reported that the occupation army is pursuing a strategy of field expansion along what is called the 'Yellow Line,' which leads to the swallowing up of more Palestinian lands. These military measures aim to impose a new geographical reality that shrinks the spaces available to the population, forcing more than two million Palestinians to crowd into very narrow areas in the western part of the Strip.

The areas from which the occupation withdraws suffer from continuous tightening, as Israeli forces prevent citizens from exploiting agricultural lands or accessing vital facilities. This internal siege leads to a sharp decline in the ability to live and provide basic needs, exacerbating the suffering of displaced people who lost their property during the war.

On the humanitarian front, the occupation continues to violate the terms of the agreement by keeping the Rafah crossing completely closed to the movement of travelers and goods. This deliberate closure complicates travel procedures for tens of thousands of wounded and sick people who need urgent medical interventions outside the Strip, and turns the crossing into a tool for political pressure and control over the fate of the population.

The occupation authorities strictly control the quantities and types of humanitarian aid entering Gaza, with a noticeable preference for the entry of commercial goods at the expense of essential relief materials. This approach aims to keep the Strip in a state of permanent deprivation, and prevents any real improvement in the deteriorating living reality left by long months of aggression.

Field reports concluded that Israel continues its aggression against the Gaza Strip through various methods, combining direct killing with economic and geographical strangulation. Despite the existence of an announced agreement, the reality on the ground indicates the continuation of military operations targeting civilians and preventing the stabilization of humanitarian conditions in all areas of the Strip.

The occupation continues to prevent any real improvement in the humanitarian situation in the Gaza Strip, in parallel with the continuation of its aggression in different forms.

Groups of settlers, today, Monday, established a new settlement outpost on private Palestinian lands belonging to the town of Rammun, east of Ramallah. Human rights sources clarified that the settlers stormed the 'Jisr al-Khalla' area and began erecting tents and mobile homes, in a step aimed at imposing a new geographical reality in the area.

The 'Al-Baydar' organization for the defense of Bedouin rights warned of the repercussions of this outpost, stressing that it represents a starting point for carrying out attacks against neighboring Palestinian villages. The organization indicated that the strategic goal of these movements is the forced displacement of local residents and the expansion of Israeli control over citizens' lands.

In the context of the field escalation, the northern Hebron area witnessed a new assault that resulted in three Palestinians sustaining various injuries after being beaten by settlers near the town of Halhul. Palestinian Red Crescent crews provided first aid to the injured at the scene before transferring them to hospitals for necessary treatment.

On the international political front, EU foreign ministers in Brussels announced an official agreement to impose sanctions on Israeli settlement organizations and leaders. This step comes in response to the escalating violence and intimidation carried out by settlers against Palestinian civilians in various governorates of the occupied West Bank.

EU foreign policy chief, Kaja Kallas, affirmed that the time has come to move from condemnation to actual implementation to confront extremism. Diplomatic sources clarified that the sanctions include asset freezes and travel bans for three settlers and four settlement organizations, in addition to listing Hamas leaders.

The change in the Hungarian position, following recent political shifts in Budapest, paved the way for the European Union to overcome the paralysis that lasted for months due to the 'veto'. This decision is a qualitative shift in Brussels' handling of the violent settlement issue, which has directly threatened regional stability.

For his part, the commander of the Central Command in the occupation army warned of the danger of settler practices, describing them as 'terrorist and immoral'. The military official indicated that these attacks are pushing the region towards the brink of disaster, reflecting the growing tension between the military and political levels in Israel.

In Israeli reactions, ministers in Benjamin Netanyahu's government strongly attacked the European decision, with National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir describing the European Union as 'anti-Semitic'. Ben-Gvir vowed to continue supporting settlement expansion in all areas, considering international sanctions an attempt to undermine the Zionist project.

Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Sa'ar also considered the sanctions to have been taken arbitrarily and politically and to lack any solid legal basis. Sa'ar claimed that targeting Israeli citizens and entities comes against the backdrop of their political views, in an attempt to delegitimize the settlement presence in the West Bank and Jerusalem.

Official statistics indicate that the West Bank is in a state of turmoil, with more than 1,600 attacks documented in April alone. With approximately 780,000 settlers in 192 settlements, Palestinian suffering continues, having left more than 1,155 martyrs and thousands injured and detained since October 2023.

The actions of some settlers put the region one step away from disaster, and these are immoral practices.

The Israeli political arena has witnessed a new escalatory move, as 22 Israeli officials signed an official letter demanding that the police allow settlers to storm the blessed Al-Aqsa Mosque next Friday. This step comes amid pressure from alleged Temple groups to change the status quo in the mosque, especially on days when incursions are usually prohibited.

Sources revealed that the letter, published by the far-right organization 'By Our Hands', included the signatures of 9 ministers and 13 Knesset members, reflecting a broader governmental trend towards escalation in occupied Jerusalem. These demands aim to exploit what is called 'Jerusalem Day' according to the Hebrew calendar, which this year falls on Friday, May 15th.

This timing carries dangerous symbolic and political connotations, as the proposed day of incursion coincides with the Palestinians' commemoration of the 1948 Nakba anniversary. This move represents an attempt to impose a new reality within the courtyards of Al-Aqsa Mosque on a day that holds special sanctity for Muslims and when the number of worshippers doubles.

Since 2003, the Israeli police have followed a protocol that prohibits settler incursions into Al-Aqsa Mosque on Fridays and Saturdays of every week. However, the current pressures from Likud and Religious Zionism ministers seek to break this historical rule and expand the scope of violations to include all days of the week without exception.

Benjamin Netanyahu's 'Likud' party topped the list of signatories to the petition, with sovereign ministers such as Defense Minister Yoav Gallant and Justice Minister Yariv Levin participating. They were joined by ministers of health, energy, communications, sports, and innovation, as well as MKs from the extremist Religious Zionism party.

Observers believe that the involvement of Likud ministers with such weight reflects Netanyahu's desire to undermine National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir. It appears that the Prime Minister seeks to assert his control over the Jerusalem file and not leave the arena to Ben-Gvir alone to showcase his gains to the far-right bases.

Previous reports indicated that the number of ministers demanding the incursion was limited to only three last week, but the sudden jump to nine ministers puts the police under immense political pressure. The Israeli police have not yet issued a final decision regarding responding to these demands, which could ignite the situation on the ground.

Settler incursions are usually accompanied by provocative practices, including performing Talmudic rituals, silent prayers, and raising Israeli flags inside the Haram al-Sharif. These violations occur under strict protection from occupation forces, which impose severe restrictions on the entry of Palestinian worshippers and assault them.

Researchers in Jerusalem affairs warned that this escalation represents a real and unprecedented danger to the identity of the blessed Al-Aqsa Mosque. Research sources confirmed that the occupation is effectively moving towards imposing incursions on Fridays, which is considered a crossing of all red lines that have been maintained for decades.

For their part, Palestinian activities continue to warn of the consequences of these steps, which fall within plans to Judaize Jerusalem and erase its Arab and Islamic features. Palestinians adhere to East Jerusalem as the capital of their independent state, rejecting all annexation and occupation measures not recognized by the international community.

These developments come at a time when occupation leaders face international prosecutions, with Netanyahu remaining wanted by the International Criminal Court on charges of committing war crimes. Al-Aqsa Mosque remains the primary focal point of the conflict, as the occupation attempts to exploit current circumstances to impose absolute and false sovereignty over Islamic holy sites.

The occupation is moving towards imposing settler incursions on Friday for the first time since the occupation of Al-Aqsa Mosque, which is a real and existing danger.

Political systems, throughout their various stages of formation, undergo fundamental changes affecting their goals and means. These transformations fluctuate between positive and negative based on internal and external factors. The strength of the system and its cohesion play a crucial role in determining its ability to withstand changes, especially regarding its flexibility and commitment to periodic review of its basic principles.

Popular support and the leadership's belief in the philosophy upon which the system was founded represent the true safety valve against erosion. From the perspective of political sociology, states and movements are social institutions managed by humans, making them susceptible to the natural human shortcomings and weaknesses that can lead to deviation if oversight is absent.

Khaldunian thought long ago attested that states experience human stages of strength and weakness, leading to inevitable demise. Ibn Khaldun believed that the collapse of nations is not a sudden event, but rather the result of continuous internal accumulations that ultimately lead to the complete downfall of the political and social structure.

Factors such as luxury and corruption emerge as the most prominent threats to the stability of states, as they weaken 'asabiyyah' or social cohesion. Injustice, tyranny, and the corruption of the economic system accelerate the pace of political decay, making the system fragile in the face of any external challenges or internal tremors.

The attitudes of political leaders towards negativities and corruption vary, just as people differ in their handling of chronic diseases. The first attitude is characterized by denial and stubbornness, where leaders refuse to acknowledge the existence of a defect despite clear indicators, ultimately leading to the system's demise and disintegration.

The second attitude is early vigilance, where the system senses the beginnings of a defect and quickly takes decisive remedial actions. This approach requires changing political habits and administrative inputs to ensure the reduction of losses and the preservation of the continuity of national institutions with the least possible damage.

In the third attitude, laxity appears as a fundamental characteristic, where the leadership postpones confronting corruption, believing that time will resolve the crises. However, this postponement often leads to the infiltration of corruption into the joints of the state, making the reform process later almost impossible due to the 'disease' taking hold of the system's body.

Applying this vision to the Palestinian political system, we find a great similarity with many Arab systems that have been weakened. Corruption has seeped into the political arteries as a result of rejecting the idea of self-criticism, and leaders believed they were immune to collapse until the winds of change and upheaval struck them.

Stubbornness and obstinacy in claiming immunity did not prevent the demise of some systems and the loss of their rule in the region, while other systems tried to catch up too late. In the Palestinian case, it seems that the need has become urgent for comprehensive and deep examinations of the structure of the political system to ensure its survival and effectiveness.

Observers believe that the only cure for the ailments of the Palestinian political system begins with a frank acknowledgment of the existence of the defect by the current leadership. This acknowledgment is the first and necessary step to open the door to real reform paths that go beyond traditional slogans to tangible action on the ground.

The next stage requires injecting new and young blood into the arteries of Palestinian political action, away from the faces and tools that have been consumed over the past decades. The youth generation has the ability to offer innovative ideas and a new spirit that is compatible with the challenges of the era and the complexities of the current Palestinian issue.

It is not possible to continue playing the same old tunes that no longer please anyone; instead, modern working tools characterized by transparency and accountability must be adopted. The desired change is not merely a change of personnel, but a comprehensive change in the political mindset and the way public affairs and national institutions are managed.

These calls for reform represent the 'weakest faith' in light of the pressing circumstances facing the Palestinian issue internally and externally. Without a real and serious review, the system will continue to revolve in a vicious cycle of crises that weaken the overall Palestinian position in the face of the occupation and the international community.

The question remains for decision-makers and those in authority: Will these warning cries find an echo in minds before it is too late? History does not forgive systems that ignore the laws of change, and the Palestinian reality today requires exceptional courage to move towards a more stable and democratic future.

The demise of nations does not come suddenly but is a natural result of internal factors that accumulate over time, and the solution begins with acknowledging the disease and injecting new blood.

The Israeli Knesset is preparing for final approval, this evening, of a controversial bill aimed at establishing a special military court to try elite fighters of the Al-Qassam Brigades. This legislative move aims to create an exceptional legal framework that allows for the imposition of the death penalty on Palestinian prisoners who participated in the events of October 7.

This project had passed through legislative stages, beginning with a vote on the first reading in mid-January, with broad support from the ruling coalition and segments of the opposition. This trend is led by MKs Simcha Rothman and Yulia Malinovsky, as part of a series of retaliatory laws that followed the Al-Aqsa Flood operation.

According to media sources, the new court will be based in occupied Jerusalem and will specialize in cases related to those Tel Aviv describes as 'terrorist fighters'. The occupation authorities claim to have detained hundreds of elite members without trial since the outbreak of confrontations in the Gaza envelope and subsequent ground operations.

Israeli Justice Minister Yariv Levin stated that these trials would represent what he described as 'historical justice', emphasizing the need for efficient and swift proceedings. Levin indicated that the law grants the judicial body full authority to issue and execute death sentences immediately upon their approval, a legal precedent within the Israeli system.

The court's powers include reviewing indictments based on anti-terrorism and genocide prevention laws, in addition to crimes directed against state sovereignty. Potential death sentences are not limited to murder charges but extend to include other accusations such as rape and crimes committed against Israeli prisoners.

Judicial bodies in this court consist of three judges, one of whom must be a president of a military court or a district court judge of a high rank. This formation aims to give a formal legal character to trials that human rights activists describe as lacking fair trial guarantees.

According to the proposed law, charges will be brought against prisoners for actions that occurred between October 7 and 10, 2023. Israel classifies these actions as crimes against humanity and war crimes, in addition to classifying them as crimes specifically directed against the Jewish people.

Regarding legal defense, the law allows defendants to appoint lawyers licensed in Israel or the West Bank, but it places restrictions on appointing lawyers from the Public Defender's Office. The Israeli government seeks to charge the Palestinian Authority for the costs of these trials by deducting amounts from clearance funds.

Most hearings are scheduled to be conducted via video conferencing from inside prisons, to reduce prisoner movement and ensure security control. However, the law requires defendants to personally attend five main sessions, including responding to the indictment and the final verdict.

These trials will be public and fully recorded, with opening sessions and closing arguments broadcast via a dedicated website for the public. The occupation aims through this step to document its narrative of events and preserve it in the official archive as part of the international media and legal battle.

The law allows families of killed Israelis and affected settlers to attend sessions or monitor them from separate rooms within the court building. A special unit affiliated with the military prosecutor will also be responsible for overseeing what is called 'victims' rights' during judicial deliberations.

In the event of a death sentence, the project stipulates an automatic appeal mechanism before a higher judicial body comprising retired judges and judicial officials. This mechanism is an attempt to beautify the court's image before the international community and claim the existence of levels of litigation despite the exceptional nature of the court.

Political circles in Tel Aviv confirm that this court differs from the bills previously proposed by Itamar Ben-Gvir, although it converges with them in objectives. While Ben-Gvir's law was general, this court has a military character exclusively dedicated to dealing with Hamas prisoners.

Observers believe that the approval of this law represents a dangerous escalation in dealing with Palestinian prisoners and violates international conventions related to prisoners of war. These moves come amid harsh conditions experienced by prisoners inside prisons, coinciding with extremist right-wing calls for their physical liquidation through official laws.

This law is not only about justice, but about historical justice, and we seek to begin trials as soon as possible.

The humanitarian tragedy in the Gaza Strip is escalating to affect the dead after the living, as the families of martyrs face extreme difficulties in securing dignified graves for their loved ones. Local sources reported that the cost of a single grave in Gaza City's cemeteries has soared to record levels, ranging between 1200 and 1400 shekels, equivalent to about 500 US dollars, an amount beyond the means of the vast majority of besieged citizens.

Sheikh Hamdi, one of those responsible for burials in Sheikh Radwan cemetery, confirmed that the spaces allocated for burial have been completely exhausted, and there is no room left, not even for an additional half meter. He explained that the intense pressure on Sheikh Radwan and Baptist cemeteries has forced families to reopen old graves to bury more than one body in a single tomb, in an attempt to cope with the increasing number of daily victims.

Given the impossibility of accessing public cemeteries or affording their costs, hundreds of grieving families have been forced to convert their home courtyards and private gardens into makeshift burial sites for their children and grandchildren. This step came as a last resort to preserve the dignity of the martyrs and bury them close to their homes, away from the dangers of roads and continuous shelling that prevents access to official cemeteries.

grave construction suffers from a complete lack of basic building materials such as cement and stones due to the tight siege imposed by the occupation. Residents are forced to collect rubble from homes destroyed by aircraft and use mud and primitive methods to build tombs, making these graves fragile and insufficiently protected from external and environmental factors.

Painful testimonies from citizens revealed that some primitive graves, no more than half a meter deep, were exhumed by stray dogs. The shallow burial using corrugated iron sheets (zinc) allowed animals to access and remove bodies, a scene that embodies the cruelty of a war that did not spare the sanctity of the dead in the afflicted Strip.

In addition to the natural crisis, field sources documented the deliberate bulldozing of entire cemeteries by Israeli occupation mechanisms, as happened in 'Al-Batsh' cemetery east of Gaza. This systematic destruction led to the loss of grave markers and the mixing of remains, depriving families of their right to visit the shrines of their children or identify their burial places after the withdrawal of forces.

This suffering comes at a time when the occupation controls about 59% of the Gaza Strip's area, with the ongoing war of annihilation that has left more than 72,000 martyrs and 172,000 injured. Palestinians in Gaza remain hunted by the killing machine while alive, and deprived of stability in their graves after death, amidst comprehensive destruction of infrastructure and services throughout the Strip.

Families can no longer find even half a meter inside cemeteries to bury their loved ones, and graves are being opened multiple times to bury more than one martyr in a single tomb.

By: Said Arikat

May 12, 2026

News Analysis

Washington, D.C- On Thursday, May 14, the Lebanese and Israeli ambassadors to Washington are scheduled to meet for a third round of US-sponsored talks aimed at reducing tensions along the Lebanese-Israeli frontier. So far, the previous meetings have been largely ceremonial, producing little beyond cautious statements about de-escalation and continued dialogue. Yet even if these encounters remain symbolic for now, the political trajectory they represent carries profound risks for Lebanon.

Lebanon’s possible entry into direct negotiations with Israel would not simply mark a diplomatic adjustment. It would represent a strategic transformation capable of reshaping the nature of the conflict itself. The central issue is not whether talks can temporarily calm the border or prevent another war. The deeper danger lies in the imbalance of power between the two sides and in Israel’s long history of using negotiations to consolidate regional advantage rather than pursue equitable peace.

Israel enters any negotiations backed fully by the military, economic, and diplomatic power of the United States. Lebanon, by contrast, approaches the table weakened by economic collapse, political paralysis, and severe institutional fragility. Under such conditions, negotiations rarely become exercises in mutual compromise. More often, they evolve into mechanisms through which the stronger side gradually imposes its priorities on the weaker one.

This pattern has defined much of the region’s diplomatic history. Agreements presented internationally as frameworks for “stability” and “security” have frequently normalized Israeli power while leaving the core questions of sovereignty, occupation, and rights unresolved. Lebanon risks entering precisely such a process.

Supporters of direct talks argue that Lebanon desperately needs stability after years of financial devastation, social despair, and repeated military confrontation. Many Lebanese understandably seek any path that could spare the country another catastrophic war. But stability built on structural imbalance is inherently fragile. Negotiations conducted under economic desperation and external pressure rarely produce fair outcomes. Instead, they tend to institutionalize weakness while deepening dependency.

Lebanese skepticism toward direct talks is rooted not in abstraction, but in lived experience. During the recent war, Israel forcibly displaced more than 800,000 Lebanese civilians from towns and villages across the south. Entire residential neighborhoods, farms, shops, and businesses were systematically destroyed, leaving large areas resembling the devastation seen in Gaza. Streets were flattened, infrastructure shattered, and entire communities uprooted. For many Lebanese, entering direct negotiations after such destruction appears less like diplomacy than an attempt to normalize relations through coercion and exhaustion.

At the same time, direct negotiations would hand Israel an important political victory at a moment of growing international scrutiny over its conduct toward Palestinians. Israel faces mounting accusations of collective punishment, war crimes, and systematic violations of international law. Bringing another Arab state into direct political engagement serves a broader Israeli objective: reducing its regional isolation and reframing itself as a normal actor despite continuing conflict and occupation.

This is why even supposedly “technical” or “security-related” talks cannot be separated from their wider political implications. Border discussions evolve into security coordination; security coordination gradually becomes normalization; normalization eventually reshapes public consciousness until the original nature of the conflict itself is obscured. What begins as limited engagement can slowly evolve into long-term political accommodation.

For Lebanon, the danger extends beyond foreign policy. Direct negotiations with Israel could reopen dangerous internal fractures inside a country still shaped by sectarian distrust, unresolved memories of civil war, and competing regional loyalties. Any Lebanese leadership perceived as moving toward normalization would likely face fierce opposition from political and social forces that continue to view Israel as an occupying and expansionist power responsible for repeated destruction inside Lebanon.

In such a volatile environment, negotiations could quickly become a catalyst for domestic instability. Political disagreements over relations with Israel have historically carried existential implications in Lebanon. External pressure aimed at altering Lebanon’s strategic posture — especially regarding Hezbollah and resistance politics — could deepen sectarian polarization and destabilize the fragile balance that has prevented large-scale internal conflict in recent years.

Israel’s own strategic perspective reinforces these concerns. Israeli policy has long viewed Lebanon primarily through a security lens, focusing less on Lebanese sovereignty than on how Lebanon can be managed, pressured, or reshaped to fit Israeli security priorities. Any direct negotiations would therefore be unlikely to remain confined to border disputes alone.

Over time, talks could expand into demands concerning Hezbollah’s weapons, internal Lebanese political arrangements, security mechanisms, and broader regional alignments tied to American and Israeli interests. Under the language of “de-escalation,” Lebanon could gradually find itself pressured into concessions far beyond its original negotiating mandate.

The role of the United States further complicates matters. Washington presents itself as a mediator, yet it remains Israel’s closest strategic ally, providing military aid, diplomatic protection, and political backing across international institutions. This imbalance shapes outcomes. US-sponsored negotiations have repeatedly pressured weaker Arab actors toward “pragmatic compromises,” while Israeli demands are framed as legitimate security concerns.

In the end, the greatest danger of direct negotiations lies not only in what Lebanon may concede formally at the table, but in the political trajectory such talks could unleash inside Lebanon itself. In a country still haunted by the legacy of civil war, forcing a divisive realignment around Israel may not produce stability at all. It may instead deepen internal fractures and push Lebanon toward another dangerous era of rupture.

US President Donald Trump issued strong statements against the Iranian leadership, considering the current ceasefire to be extremely fragile and unreliable. Trump explained during a meeting with media representatives at the White House that the proposals recently submitted by Tehran lack seriousness, describing them as 'stupid' and completely rejected by the American administration.

The White House chief accused the Iranian side of evasiveness in the ongoing negotiations, noting that Tehran has a history of agreeing to specific terms only to backtrack later. Trump revealed that the Iranians had reneged on previous promises regarding the delivery of enriched uranium, which he considered evidence of the other party's lack of credibility in reaching a sustainable settlement.

In a related context, the US President revealed intentions to reactivate what is known as 'Project Freedom', to be a key pillar within a broader strategic process aimed at dealing with the Iranian file. Trump affirmed in a separate television interview that this move comes within the framework of continuous pressure to ensure the achievement of American goals and the protection of vital interests in the region.

Despite the escalating tone, Trump expressed his conviction that the hardline leaders in Tehran will eventually find themselves forced to submit under the weight of pressure. He stressed his determination to continue dealing with the Iranian file strictly until a comprehensive agreement is reached that ensures the complete and final cessation of nuclear threats.

The US President also revealed technical details related to an Iranian request to recover 'nuclear dust' from facilities that were previously destroyed, justifying this by Tehran's lack of necessary technologies to deal with these materials. These developments come at a time when relations between Washington and Tehran are witnessing escalating tension, casting a shadow over the stability of the Middle East.

The Iranians presented a stupid proposal that we cannot accept, and they agree with us on things then backtrack.

The fourth anniversary of the assassination of the journalistic icon Shireen Abu Akleh arrives, bringing back memories of that harsh moment on May 11, 2022, when her voice fell silent in the Jenin camp. Shireen was not just a passerby in the field; she was a witness to decades of conflict, before her blood-soaked body became a global symbol embodying the suffering of journalists under occupation.

Born in Jerusalem in 1971, Shireen carved out her professional path with determination after leaving architectural studies to enroll at Yarmouk University and study media. She moved between international and local institutions such as UNRWA and Monte Carlo, until she settled at the 'Masader' office in 1997, becoming a familiar face in every Palestinian and Arab home following the details of the Intifada and invasions.

Shireen was distinguished by her calm and composed style, skillfully balancing the sanctity of the news with a humanitarian bias towards the victim without exaggeration or showmanship. Her reports walked a fine line combining the intensity of the field with the discipline of language, earning her the trust of the public and the respect of colleagues worldwide.

On the morning of the assassination, Shireen was wearing full safety gear, including a helmet and a protective vest clearly marked 'PRESS'. Despite the absence of any armed confrontations at that point, an Israeli sniper targeted her with a fatal bullet, a crime documented by camera lenses and the testimonies of colleagues who were beside her under the tree.

Initially, the official occupation narrative attempted to blame Palestinian militants, but international pressure and independent investigations forced it to retract and admit the high probability of its soldiers' responsibility. Investigations by major international newspapers such as 'The New York Times' and 'The Washington Post' concluded that the targeting was precise and came from Israeli forces stationed in the area.

A recent documentary produced by the 'Zaytoun' platform in 2025 revealed the name of the sniper responsible for the shooting, 'Alon Skagio' from the elite 'Duvdevan' unit. The investigation indicated that the army later transferred him from his unit to protect him from prosecution, before he was killed by an explosive device during a military operation in Jenin in 2024.

The biggest surprise revealed by the documentary was that officials in former US President Joe Biden's administration knew of Israel's responsibility for the killing from the very first hours. Reports confirmed that an Israeli general informed the American side of the truth immediately after the incident, raising major questions about the reasons for the delay in justice and accountability.

The Committee to Protect Journalists is currently criticizing what it describes as the 'stagnation' in the FBI investigation announced in late 2022. The committee asserts that there are no public updates or a clear timeline for the investigation, despite the willingness of Palestinian witnesses to cooperate fully and provide their official testimonies to the American authorities.

The occupation authorities strongly opposed external investigations, with then-Defense Minister Benny Gantz describing the American investigation as a 'grave mistake'. This refusal to cooperate reflects Israel's policy of impunity, which observers believe has encouraged the continued targeting of media personnel in the occupied territories.

Shireen's assassination opened the door to a more brutal pattern of targeting journalists, with statistics indicating the killing of approximately 240 journalists in Gaza during the recent war. The protection provided by international law is no longer sufficient against bullets that target the camera as an inconvenient witness to field crimes.

Journalist Shatha Hanaysha, who was accompanying Shireen at the moment of her death, recounts how that moment changed her life forever and caused her deep psychological trauma. Shatha emphasizes that targeting a journalist not only kills them physically but aims to terrorize the entire professional environment and push journalists away from documenting the truth in hot zones.

Shireen's case has become an international human rights file, with the 'Masader' network and the martyr's family submitting comprehensive files to the International Criminal Court in The Hague. These files are based on forensic evidence and video materials proving deliberate sniping, in an attempt to break the wall of international silence and impose sanctions on perpetrators of crimes against journalists.

International organizations such as 'Reporters Without Borders' stand in solidarity with these efforts, warning that closing Shireen's case without accountability means giving a green light to target more journalists. The ongoing legal battle aims to make Shireen's case a turning point in protecting journalistic work globally, not just in Palestine.

Despite four years passing, Shireen Abu Akleh's image remains present in every field, and her voice echoes in the memory of generations as an icon of truth and professionalism. The case remains a true test of the world's conscience and the ability of international institutions to uphold justice, far from narrow political calculations that protect killers.

Shireen was not just a correspondent; she was a calm voice in the heart of the storm, transformed by a treacherous bullet from a news carrier into the news itself.

US President Donald Trump escalated his warning tone towards Tehran, threatening to use advanced 'space force' technologies to pursue what he described as Iranian 'nuclear dust'. Trump clarified that Washington is closely monitoring 60% enriched uranium, emphasizing that any Iranian approach to the brink of military manufacturing would be met with a direct military strike targeting underground facilities.

In a scientific interpretation of these threats, nuclear security and radiation safety expert Dr. Abdul Wali Al-Ajlouni stated that the term 'nuclear dust' used by Trump often refers to enriched uranium found in solid or gaseous states. Al-Ajlouni affirmed that fears of a major radiation disaster if these sites are bombed are exaggerated and not based on accurate physical facts.

Technical sources explained that the space surveillance mentioned by the US President is not new, as Washington has had the capability to monitor surface activities for many years. However, experts pointed out that satellites are unable to directly detect enriched uranium stored deep underground, due to the nature of the radiation emitted from it, which does not penetrate dense rock layers.

According to technical analyses, enriched uranium emits 'alpha' particles which have a very short range of travel in the air, making their detection impossible from outer space. Accurate detection operations rely exclusively on ground sensors placed at very close points, such as border crossings or within the facilities themselves, which weakens the hypothesis of space monitoring of the material itself.

Regarding the potential repercussions of any military attack, Dr. Al-Ajlouni explained that bombing uranium storage facilities would inevitably destroy the material, but it would not cause a nuclear explosion as is rumored in non-specialized circles. He added that enriched uranium has low radioactivity, which limits the risk of its spread in the atmosphere and does not pose a widespread regional threat.

Experts drew attention to the fact that the real danger inherent in these materials is primarily chemical, not radiological, as the toxicity of uranium as a heavy metal outweighs its radiological risks upon decay. Informed sources considered that a large part of the current American statements falls within the scope of psychological warfare and raising the ceiling of political pressure on the Iranian regime to deter it from continuing enrichment.

Reports concluded that the lack of scientific awareness of the nature of nuclear materials contributes to exaggerating public anxiety about military threats, while facts indicate that the fear stems from the ambiguity of the terms used. The region remains hostage to political tensions between Washington and Tehran, at a time when international agencies continue to monitor enrichment levels that have reached critical levels.

If they approach a nuclear weapon, we will strike it, and the United States is closely monitoring all movements related to this program.

Informed Iranian sources confirmed that the position expressed by US President Donald Trump regarding the latest Iranian proposals is not important to decision-makers in Tehran. The sources clarified that Iranian policy is not based on formulating initiatives aimed at gaining the satisfaction of the American administration, but rather on national interests and the strategic vision of the state.

The sources indicated that Trump's dissatisfaction is considered, from an Iranian perspective, evidence of the strength and quality of the proposed plan, as American criticism is seen as a testament to Tehran's adherence to its rights. They stressed that any attempt to pressure through media statements will not change the essence of the Iranian position regarding the ongoing negotiations.

In contrast, the US President had explicitly announced his rejection of the response Washington received from Tehran via the Pakistani mediator, describing it as completely unacceptable. Trump stated on his social media platform that he had reviewed the terms of the response provided by those he described as representatives of Iran, confirming that what was stated in it does not meet American expectations for ending the conflict.

Regarding coordination with allies, Trump revealed that he had held telephone conversations with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, which he described as very positive and discussed the Iranian response in detail. Trump clarified in press statements that coordination with the Israeli side remains a fundamental pillar in dealing with the Iranian file and developments in the region.

The US President concluded his statements by emphasizing that the negotiation file with Iran falls within his direct and exclusive responsibilities, indicating that he will not allow his powers to be overstepped in this regard. This debate comes at a sensitive time when the region is witnessing intensive diplomatic movements led by international and regional parties to bring viewpoints closer and prevent a wider escalation of the situation.

When Trump expresses his dissatisfaction with a plan, it is often an indication that the plan is better.

The European Union's foreign policy chief, Kaja Kallas, expressed optimism that the bloc's foreign ministers could reach a formal agreement on Monday to impose sanctions on settlers involved in violence in the occupied West Bank. Kallas indicated, ahead of the anticipated meeting in Brussels, that consultations are ongoing to ensure the necessary majority for approving these proposals, emphasizing her hope for a political consensus that would end the impunity enjoyed by these settlers.

These European moves come at a time when the West Bank has witnessed an unprecedented escalation in settler attacks since October 7, 2023, with these assaults becoming more organized and brutal. Human rights reports and field sources have documented horrific incidents that have drawn widespread international condemnation, the latest of which involved Palestinian families being forced to exhume the graves of their deceased under threat of arms and with the support of occupation forces.

In details of one of the field crimes, sources reported that settlers began digging up a grave inside the cemetery of Al-Asa'sa village in preparation for exhuming a body that had been buried on the same day, before the Israeli occupation army intervened to force the deceased's relatives to move the body and bury it in another location. Occupation authorities justified this arbitrary measure under the pretext of the cemetery's proximity to the 'Tirsa/Sanur' settlement, a step described by UN officials as a stark embodiment of the policy of dehumanizing Palestinians.

For his part, Ajith Sunghay, head of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, described these practices as 'horrific,' reflecting the extent of violations faced by the indigenous population in the West Bank. UN reports confirmed that these attacks are not merely isolated incidents but part of a broader strategy aimed at terrorizing Palestinians and forcing them to leave their lands for the benefit of illegal settlement expansion.

Regarding field statistics, official Palestinian data indicates that at least 1,155 Palestinians have been killed and approximately 11,750 others injured in the West Bank since the start of the latest aggression. Occupation forces have also launched widespread arrest campaigns targeting nearly 22,000 citizens, alongside systematic demolition operations of homes and vital facilities in various governorates.

Concerning forced displacement, settler attacks protected by the occupation army have led to the partial or complete displacement of at least 79 Palestinian communities, affecting more than 814 families comprising over 4,700 citizens. These attacks are concentrated in areas classified as 'C' to enhance Israeli control over natural resources and agricultural lands on which Palestinians depend for their livelihoods.

It is worth noting that Israel has continued its occupation of the West Bank since 1967, establishing approximately 192 settlements and 350 outposts inhabited by about 780,000 settlers, amidst an environment of racial discrimination against 3 million Palestinians. These settlements are considered illegal under international law, and the anticipated European sanctions are a step in the path of international pressure to halt settlement expansion and protect civilians.

I expect a political agreement on sanctions against violent settlers, and I hope we can reach that during the foreign ministers' meeting.

Large forces of the Israeli occupation army stormed Qalandia camp north of occupied Jerusalem in the early morning hours of Monday, leading to violent confrontations and armed clashes in the camp's alleys. Military operations focused on the Institute Street area, where snipers and infantry soldiers were deployed amidst heavy live fire and sound grenades directed at citizens and their homes.

Field sources reported that a Palestinian youth engaged in a clash with the invading force before being seriously wounded as a result of being directly targeted by live bullets from occupation soldiers. A state of extreme tension prevailed throughout the camp with the continued Israeli military reinforcements that closed the main entrances and completely prevented movement.

In a blatant violation of international norms, occupation vehicles surrounded the site where the young man was injured and prevented ambulance crews and paramedics from approaching to provide him with the necessary first aid. Ambulance vehicles were also subjected to direct gunfire from soldiers to obstruct their arrival, which led to the injured person bleeding for a long time at the scene without any medical intervention.

Medical sources later announced the martyrdom of the young man due to his serious injuries and severe bleeding that continued throughout the period when medical teams were prevented from reaching him. This crime comes in the context of the ongoing escalation witnessed in the areas of Jerusalem and the West Bank, where the occupation continues its policy of bloody incursions and tightening restrictions on the Palestinian population.

Occupation forces prevented ambulance crews from reaching the injured, targeting medical vehicles with gunfire to obstruct their humanitarian missions.

The international organization took many decades before officially recognizing the Nakba of the Palestinian people, despite being the umbrella that granted legitimacy to the establishment of the Israeli entity on Palestinian land in 1948. This UN recognition came despite the occupation's non-compliance with the partition resolutions and the right of return, which contributed to entrenching the reality of the occupation under international cover.

The Palestinian cause experienced a period of deliberate marginalization within the corridors of the United Nations between 1951 and 1974, where the crisis was reduced to its humanitarian dimensions only. The annual discussion was limited to the refugee file and the 'UNRWA' agency without addressing the political roots of the conflict or the usurped national rights.

The issuance of Resolution 242 after the 1967 setback reflected the state of international marginalization, as the text contained no mention of Palestine or its people, merely referring to the need to find a just solution for refugees. This approach continued until the October 1973 war, which forcefully reasserted the Arab and Palestinian presence on the global stage through military and political means.

1974 witnessed a radical shift with the election of Abdelaziz Bouteflika as President of the General Assembly, where the Palestine item regained its place on the agenda after a 23-year absence. This phase culminated in the recognition of the Palestine Liberation Organization as the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people and granting it a seat in the international organization.

During that era, the General Assembly adopted historic resolutions, most notably Resolution 3236, which detailed Palestinian national rights to return and self-determination. The organization also took an advanced moral stance in 1975 when it described Zionism as a form of racism and racial discrimination.

Signs of regression began to reappear with the signing of the Camp David and Oslo agreements, leading to the fragmentation of the Arab position and weakening Palestinian momentum in the United Nations. This weakness was reflected in the annulment of the resolution condemning Zionism as racism in 1991, and the beginning of the 'Quartet' era, which imposed harsh conditions on the Palestinian resistance.

In 2022, Palestinian diplomacy achieved a symbolic breakthrough by adopting a resolution commemorating the seventy-fifth anniversary of the Nakba for the first time in the history of the United Nations. Despite immense American and Israeli pressure to thwart the resolution, the session was held in May 2023, constituting a belated international recognition of the Palestinian tragedy.

The 'Al-Aqsa Flood' operation in October 2023 caused an earthquake in the international system, with Palestine returning to dominate discussions in the Security Council and the International Court of Justice. However, new dangers emerged in attempts to impose political solutions that undermine Palestinian sovereignty under the guise of stability and security.

Resolution 2803, issued in November 2025, is considered one of the most dangerous turning points in the history of international engagement with the Gaza Strip, as it adopts a vision aimed at imposing international guardianship. This resolution treats Palestinians as an unqualified party for self-governance, bypassing the role of the Palestinian Authority and national institutions.

This latest resolution established a so-called 'Peace Council' with independent legal personality and international legal protection, making it above local accountability. This council aims to administer the Gaza Strip through a transitional government and international stabilization forces, a step observers see as entrenching the separation of the Strip from the West Bank.

New international conditions make the disarmament of the resistance a prerequisite for any Israeli withdrawal or future peace talks. This path gives the occupation a green light to continue its military operations, while restricting Palestinian options for self-defense or claiming legitimate rights.

The task of implementing this international plan was entrusted to figures associated with the biased American vision, led by Jared Kushner and Tony Blair. Analysts believe that this team seeks to liquidate the Palestinian entity and transform the issue from a national liberation struggle into an administrative and security file under external guardianship.

Despite all these challenges and international decisions that attempt to circumvent constants, the reliance remains on the steadfastness of the Palestinian people in their land. History proves that attempts at marginalization and annulment always clash with the will of resistance and adherence to national identity that cannot be erased by paper resolutions.

The Nakba that began in 1948 and the subsequent setbacks and incomplete agreements have not succeeded in ending the Palestinian presence or breaking the will for liberation. Ultimately, the international powers that try to shape the future of Gaza away from the aspirations of its people will face a reality imposed by the true owners of the land.

Resolution 2803 puts the final seal on the issue of Palestinian statehood and the right to self-determination if the Palestinian people are not mobilized against it.

What both peoples need to understand is that the other side is not disappearing. Not through war, not through terrorism, not through occupation, not through annexation, not through settlements, not through rockets, not through starvation, not through slogans, and not through prayers for the destruction of the other.

There are today roughly equal numbers of Jews and Palestinians living between the river and the sea. Neither people is leaving. Neither people can defeat the national identity of the other. We are locked together by geography, history, religion, memory, trauma and blood. The question is not whether we will live together in this land. The only real question is whether we will continue to die together for it.

For decades, both national movements have nourished themselves on fantasies. Palestinians were taught that armed struggle would eventually liberate all of Palestine. Israelis were taught that military superiority could permanently suppress Palestinian national aspirations. Both ideas have failed. Spectacularly and tragically.

October 7 and the war that followed should have buried these illusions forever. Hamas did not liberate Palestine. It brought unimaginable destruction upon Gaza and trauma upon Israelis and Palestinians alike. Israel did not destroy Palestinian nationalism through overwhelming military force. After tens of thousands dead, entire neighborhoods erased, and generations traumatized, the Palestinian people are still there, demanding freedom, dignity and statehood.

The lesson should be obvious. Violence can kill people. It cannot kill national identity.

Too many leaders on both sides remain prisoners of slogans that no longer correspond to reality. On the Palestinian side, there are still those who speak as if Jews are foreign colonialists with no legitimate connection to this land. On the Israeli side, there are ministers and rabbis who speak openly about expelling Palestinians and permanently controlling all of the territories. Both camps are detached from reality. Both are leading their people toward endless catastrophe.

The hardest truth for Palestinians is that Israel is not a temporary phenomenon. It is a deeply rooted society with millions of people who were born there, built their lives there, buried their parents there and have nowhere else to go. The hardest truth for Israelis is that Palestinians are not a demographic problem to be managed or removed. They are a people with national rights, collective memory and a profound attachment to their homeland.

The future will not belong to those who dream of exclusive ownership of the land. It will belong to those who understand that two peoples are destined to share it.

For me, this still means two states for two peoples. Not because it is perfect, but because every other option leads either to permanent war, apartheid-like reality, ethnic cleansing, or the destruction of the national aspirations of one people by the other. None of those outcomes is moral, sustainable or realistic.

But if two states are ever to emerge, something even more important must happen first: both peoples must abandon the idea that justice can only come through the defeat and humiliation of the other side.

Peace will require Palestinians to give up the fantasy of destroying Israel. Peace will require Israelis to give up the fantasy of permanent domination over Palestinians. Peace will require moral courage greater than the courage required for war.

It will also require new leadership. Leadership that speaks honestly to its own people instead of feeding them comforting lies. Leadership that prepares both societies psychologically for compromise instead of permanent mobilization against eternal enemies.

The international community also has to stop indulging fantasies. Empty declarations, selective outrage, performative diplomacy and endless management of the conflict have all failed. The world should stop financing the continuation of the conflict and begin investing seriously in ending it.

And yes, there must be accountability for crimes committed by all sides. But accountability without a political horizon simply becomes another weapon in the continuation of the conflict.

What is needed now is not more revenge, but political imagination grounded in reality.

The reality is simple: neither people is going anywhere.

It is time to stop teaching our children that the highest form of patriotism is dying for the land. The highest form of patriotism should be building a future in which children on both sides can live normal lives without fear, hatred and endless war.

That will not happen through military victory.

It will happen only when both peoples finally understand that their freedom, security and future are inseparably linked to one another.

Washington's Message\n\nWashington - Said Arikat - 5/11/2026\n\nNews Analysis\n\nDespite the fragile truce reached through Pakistani mediation between the United States and Iran, the course of events in the Gulf does not reflect a trend towards de-escalation as much as it reveals the conflict's transition to a long phase of attrition, where diplomatic tools intertwine with military and economic realities on the ground. Naval escalation, drone attacks, and persistent tension around the Strait of Hormuz all indicate that the region remains trapped in an undeclared confrontation, managed within precise limits but capable of exploding at any moment, in the absence of mutual trust between Washington and Tehran.\n\nIn this context, Iran's response to the latest American proposal, conveyed through Pakistani mediation, came without details being announced, after Washington had put forward a negotiating framework that included a plan for reopening talks on the nuclear program, along with arrangements related to navigation lanes in the Strait of Hormuz. However, this political path seemed detached from the field reality, which is heading towards further complexity, as security incidents and indirect clashes continue, reflecting a growing gap between diplomacy and military reality.\n\nFor his part, US President Donald Trump dealt with the Iranian response with clear severity, declaring his "complete rejection" of it, as he put it, considering that Tehran had not offered anything that could be built upon in any serious negotiation process. This stance reflects an American view that Iran is trying to impose facts on the ground before entering into any political settlement. However, this rigidity in rhetoric does not, in turn, conceal the limited American options, given the understanding that any widespread escalation could turn into a complex regional war whose course or outcomes would be difficult to control.\n\nConcurrently, the region witnessed a series of field developments that reinforced the fragility of the existing truce. Drones were intercepted in more than one Gulf country, a ship near the Qatari coast was subjected to a limited attack, and a target was struck in the vicinity of Erbil linked to Iranian opposition groups. These events, despite their limited nature, reflect the continued use of low-intensity military pressure tools, making the current ceasefire closer to a temporary management of escalation than to an actual settlement.\n\n The United States was unable to impose a new deterrence equation through "Operation Freedom Project," as the operation encountered clear regional obstacles, most notably Saudi Arabia's refusal to allow the use of its bases or airspace to support these efforts to open and secure the Strait of Hormuz. This refusal constituted an important indicator of increasing regional caution about engaging in an open confrontation with Iran, and a shift in the calculations of Gulf states, which have become more inclined to avoid being drawn into a war whose outcomes cannot be predicted.\n\nIn contrast, Iran continued to strengthen its position in the pressure equation via the Strait, seeking to transform it into a strategic card against the United States. Tehran treats Hormuz not only as an international shipping lane but as a sovereign tool capable of directly influencing the global economy, by controlling ship movements and imposing new field arrangements. This development, along with parallel American measures to intercept ships bound for Iran, led to a dual pressure situation that affected trade and energy traffic.\n\n The decline in navigation in the Strait of Hormuz was not merely a technical development, but transformed into a silent global economic crisis, as shipping and insurance costs rose significantly, oil tanker traffic declined, while hundreds of ships remained stranded inside the Gulf. This situation once again revealed the fragility of the global economic system and its reliance on limited maritime corridors that can easily turn into strategic choke points if escalation continues.\n\nMeanwhile, the Iranian nuclear file remains the central knot that reproduces the crisis. Washington insists on halting enrichment and dismantling the highly enriched uranium stockpile, while Tehran considers this stockpile a strategic guarantee to deter any attempt to impose political conditions on it by force. Thus, the dispute transforms from a technical issue into a struggle over the regional deterrence balance, where the future of negotiations is directly linked to power balances, not technical understandings.\n\nIt is worth noting that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, on the CBS News program "60 Minutes" on Sunday, demanded that the United States forcibly extract enriched uranium from Iran using its special forces.\n\nEstimates within Washington indicate the existence of potential military plans to target Iran's nuclear infrastructure, but the military establishment realizes that any such operation may require extensive ground intervention, with high probabilities of the war expanding to Iraq, Lebanon, and the Gulf. This understanding explains American caution in moving from threat to implementation, despite the administration's continued escalatory rhetoric.\n\nAt the regional level, the repercussions of the crisis extended to other fronts, especially Lebanon, where tensions continued despite Trump's announcement that the ceasefire should include the Lebanese arena. However, the continuation of Israeli raids clarifies that the conflict is no longer confined to the Gulf, but has become an interconnected network of arenas capable of simultaneous ignition.\n\nInternationally, Britain and France began moves to enhance navigation protection in the Gulf, amid a growing realization that the continuation of the crisis could threaten the global economy. However, these moves remain limited, as they address symptoms more than they address the roots of the conflict.\n\nIn conclusion, the region appears to be facing a long phase of attrition, where there is no quick settlement or clear military decisive action, but rather a management of a low-intensity conflict that may be prolonged. While Washington bets on pressure, and Tehran bets on steadfastness, the entire region remains in a state of fragile balance capable of collapsing at any moment.\n\nThe current crisis reveals that the conflict between the United States and Iran is no longer just a dispute over the nuclear program, but has transformed into a comprehensive confrontation over the shape of the regional order in the Middle East. Iran seeks to establish a deterrence equation based on controlling maritime passages and raising the cost of any military confrontation against it, while Washington tries to prevent this transformation because it threatens the foundations of its traditional influence in the Gulf. This overlap between geography and politics makes any technical settlement insufficient unless the issue of power distribution in the region is addressed more deeply.\n\nSaudi Arabia's refusal to use its bases in "Operation Freedom Project" reflects a significant shift in regional calculations, as Gulf states have become more inclined to avoid direct involvement in major conflicts whose outcomes cannot be controlled. This change does not mean moving away from traditional alliances, but rather reflects a reassessment of the risks of escalation, especially given the understanding that any widespread confrontation in the Gulf could quickly turn into a direct threat to the economic and internal security stability of the Gulf states themselves, and not just an arena for major power struggles.\n\nPerhaps the most dangerous aspect of the current phase is that all parties are operating on the assumption of being able to control escalation and prevent a full-scale explosion, while historical experiences indicate that major wars often begin with limited incidents and mutual miscalculation. The tension around the Strait of Hormuz, indirect clashes, and escalatory statements are all elements that raise the probability of miscalculation. With the absence of a stable and effective negotiating channel, the possibility of sliding into a wider confrontation exists, even without a direct political decision from any party.

Security sources revealed that Iraqi authorities received direct warnings from the United States of America, demanding them to refrain from approaching specific areas in the Najaf desert. The sources explained that these warnings came under the pretext of security concerns, at a time when Baghdad's intelligence agencies are unable to identify the military force stationed in that area for about two months, which has created a state of ambiguity and security tension.

Despite the Iraqi forces carrying out a series of aerial and ground reconnaissance operations deep in the Najaf desert, field results did not show the presence of traditional military bases or visible installations. This Iraqi move comes in an attempt to unravel the mystery of the unknown military activity detected by local reports, amid American pressure aimed at keeping the area away from any direct military friction with national forces.

In a related context, international press reports quoted American officials and informed sources as saying that Israel succeeded in establishing a secret military site in the western region of Iraq with the approval and coordination of Washington. According to these sources, the site serves as an advanced logistical center to support Israeli air force operations, and provides a vital foothold for managing the intensive air campaigns that targeted the region in recent weeks.

The leaked data indicates that the secret base is used for the stationing of special forces units and elite search and rescue teams belonging to the occupation army. This military presence aims to ensure rapid intervention if Israeli fighters are exposed to any incidents or fall inside Iranian territory or in adjacent border areas, which gives Tel Aviv greater aerial maneuverability away from traditional monitoring.

For his part, the head of the Security Media Cell, Lieutenant General Saad Maan, recalled a security incident that occurred last March, where a force from the Karbala Operations Command was subjected to unknown aerial bombardment during an inspection mission in the desert area linking Karbala and Najaf. That attack resulted in the martyrdom of a soldier and the injury of two others, after receiving reports of unidentified helicopters flying in the skies of the area believed to contain the secret activity.

Following that incident, the Iraqi government filed an official complaint with the United Nations, pointing fingers at American forces for carrying out the airstrike that targeted its soldiers. In contrast, the US Central Command (CENTCOM) denied responsibility for the attack, which reinforces the hypotheses that speak of the presence of other military parties operating in the region under American protection and carrying out their operations independently of official coordination channels with Baghdad.

The United States informed the Iraqi side of the necessity of not approaching the area for security reasons, at a time when Baghdad was unable to identify the forces present there.

Washington Message

Saeed Arikat – 10/5/2026

News Analysis

The revelation published by The Wall Street Journal on Sunday, about Israel establishing a secret military base inside Iraqi territory during the war on Iran, was not just a fleeting security detail. Rather, it appeared to be a concentrated summary of a long trajectory of strategic collapse that has afflicted the region since the American invasion of Iraq in 2003. The report, which spoke of the base being used as a logistical and operational support point for Israeli aviation deep inside Iraqi territory, reveals the extent to which Iraq's sovereignty has become a violated space where projects of hegemony, intelligence wars, and regional liquidation intersect.

According to the report, Israel established the base in the desert of western Iraq before the outbreak of the war, and used it to support its air operations against Iran, in addition to deploying special teams whose mission was to rescue pilots and secure military supplies. The most dangerous part of the narrative is that Israeli forces shelled Iraqi soldiers who approached the site after suspecting unusual activity, resulting in deaths and injuries. If this information is true, it means that Iraq is no longer just a proxy battleground, but has actually become an open field for direct Israeli military operations, amid the Iraqi state's impotence and the collapse of the concept of national sovereignty.

The report also sheds light on a deeper truth: that the recent war on Iran was not just a confrontation between two states, but an extension of a regional structure generated by the American invasion of Iraq. Since the overthrow of Saddam Hussein's regime, Iraq has entered a spiral of systematic dismantling of state institutions, and a reshaping of the security and political map on sectarian and militia bases, which opened the door to unprecedented regional and international interventions. The United States presented the invasion at the time as a project to spread democracy, but the actual result was the creation of a huge vacuum that turned into a permanent platform for cross-border wars and conflicts.

The presence of a secret Israeli base inside Iraq cannot be separated from this context. Israel, which previously saw Iraq as a central confrontation state with military weight, now deals with it as a fragile security space that can be penetrated and used in its war with Iran. This transformation would not have been possible without the structural destruction that befell the Iraqi state after the American occupation. Iraqi borders eroded, security institutions divided, and external influence expanded to unprecedented levels, while the Iraqi citizen continued to pay the price with their security, stability, and future.

Since the American invasion of Iraq in 2003, the Middle East has entered a phase of strategic collapse that has not stopped to this day. The United States did not content itself with overthrowing a political regime, but contributed to the dismantling of an entire state and its military and security institutions, which opened the door to chaos, sectarianism, and the rise of militias and extremist organizations. This collapse created an ideal environment for external interventions, from Iran to Israel, and turned Iraq into an open battleground. What is happening today with secret bases and intertwined wars is not an isolated event, but a direct result of a long trajectory of American policies that reshaped the region by force, without any real vision for stability or sovereignty.

The war on Iran also showed that Israel is now acting as a cross-border regional power, moving militarily and intelligently within several Arab countries, taking advantage of the state of Arab disintegration and regional collapse. Instead of containing conflicts, the region moved towards more militarization of politics, where airstrikes, assassinations, and covert operations became ordinary tools for managing balances. In this climate, international law is completely absent, while the ability of Arab states to impose their sovereignty or protect their territories from penetration declines.

The report also reveals the extent of the interconnectedness between the American and Israeli projects in the region. Even when Israel appears to be acting independently, the environment that allows it to do so is essentially a product of long-standing American hegemony. The United States, which occupied Iraq for a full decade and reshaped its security structure, effectively created the pathways that Israel now uses in its regional confrontations. Therefore, talking about an Israeli base in Iraq is not only about Israel, but also about the heavy American legacy for which the region is still paying the price.

Moreover, the damage inflicted by the United States and Israel on the region was not only military, but also affected the very idea of the nation-state. After 2003, Arab borders became porous, armies exhausted, and political decisions hostage to external balances. Iraq was the most tragic example, but it was not the only one. The successive wars in Syria, Lebanon, Gaza, and Yemen reflected how the region transformed into a network of interconnected crises that feed each other. Israel benefited from this disintegration to expand its security influence, while Washington used the rhetoric of the "war on terror" to justify a permanent military presence. The result was a more divided, more fragile Middle East, less capable of producing stability.

In the end, it does not seem to be just a secret military operation, but a symbol of an entire trajectory of regional collapse. When an Arab land becomes a stage for foreign bases, undeclared wars, and mutual bombing operations, it means that the regional order that the region has known for decades has effectively disintegrated. Iraq, which was once one of the pillars of Arab balance, transformed after the American occupation into an open arena where major and regional powers clash, while the state recedes into the background. What the American newspaper revealed is just a new chapter in this long decline.

It is worth noting that Israel and the United States have always presented their intervention in the region under the slogans of security, stability, and self-defense, but the actual outcome has been quite the opposite. Millions of dead and displaced, destroyed cities, collapsed economies, and a political environment based on fear, polarization, and permanent wars. The most dangerous aspect is that these policies have emptied the concepts of sovereignty and international law of their meaning, as military strikes, assassinations, and covert interventions have become ordinary matters that do not face real accountability. The secret Israeli base in Iraq is not an isolated incident, but a clear expression of a Middle East reshaped by force, where open wars have become the norm, not the exception.

Israeli occupation forces escalated their field violations in the Gaza Strip early this Sunday morning, carrying out a series of aerial and artillery attacks that resulted in the martyrdom of three individuals and the injury of several citizens with varying degrees of wounds. These developments come in the context of continuous breaches of the ceasefire agreement that came into effect on October 10, 2025, threatening the stability of the fragile situation in the region.

In a direct assassination operation, occupation aircraft targeted a civilian vehicle in the Al-Amal neighborhood, west of Khan Yunis city in the southern Strip, leading to the martyrdom of the city's police investigations director, Wissam Fayez Abdel Hadi. The General Directorate of Police confirmed that the raid also resulted in the martyrdom of Sergeant Fadi Abdel Moati Heikal, who was accompanying the investigations director, describing the operation as a direct targeting of police personnel performing their service duties.

The attacks did not stop there, as field sources reported that the occupation army's artillery launched intense shelling targeting the outskirts of Al-Qarara town, north of Khan Yunis city, causing panic among local residents. This shelling coincided with military movements in border areas, even though these areas are outside the scope of deployment and control of Israeli forces agreed upon in the recent truce terms.

In the central Gaza Strip, an Israeli drone targeted a gathering of citizens in the Al-Maghazi refugee camp, leading to the martyrdom of one Palestinian and the injury of others who were transferred to nearby hospitals for treatment. These repeated targeting of civilians in populated areas confirm the occupation's continued transgression of internationally and locally agreed-upon red lines to ensure the safety of residents.

In Gaza City, Israeli warships continued to pursue fishermen at sea, firing their machine guns and shells towards fishing boats off the coast. This aggression resulted in the injury of two fishermen while they were working, in a continuous attempt to restrict the livelihoods of Palestinians and prevent them from accessing their sources of income at sea.

On the ground east of Gaza City, the occupation army carried out widespread demolition operations that affected a number of buildings and residential facilities within the areas where it is deployed. Huge explosions were heard throughout the city resulting from the destruction of residential blocks, which falls within the systematic destruction policy of infrastructure and housing followed by the army in its areas of incursion.

In a related context, the Ministry of Health revealed in its latest reports a bloody toll since the start of the ceasefire agreement, documenting the killing of approximately 850 Palestinians and the injury of 2433 others due to ongoing Israeli aggressions. These figures reflect the scale of the humanitarian tragedy and the continued bloodshed in the Strip despite international promises of calm, placing the international community before its responsibilities towards protecting civilians.

The occupation targeted the vehicle of the Khan Yunis investigations director in the Al-Amal neighborhood, leading to his martyrdom along with one of his assistants in a clear violation of existing understandings.

Concepts have been intertwined for many years in the aftermath of revolutionary attempts in Arab Spring countries, raising the question of the delay in the desired change. Change requires essential prerequisites that begin within those who desire it, and are represented by possessing the elements of swift action that complement a long process of serious deeds, with the necessity of sincerity, patience, and persistence in defending achievements.

The ability to confront external challenges and the suitability of internal conditions are fundamental pillars for the success of any reform movement. In the absence of this ability, it becomes imperative for peoples to endure more difficulties with sufficient awareness to distinguish between wise and mistaken actions, which becomes more difficult in the absence of wise leadership that prioritizes the nation's interest over its own.

Many believe that revolutions may be stifled or suffocated under the weight of devastating blows, but a close look at modern Egyptian history proves otherwise. The revolution remains a latent fire under the ashes of oppression, awaiting the opportune moment to erupt again, which explains the persistence of the revolutionary spirit despite repeated attempts to extinguish it.

In January 1977, Egyptians protested against price increases in what became known as the Bread Uprising, which the late President Anwar Sadat described as the 'Uprising of Thieves'. Although the regime at the time managed to paralyze the movement, the flames continued to burn in people's souls for more than thirty years until the illuminating January 2011 revolution erupted.

History tells us that great leaders are not necessarily free from human flaws; what matters is their ability to lead and sacrifice. Leader Saad Zaghloul, who led the 1919 revolution against the British occupation, admitted in his memoirs to some of his personal flaws, yet he succeeded in mobilizing the Egyptian street and shaking the foundations of the monarchy and occupation.

Similarly, global figures like Gandhi in India had major shortcomings, which confirms that great personalities can make mistakes commensurate with the scale of their influence. The lesson lies in the extent of these personalities' connection to their nation's issues and their ability to overcome human shortcomings for the sake of the supreme goal of liberation and reform.

The mind acknowledges that perfection belongs to God alone, but the dilemma lies in preferring fleeting pleasures over the lasting interest of the homeland. With the passage of time, the falsehood of those who claim a desire for reform is revealed, while their souls pursue their own desires, leading to the disappointment of nations' endeavors and the decline of the spirit of virtue in the process of change.

Human nature's refusal to retreat from the spirit of virtue is one of the biggest dilemmas facing reform movements. While some maintain an outward stance of loving reform, inwardly, love for worldly things and the desire to monopolize blessings grow, confirming the poet's saying that generosity impoverishes and daring kills.

The claim of idealism is one of the most bitter diseases in the body of the nation, where eloquent speakers emerge who convince the masses of the correctness of their decisions by tongue only. Upon practical examination, one finds no trace of that idealism on the ground, making silence about these painful examples sometimes better than delving into them.

Humanity always needs a practical role model and a human biography that embodies noble principles, as were the prophets, peace be upon them. People need to see values walking before them in the conduct of leaders, which was embodied by the Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, whose character was the Quran, to be a role model in leadership and reform.

Some movements prepared themselves for a traditional reform process lacking a revolutionary spirit, which made them surprised by the rebellious youth under their umbrella. This oscillation between absolute peaceful reform and the requirements of revolution led to an irresolvable confusion except through comprehensive reviews and efforts to align theory with reality.

The personality in our nation is born with a sound nature and automatically seeks a pioneer to lead it; if it does not find one, it pursues paths of private benefit. Sheikh Al-Ghazali previously warned against those who found no place in the world and thus entered into advocacy, harming it and seeking worldly gains through it, causing great pain to the reform process.

The fundamental question remains about the sincerity of demands and the reconciliation of souls with themselves. Why do some inject their private interests into issues of the public future? Protecting personal interests under the guise of reform delays the improvement of conditions and increases the burden on those on the path of change, and even harms generations that have not yet begun their journey.

Ultimately, when God wills, He prepares the causes and the appropriate leadership for reform and change, where the will of the people meets a leader who possesses scientific vision and sincerity. Only then will the vehicle of revolution be guided forward, surrounded by a group of loyalists who envision a better future, and indeed, tomorrow is near for those who await it.

The revolution is a fire simmering under the ashes of tyrants, and even if temporarily stifled, it ignites in noble souls for another day soon.

The pace of attacks by settlers and occupation forces has escalated in various areas of the West Bank, where groups of settlers destroyed about 50 Palestinian structures in the town of Kafr Thulth, south of Qalqilya. The demolition operations included citizens' homes and pens for raising sheep and cows, leading to the displacement of families and the loss of their primary sources of livelihood in that northern region.

In a related context, the occupation authorities issued a military order to seize 7 dunams of citizens' land in the Al-Jabriyat area overlooking Jenin refugee camp, under the pretext of using it for military and security purposes. The danger of this decision lies in the fact that the targeted lands are classified as (A) according to the Oslo Accords, which are areas that are supposed to be under full Palestinian sovereignty and control.

As for Ramallah Governorate, settlers carried out a series of violations targeting Bedouin communities and farmers, where about 80 sheep were stolen from a private farm in the village of Kafr Malik. This incident comes under the security cover provided by the occupation forces to settlers who have been directly targeting the livestock of Palestinians to displace them from their lands.

In the Abu Faza Bedouin community, east of Ramallah, residents faced a severe humanitarian crisis after settlers cut off the main water lines to the community, which is inhabited by about 120 people. These restrictive practices aim to forcibly push residents to leave the area, as part of a systematic policy to empty the lands of their original owners in favor of pastoral settlement projects.

Moving to Hebron Governorate, the occupation forces launched a wide-ranging raid and search campaign that affected the towns of Sa'ir and Al-Dhahiriya, resulting in the arrest of four Palestinian citizens from their homes. These incursions included acts of vandalism of household contents and terrorizing residents, as part of the continuous pressure exerted by the Israeli security services on Palestinian villages and towns.

In occupied Jerusalem, owners of commercial shops in the town of Al-Eizariya began dismantling their structures themselves after receiving official demolition notices from the occupation authorities. These notices included about 50 commercial shops located at the eastern entrance to the town, where the authorities gave them a short period to comply or bear the exorbitant costs if the occupation bulldozers carried out the demolition.

Field sources reported that some of these commercial shops have been established for decades and are considered the economic lifeline for dozens of families in Al-Eizariya, who today face the risk of displacement and loss of livelihood. This Israeli step aims to expand the influence of the 'Ma'ale Adumim' settlement, which is one of the largest settlement blocs built on the lands of occupied East Jerusalem.

Data indicates that the demolition operations in Al-Eizariya fall within the settlement plan known as 'E1', which aims to geographically connect the Ma'ale Adumim settlement with the city of Jerusalem. This project seeks to create a Jewish urban continuum that severs the West Bank and separates its north from its south, in what is known in Israel as the 'Greater Jerusalem' project that devours the lands of Abu Dis and Al-Eizariya.

Observers confirm that the acceleration of demolition and confiscation operations in the West Bank reflects an Israeli government trend to impose new facts on the ground before any potential international moves. These measures coincide with the escalation of settler violence, which has taken on an organized character targeting the infrastructure and basic services of Palestinian citizens in areas classified as (C) and areas adjacent to settlements.

These notices aim to expand settlement in the area near the Ma'ale Adumim settlement, as part of the so-called E1 settlement plan.

The intensity of political debate in the Egyptian capital, Cairo, escalated following the official disclosure of the presence of Egyptian Air Force units stationed in the United Arab Emirates. This announcement came during an inspection visit by President Abdel Fattah El-Sisi, accompanied by his Emirati counterpart Sheikh Mohammed bin Zayed, to the Egyptian fighter jet detachment, aimed at assessing its combat readiness and enhancing joint operational capabilities.

This announcement sparked angry reactions from opposition forces, with the 'Popular Front for Social Justice,' an alliance of nationalist and leftist parties, declaring its categorical rejection of this military presence. In an official statement, the Front expressed its dismay at what it described as 'secrecy' surrounding the presence of these forces, warning against the grave consequences of involving the Egyptian army in regional conflicts that do not serve the country's supreme strategic interests.

Opposition forces stressed that sending military forces abroad constitutes a clear violation of Article 152 of the Egyptian Constitution, which prohibits sending armed forces on combat missions outside the borders unless the opinion of the National Defense Council is taken and two-thirds of the House of Representatives approve. The parties considered that bypassing these procedures undermines the constitutional guarantees that protect the army from unilateral decisions on fateful matters.

For its part, the 'Popular Socialist Alliance' party warned that any involvement of the army in external combat missions requires comprehensive national consensus, which is absent in the current situation. The party's political advisor pointed out that legal controls were specifically put in place to prevent the depletion of the armed forces' capabilities in conflicts that could harm Egyptian national security in the long run.

In a related context, the youth office of the Nasserist Karama Party directed scathing criticism at current regional alliances, considering that coordination with parties supporting the 'Rapid Support Forces' militias in Sudan poses a direct threat to the southern borders. The party affirmed that those who fund chaos in neighboring countries or exert pressure on the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam issue cannot be considered allies worthy of sending Egyptian soldiers to defend them.

Political forces also pointed out that the Egyptian military presence in the Gulf might end Cairo's role as a neutral mediator in regional crises, especially in light of escalating tensions between Iran and international powers. Sources explained that this deployment could expose Egyptian interests, including the Suez Canal and the Bab al-Mandab Strait, to direct threats as a result of siding with one party over another.

The liberal 'Al-Dostour' (Constitution) Party also entered the crisis, expressing its deep concern over the lack of transparency regarding the nature and objectives of these forces' presence. The party demanded that official bodies immediately disclose the truth about the missions assigned to the air detachment, emphasizing the citizens' right to know and be informed about decisions affecting the lives of armed forces personnel.

The party called on the Egyptian House of Representatives to activate its oversight role and verify the legality of this military action, stressing that preserving the lives of soldiers must remain the state's top priority. It considered that sliding into military axes could lead to disastrous losses in light of the complex economic and political circumstances the region is experiencing.

Party reports indicated that Egyptian public opinion tends to reject participation in any proxy wars, especially those that might serve external agendas. The Popular Front stated that Egyptians realize the danger of weakening central states in the region, and that any targeting of major regional states might be followed by direct targeting of Egypt and other Arab countries according to declared plans.

Parties criticized what they described as 'imbalance' in Egyptian foreign policy towards current crises, considering that the military presence in the UAE undermines any basis for neutrality. They affirmed that protecting national security begins with securing the internal front and protecting water rights and direct borders, instead of expanding external military deployments that raise constitutional controversy.

In light of the official bodies' silence in responding to these constitutional criticisms, questions have increased about whether there is a similar military presence in other Gulf countries that has not yet been announced. Political forces are demanding a broad national discussion under the parliament's dome to clarify the strategy of Egyptian military deployment abroad and its compatibility with constitutional obligations.

Observers believe that this crisis puts the relationship between the executive authority and parliament to the test, especially in light of repeated demands to respect the provisions of the constitution. The opposition believes that military authorizations must be specific in duration and objective, and should not turn into permanent deployments without clear legislative and legal cover that guarantees the protection of national sovereignty.

Parties also warned that tampering with the region's capabilities for the benefit of international projects could stifle Egyptian influence in the Red Sea, which represents a strategic threat that cannot be overlooked. They stressed the need to review all alliances that could negatively affect economic interests related to international shipping lanes managed by Egypt.

In conclusion, the issue of Egyptian forces abroad remains one of the most sensitive issues in the Egyptian street, where national sentiments intertwine with legal controls. Political forces await an official response clarifying the nature of the military agreements signed with the Emirati side, and the extent of their subjection to the constitutionally mandated parliamentary oversight to ensure that decisions of war and peace are not made unilaterally.

Sending Egyptian armed forces on a military mission abroad is considered a new violation of the text of Article 152 of the Constitution, which requires the approval of two-thirds of parliament.

A wave of political assassinations has once again struck the city of Aden, targeting prominent figures with significant academic and developmental influence in Yemeni society. Within a few days, the city was shocked by the deaths of Dr. Abdul Rahman, a distinguished academic and poet, and Engineer Sami Qaed, Executive Director of the Social Development Fund, in operations that reflect a dangerous security deterioration.

These crimes occur at a sensitive time, indicating a repositioning of regional powers through various local tools, aimed at obstructing any positive transformation in the Yemeni arena. Observers believe that the continued flow of funding and logistical support for these operations serves agendas seeking to inflict the greatest possible damage on the stability that Riyadh is trying to establish in the south.

This deterioration can be attributed to the volatile security environment that has prevailed in the interim capital, Aden, for years, where security agencies and armed formations were established with a vengeful ideology. These formations enthusiastically carried out tasks to liquidate the state's legacy, turning the city into an open arena for settling political scores away from the rule of law.

Continuous incitement against symbols of the Yemeni state and its political carriers has created a climate of insecurity and uncertainty, making Aden an environment that repels national competencies. This vengeful trend is exacerbated by the continuous collapse of the institutions of the separatist project, whose security apparatuses have become a decisive factor in escalating acts of violence.

There are serious concerns that this chaos will lead to renewed alliances between the Imamate project in the north and the separatist project in the south, alliances that find their roots in the southern suburbs of Beirut. This rapprochement aims to revive the foundational agendas supervised by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard to destabilize the entire region.

The risks of security deterioration in Aden are not limited to the failure of the legitimate authority to manage the liberated areas, but extend to affect the decisive political and military battle against the Houthi coup. Weakening the sovereign status of legitimacy paves the way for the maturation of suspicious settlements with the forces controlling the ground in Sana'a.

In a related context, grim possibilities emerge from international tug-of-war, especially concerning potential agreements with Iran that might grant it geopolitical immunity in the Strait of Hormuz. This growing Iranian influence will serve as a pressure card to ensure the sustainability of its destructive proxies' influence in Yemen and the Arab region in general.

On the other hand, Israel's utilization of American policies stands out as a factor in restricting broad Arab political currents through the weapon of sanctions and terrorist classifications. This policy grants totalitarian regimes an opportunity to control and blackmail their peoples, although these sanctions will not succeed in transforming the vital components of the nation into mere inert tools.

The painful collapse of the peaceful transition model in Yemen is the result of a broad alliance that rejects democracy and political pluralism, which had generated widespread popular participation. This rejection led to the violation of social peace and the imposition of militia alternatives and divisive projects that tear apart the Yemeni national fabric.

While Aden witnesses organized killings that disrupt public tranquility, the Houthis in the north exercise a complete monopoly on violence, repression, and persecution against opponents. This synchronicity between chaos in the south and repression in the north reflects indirect coordination aimed at ending political diversity and eradicating party work.

The recent American classification enters the crisis to further complicate the scene, as it is seen as a tool to target political diversity rather than a means to achieve justice. Targeting vibrant political forces ultimately serves sectarian and separatist projects that thrive on the absence of a strong central state.

What is happening today in Aden is not just fleeting criminal incidents, but a systematic targeting of the pillars of the modern Yemeni state and its loyal men. The absence of accountability and impunity has encouraged killers to continue their destructive approach, which affects everyone who carries a unifying national project.

The current situation requires a serious stand from all Yemeni national forces to regain the initiative and protect what remains of state institutions. Silence on the liquidation of academic and developmental cadres means accepting a dark future ruled by militias and managed by external forces, far from the aspirations of the Yemeni people.

In conclusion, the bet remains on the awareness of Yemeni society and its ability to overcome these hardships, despite all attempts at domestication and intimidation practiced by the parties to the conflict. Yemen, with its political diversity and vitality, is capable of producing national alternatives that transcend narrow projects and restore the state's stolen sovereignty and position.

The city of Aden has turned into an open stage for assassinations, producing a tragic, bleak situation, a climate of distrust, and an environment that is eminently repellent.