By what right do the occupation authorities impose a ban on Palestinians from the West Bank from reaching Jerusalem, except by obtaining impossible permits, which have become extremely difficult and complicated to obtain these days? Where is the justice in preventing Palestinians, whether Christian or Muslim, from coming to Jerusalem for prayer or work, while military checkpoints stand in wait for Palestinians, preventing them from reaching their holy city? Many these days speak of an impending war, and they ignore and forget what Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank are subjected to. What is currently happening in the West Bank, and to all Palestinians, is a policy of humiliation, starvation, and abuse, by preventing Palestinians from reaching their work. Many Palestinians in the West Bank have been unemployed for more than two years, living in abject poverty, and suffering from policies of humiliation, starvation, and abuse. Palestinian Christians, residents of the West Bank, are also prevented from reaching Jerusalem, and from reaching their workplaces through which they support their families. A large percentage of Christians, especially young people in the West Bank, suffer from unemployment, poverty, and destitution, and even churches are often helpless and unable to secure the required permits for them. In Christian schools in Jerusalem, there are a number of teachers from the West Bank, numbering in the hundreds, who are distinguished by their giving, culture, and sophistication, and churches are asked to abandon them because the Israeli authorities will not grant them permits to reach their schools in Jerusalem. We are facing a state of siege and isolation for Palestinians in the West Bank, as the Palestinian in all cities, governorates, and towns is intended to be besieged, as if living in cantons separated from each other. For a Palestinian from the West Bank to come to Jerusalem, this has become extremely complicated and difficult, as has moving from one governorate to another, and from one city to another, which has also become extremely difficult and complicated, in light of the closures, gates, and the spread of settlers in more than one place in the Palestinian territories. Where are the human rights organizations in the world from the policy of imprisoning Palestinians, isolating them, and expelling them from Jerusalem? We said at one time that Gaza is the largest prison in the world, but the West Bank has also turned into a large prison; there are Palestinians languishing in occupation prisons, but there is also a large prison in which Palestinians live, and are prevented from freedom of movement and access to their holy sites, jobs, and businesses. Christians in the West Bank live in deprivation, hardship, poverty, and destitution, as is the case for all our people, especially in the Bethlehem Governorate and its cities, where tourism has stopped since the beginning of the war, hotels have closed, and the lack of tourist movement has negatively affected all restaurants and shops in the Bethlehem Governorate. They want to humiliate, starve, and subjugate the Palestinian, and what is currently happening in the West Bank is a war in a different way. Silence in the face of these injustices is not permissible. The Christian churches in this Holy Land must make their voices heard, and this voice must reach all churches and spiritual authorities in this world. The voice of the oppressed and besieged Palestinians must reach everywhere, especially to the leaders and political leaders in this world who turn a blind eye to the suffering of our people and what this oppressed people are subjected to. Surrender and acceptance of policies of isolating Palestinians and expelling them from their holy city as an inescapable reality is not permissible. It is not permissible to surrender to the culture of preventing Palestinians from exercising their natural right to reach Jerusalem and their workplaces, and this is not a generosity or a favor from anyone, for this is a legitimate right that every Palestinian must enjoy. I hope that Palestinians inside will intensify their trips and visits to the West Bank areas, especially the Bethlehem Governorate and other governorates, for whoever is able to reach the West Bank must do so, perhaps such visits will offer something, however simple and modest, to our steadfast people in the West Bank who remain in their land, but steadfastness and remaining require components. May God help our people and our families in the West Bank who have come to live as if in a large prison. A few days ago, a 30-year-old young man from Bethlehem told me: "I have never visited Jerusalem even once, and what I know about Jerusalem is only what I read and what I see in pictures through various social media." So where is the justice in all of this? And reaching Jerusalem has become a dream for many Palestinians who are prevented from freedom of movement and access to their holy city.

In political discourse, sharp vocabulary is often used to describe the relationship of peoples with their reality. But this vocabulary always needs to be deconstructed before being adopted as a framework for understanding. The question “Can the Palestinian people be tamed and a reality imposed upon them?” is not merely a description; rather, it tests the possibility of subjugating collective consciousness and transforming it into permanent passive acceptance. Historical experience, as well as tools of political and social analysis, indicate that the matter is far more complex than this simplistic perception.

For decades, Palestinians have lived in a highly complex political context, where geography intertwines with politics, economics with security, and identity with history. In this reality, one cannot speak of “normalization with reality” as a unified option. Positions vary from individual to individual, from generation to generation, and from one social environment to another. There are those who choose pragmatism for survival and improving daily life, and there are those who adhere to a firm national discourse that rejects the existing reality, and a third group oscillates between daily necessity and political awareness.

The idea of “taming peoples,” as it is sometimes presented, implicitly assumes that humans can be transformed into fully disciplined beings within conditions imposed upon them from outside. But reality proves that collective consciousness is not a rigid structure; rather, it is a living entity that is constantly shaped under the influence of daily experience, historical memory, and cultural symbols. Even in the most severe conditions of oppression, political consciousness does not disappear; instead, its form changes and it may sometimes retreat inward, but it never ceases to exist.

Collective memory plays a pivotal role in the Palestinian situation. The issue is not merely a current political situation, but an extension of a long historical narrative, passed down through generations via education, storytelling, national symbols, and daily experience. This memory is not easily erased, nor can it be quickly reshaped according to the variables of the political moment. On the contrary, the power of symbols and identities often increases during times of crisis, because they are a means to interpret reality and bear its burdens.

However, this does not mean that Palestinian society remains in perpetual conflict or absolute rejection of reality. History shows that peoples, under long-term attrition or the absence of a clear political horizon, may tend towards forms of partial adaptation. This adaptation is not a final acceptance, but a strategy for survival: minimizing losses, securing a minimum of stability, and managing life within the limits of what is possible. But it remains a conditional adaptation, which does not easily turn into a permanent conviction.

It is also important to distinguish between the individual and collective levels. Individuals may change their priorities under the pressure of daily life, but this does not mean a radical transformation in the political structure of society. Major transformations usually require deep changes in the economic and social structure, or comprehensive political settlements, or major historical shifts, and not merely social exhaustion.

The Palestinian reality is not static; rather, it is dynamic and contested, and has not yet settled into a final form. This makes any notion of final normalization with reality unresolved, both theoretically and practically.

From another perspective, the existing authority in Israel is not necessarily interested in Palestinians normalizing with the existing reality. Rather, it often adopts policies of calculated provocation and agitation to extract Palestinians from the state of forced stagnation imposed by daily restrictions on movement and economy. This strategy is linked to calculations of political and economic profit and loss, where limited escalation can serve the interests of control, negotiation, resource depletion, or managing the international situation to serve its strategic objectives.

In addition, we must consider the multiplicity of factors and actors within and outside Palestinian society. Each party, whether Palestinian factions or Israeli entities, operates according to its own interests, ideologies, beliefs, and visions, and does not necessarily accept the idea of a consensus around the “best option” for Palestinian collective consciousness. In this case, the option of inaction or partial adaptation to reality becomes just one vision among several competing visions. Each party tries to extract the Palestinian people from a state of forced stagnation according to its assessment, whether through motivation, pressure, provocation, or seizing available opportunities, all according to its interests, ideologies, and visions.

It is clear that the collective consciousness of the Palestinian people often surpasses the understanding and decisions of its leaders or other parties. The people, with their daily experiences, historical memory, and interaction with pressures, possess an ability to read reality and adapt to it in a way that often transcends the calculations of various parties, whether Palestinian or Israeli. This collective consciousness makes any attempt to simplify the relationship between the people and their reality or to speak of their “taming” misleading. It demonstrates the community's ability to resist complete surrender, and to act according to its own rules in managing daily challenges despite all pressures and calculated moves.

Ultimately, the relationship between the Palestinian people and their political reality is not merely a matter of taming. What actually exists is closer to a long struggle between adaptation and rejection, between daily need and historical identity, between political pragmatism and collective memory, and between the interests of various parties, each of which tries to extract the Palestinian reality from forced stagnation in a way that serves its own calculations. This struggle is not resolved by subjugation, but through long paths of political and social transformations that may reshape reality itself, not merely reshape the behavior of individuals towards it.

The Palestinian reality is not amenable to simplification. Collective consciousness, resistant to stagnation and pressures, remains the most important factor in shaping the community's path, between adaptation, steadfastness, and achieving its political and social choices in the long term.

"Finally, any attempt to impose a vision or policies that contradict the collective consciousness of the Palestinian people often leads to negative and destructive counter-results. These results can manifest in widespread popular rejection, escalation of protests and conflicts, and undermining the political legitimacy of any leadership or party seeking to impose this vision. Moreover, attempts at subjugation or overriding the will of the community usually strengthen collective identity and social cohesion, making any future policy or settlement more difficult to implement, and increasing the difficulty of managing conflicts in the long term. In short, ignoring the collective consciousness of the people only exacerbates the conflict and significantly complicates the political and social situation."

The decision-making circles in Washington have witnessed a fundamental shift in their approach to the Iranian file, with the announcement of Nick Stewart joining the office of the US Special Envoy for Peace Missions, Steve Witkoff. This step comes amidst a state of political deadlock and stagnation that overshadows the course of negotiations between the United States and the Islamic Republic of Iran.

White House spokeswoman Olivia Wells confirmed that Stewart possesses extensive field and leadership experience, making him a valuable addition to Witkoff's team, especially in matters related to Iranian policy. Stewart effectively began his duties by participating in the high-level delegation that visited Islamabad early last April, which included Vice President J.D. Vance and Jared Kushner.

Nick Stewart is classified among the hawks in Washington, known for his absolute support for the 'maximum pressure' strategy adopted by the Republican administration. His name was previously associated with the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD Action), a think tank that adopts firm stances and openly calls for the use of military force to deter Iranian ambitions.

US Senate records reveal Stewart's extensive activity in lobbying groups since 2023, where he oversaw the expenditure of over two million dollars to influence foreign policy. His efforts focused on crucial legislation, including the Iran Sanctions Enhancement Act of 2026, and other laws targeting Russia and the Muslim Brotherhood.

Overlapping reports indicate that Stewart's appointment was not a coincidence, but came at the direct recommendation of Jared Kushner, President Donald Trump's son-in-law. This appointment reflects the growing influence of the wing that calls for tightening the noose on Tehran, and rejecting any compromises that do not guarantee comprehensive and fundamental Iranian concessions in the nuclear and regional files.

Sources indicate that this diplomatic move comes in response to the stalled negotiations that have reached a dead end recently. President Trump's objection to recent Iranian proposals to end the war has further complicated the scene, prompting the administration to search for more effective and influential pressure tools in the political arena.

Regarding his vision for national security, Stewart adopts a radical stance that sees the only solution in the complete dismantling of Iran's nuclear infrastructure. Not only that, but he emphasizes the necessity of stripping Tehran of its ability to support armed factions that Washington accuses of destabilizing the Middle East region.

The new member of the negotiation team believes in what is called 'coercive diplomacy,' a strategy that combines suffocating economic sanctions and a serious and credible military threat. Stewart strongly criticizes the policies of the previous administration, considering that it was lenient in implementing sanctions, especially those related to oil exports, which represent the lifeline of the Iranian economy.

Washington's escalation of its negotiating team comes amidst a highly complex regional environment, where fears of an explosion of the situation are increasing due to the absence of a political horizon. Observers believe that the presence of a figure like Stewart at the heart of the negotiations reduces the chances of compromise solutions, and pushes towards a more fierce diplomatic or economic confrontation.

In conclusion, Nick Stewart's appointment represents a clear message from the White House that the next phase will not see free concessions to Tehran. With the diplomatic track remaining suspended, the question remains whether these pressures will force Iran to return to the negotiating table on Washington's terms, or whether they will lead the region to a new round of open escalation.

The only acceptable outcome for US national security is the complete dismantling of Iran's nuclear infrastructure.

Informed sources revealed that Tehran has submitted an official response to a US proposal, conveyed through a Pakistani mediator, aimed at ending ongoing military operations in the region. The sources clarified that the Iranian side, in its response, focused on the necessity of a radical end to the war, considering the American formula that proposed a two-month ceasefire insufficient and not meeting the requirements for lasting stability.

The Iranian proposal included a comprehensive 14-point roadmap, outlining Tehran's red lines and defining paths for a political and security solution. The initiative stipulates that all outstanding issues must be addressed within a timeframe not exceeding 30 days, emphasizing that the ultimate goal is a comprehensive cessation of hostilities on all active fronts, including the Lebanese arena.

Among the Iranian points are strategic demands related to regional security, with Tehran calling for documented guarantees of non-aggression and the withdrawal of US forces present in Iran's geographical vicinity. The Iranian paper also included the necessity of establishing a new international or regional mechanism to regulate navigation in the Strait of Hormuz, ensuring the rights of all parties and preventing future tensions in this vital shipping lane.

On the economic front, the initiative stressed the need for a complete lifting of the imposed naval blockade, in addition to the immediate release of frozen Iranian assets abroad. Tehran demanded financial compensation for damages resulting from the conflict, considering the lifting of economic sanctions a fundamental pillar of any agreement aimed at ending the state of war and establishing peace in the region.

Reports from the Iranian capital confirmed that this proposal was only sent after undergoing thorough reviews within the highest decision-making institutions and receiving all necessary political and security approvals. Political circles in Tehran are currently awaiting the official response from the US administration to these points, amidst cautious hopes for a breakthrough in the escalating crisis.

The Iranian proposal focuses on a comprehensive end to the war instead of merely extending a ceasefire for temporary periods.

Dozens of demonstrators and activists gathered in the Spanish capital, Madrid, on Saturday afternoon, in a permanent sit-in in front of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, expressing their anger at the continued detention of international activists from the 'Freedom Flotilla'. Participants demanded that the Spanish government take urgent action and pressure the Israeli occupation authorities to ensure the immediate release of the detainees who were on a humanitarian mission to break the siege on the Gaza Strip.

The protesters' demands focused on the need to release Brazilian activist Thiago Avila and Spanish activist of Palestinian origin Saif Abu Kishk, who were abducted after Israeli forces intercepted the flotilla's ships on April 29. The sit-in participants stressed that these Israeli practices in international waters require a firm diplomatic response that goes beyond traditional condemnation statements.

The demonstrators called on the Spanish government and other European governments to take effective steps, including cutting diplomatic and trade relations with Israel, in response to its continuous crimes against the Palestinian people and international solidarity activists. The organizers affirmed that the sit-in in front of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs will remain ongoing and open until all demands are met and the activists return safely to their families.

Participants in the event raised slogans calling for the freedom of Palestine and an end to the occupation, chanting slogans emphasizing the continuation of the struggle until complete victory is achieved and the land is liberated from the river to the sea. The protesters considered that the international community's silence regarding the occupation's piracy in international waters encourages it to commit more blatant violations of international laws and norms.

For her part, Maria Elena Delia, spokesperson for the Italian delegation participating in the flotilla, explained that the detention operation took place illegally from a boat flying the Italian flag. She pointed out that this act constitutes a clear violation of the law of the sea, especially since the ships were in international waters about 20 nautical miles from the Greek island of Crete.

Delia warned that European leniency with the detention of citizens from ships flying EU flags constitutes a dangerous precedent and a challenge to international security and law. She added that what the activists were subjected to is not just an individual assault, but rather part of a systematic policy pursued by the occupation to intimidate solidarity activists and prevent the delivery of essential humanitarian aid to the besieged residents of the Gaza Strip.

The 'Spring 2026 Mission' had set sail from the Italian island of Sicily last week, carrying dozens of solidarity activists seeking to break the unjust siege imposed on the Strip. However, the Israeli navy launched an aggression in the open sea off Greece, detaining about 180 activists, most of whom were later deported to Greek territory, while Abu Kishk and Avila were transferred to Ashdod port for investigation.

It is worth noting that this initiative is the second of its kind for the 'Global Freedom Flotilla' in two years, preceded by an attempt in September 2025 which also ended with an Israeli military attack and the arrest of hundreds of activists. These repeated attempts confirm the international solidarity movement's determination to continue its efforts to lift the siege on Gaza despite the security risks and continuous attacks by the occupation army.

The detention of activists from a ship flying the Italian flag in international waters represents a dangerous escalation and a systematic violation of international law and the law of the sea.

Pakistan has recently emerged as a pivotal state playing the role of mediator and sponsor for direct and indirect negotiation tracks between Tehran and Washington. Since the first round that brought together the American and Iranian delegations in Islamabad, the state has appeared as a weighty sponsor capable of opening parallel diplomatic channels to protect a political solution.

Choosing Pakistan to host these negotiations is an indicator with major political implications, as this role aligns with the complexities of the military and security landscape in the region. The American and Iranian delegations left the Pakistani capital after a first round whose tracks were not completed, following the American delegation's decision to cut off negotiations and leave angrily.

The reasons for the failure of the first round are attributed to what informed sources described as a policy of intransigence and mutual conditions, as Tehran insists on lifting the American naval blockade on its ports. In contrast, the American side exerts great pressure to obtain immediate concessions, which put the negotiation process at the mercy of a conflict of wills.

Pakistani diplomacy is making diligent and intensive efforts with regional and international parties to bring the two sides back to the negotiating table in an anticipated second round. Islamabad is moving in this framework supported by its strategic relations with major powers such as China and Russia, in addition to its coordination with influential countries such as Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Turkey.

Observers believe that the road to Islamabad is still fraught with political landmines and traps set by both parties, despite US President Donald Trump's insistence on achieving a quick agreement. Pakistan realizes that the failure of these efforts could mean a return to military escalation options that would have dire consequences for the future of the region.

In the context of international positions, statements by German Chancellor Friedrich Merz emerged, addressed to Trump, warning of the American and Israeli labyrinth in dealing with the Iranian file. Merz described Iran as stronger than previously thought, considering that Washington lacks a convincing negotiation strategy.

Analysts considered the German Chancellor's words to represent the fall of the last European cover for American policies towards Tehran. In the same context, Hebrew media sources indicated that Trump himself began to feel weary of the continued state of war, and shows a clear desire to end the conflict through a political agreement.

On the other hand, Israel stands out as a fierce opponent of any Pakistani role in the region, as the far-right government in Tel Aviv rejects any rapprochement that might lead to de-escalation. Benjamin Netanyahu seeks to influence the decision-maker in the White House to push things towards a comprehensive confrontation instead of diplomatic solutions.

Pakistan bases its mediation on professional tools and a comprehensive vision of the conflict in the Middle East, relying heavily on the concept of the "Islamic bond." Its deep relations with Riyadh, Cairo, and Ankara also play a vital role in bringing viewpoints closer with the Iranian side and narrowing the gap of disagreement.

Geography is a crucial factor in the Pakistani role, as the country shares a land border with Iran extending for about 900 kilometers. The importance of these borders is highlighted amid American attempts to create internal chaos in Iran and tighten the naval blockade, which makes land routes a strategic lifeline.

Recent regional tensions have revealed the strength of the military and economic alliance between Pakistan and China, especially under the "Belt and Road" initiative. This close cooperation has brought Pakistan closer to the Eastern bloc, while India appears as a closer ally to the United States and Israel in the region.

Pakistan's shift towards engaging in Middle Eastern issues as a weighty mediator is a strategic indicator moving in directions contrary to plans aimed at dividing the region. Islamabad seeks through this role to prevent the redrawing of the region's maps according to ambitions and expansionist projects that threaten the stability of states.

The success of Pakistani mediation remains contingent on overcoming the technical and political negotiation stumbling blocks between Washington and Tehran. If intransigence continues, the conflict may slide again into a state of resource depletion, or enter a "no peace, no war" situation that exhausts all concerned parties.

In conclusion, Pakistan and the parties to the conflict realize that the current confrontation transcends diplomatic dimensions to reach the level of a struggle for existence and survival. Hence the importance of clinging to the threads of political hope led by Islamabad, as the only alternative to avoid a comprehensive explosion that may have dire consequences in the region and the world.

Iran is stronger than believed, and the Americans do not have a convincing negotiation strategy.

Media sources revealed an increased state of alert within the Israeli occupation army's navy, in anticipation of the arrival of a new fleet of pro-Palestinian ships departing from Turkish ports. These preparations come just days after an Israeli attack targeted the 'Flotilla of Steadfastness' ships in international waters near the Greek island of Crete, which ended with the abduction of dozens of international solidarity activists.

According to Hebrew reports, the Turkish Humanitarian Relief Foundation (IHH) is responsible for organizing this new naval movement, the same organization that oversaw the famous 'Mavi Marmara' flotilla in 2010. The ships are expected to sail from the Turkish city of Marmaris towards the Gaza Strip, in a renewed attempt to challenge the naval blockade imposed on the Strip for many years.

Sources indicated that the occupation army's assessments place the upcoming flotilla in the category of 'most important and dangerous' compared to previous movements, as security concerns prevail regarding activists' insistence on reaching Palestinian shores. Based on these assessments, the Israeli navy has prepared reinforced forces and special units for rapid intervention with the aim of intercepting the ships and preventing their advance before they reach the territorial waters of the Strip.

In a related context, activists returning from the 'Flotilla of Steadfastness' gave harsh testimonies about the violations they were subjected to during their detention by the occupation forces last Thursday. Participants who were on board 20 ships confirmed that the occupation soldiers deliberately used excessive force and carried out systematic sabotage targeting navigation, communication, and engine systems, which led to a complete paralysis of ship movement.

Istanbul Airport witnessed on Friday evening the arrival of a private plane carrying 59 international activists, including 18 Turkish citizens, who had been detained among 175 activists during the recent Israeli aggression at sea. Upon their arrival, the activists confirmed that work is underway to prepare a huge flotilla comprising between 100 and 150 ships currently gathering in several Turkish ports in preparation for a collective sailing.

The naval movements are not limited to Turkish ports but also extend to include other European initiatives, as a convoy departed from the Italian island of Sicily as part of the 'Spring 2026 Mission'. This mission had actually begun on April 12 with the departure of 39 boats from the Spanish city of Barcelona, with plans to increase the number of participating ships to exceed one hundred ships departing from Spain, Italy, and Tunisia.

These developments bring back memories of the 'Mavi Marmara' flotilla incident in May 2010, when Israeli commando forces attacked the Turkish ship in international waters, resulting in the martyrdom of 10 solidarity activists and the injury of dozens. That incident caused a deep diplomatic crisis between Ankara and Tel Aviv, and it seems that the scene is repeating itself today with the insistence of international organizations to break the blockade imposed on Gaza.

It is worth noting that the history of attempts to break the naval blockade witnessed limited successes in its early stages, as the ships 'Freedom' and 'Free Gaza' managed to reach the Strip in August 2008. The Qatari ship 'Al-Karama' was the last ship to successfully break the naval cordon and reach Gaza port in December of the same year, before the occupation tightened its military grip and prevented all subsequent attempts.

Estimates indicate that the new flotilla will be more significant than its predecessor, and there are fears of attempts to break the naval blockade by force.

Iranian authorities, through Pakistani mediation, have formally submitted a 14-point proposal to the United States, aiming to bring an end to the ongoing war between the two parties. This Iranian move comes in response to a previous American offer consisting of 9 points, with Tehran seeking, through its new draft, to draw a concrete roadmap that guarantees its strategic interests and ends the state of armed conflict.

Media sources indicated that the new proposal underwent precise and in-depth reviews within decision-making circles in Tehran before its final adoption. The document received all necessary approvals from sovereign entities, reflecting the Iranian side's seriousness in presenting diplomatic alternatives that adhere to the red lines previously set by the Iranian leadership in any future negotiations.

Pakistan plays a pivotal role in bridging the views between Washington and Tehran, leveraging its long land borders with Iran and its balanced relations with international powers. Islamabad coordinates its efforts with regional and international allies, including China, Russia, and Saudi Arabia, to tip the scales towards negotiated solutions, despite field challenges such as the American delegation's angry withdrawal from previous rounds.

On the ground, the region is experiencing a fragile truce that began on April 8th, following a bloody conflict that erupted in February and left thousands of casualties. The extension of this truce came at the direct request of the Pakistani government to provide an additional opportunity for diplomacy, at a time when international parties, led by the German Chancellor, are pressing for a more realistic American strategy to deal with Iranian influence.

In a related context, reports indicate an urgent desire by the current US administration, specifically Donald Trump, to reach a quick agreement that ends direct military involvement. In contrast, Tehran insists that any final agreement must include a complete lifting of the naval blockade imposed on its ports, which constitutes a fundamental cornerstone of the 14-point proposal.

On the other hand, Israel is observing these diplomatic moves with extreme caution, expressing clear objection to the growing Pakistani role in regional issues. Tel Aviv is trying to influence the American position to ensure that no concessions are made that affect its security, amidst the continued close military and economic cooperation between Pakistan and China, which casts a shadow over the balance of power in the region.

The Iranian proposal includes Tehran's red lines and presents a clear roadmap for ending the war after being reviewed by higher decision-making mechanisms.

Informed sources reported that the occupation authorities announced on Saturday the arrest of a 36-year-old man, suspected of involvement in an assault on a nun in the occupied city of Jerusalem. The arrest came after extensive investigations conducted by security agencies following the incident, which sparked a wave of widespread condemnation in religious and local circles.

A statement issued by the relevant authorities clarified that the suspect was identified through the use of advanced digital technology, which enabled field teams to accurately and quickly track the perpetrator's movements. The sources indicated that the immediate response by security personnel contributed to identifying the person and his whereabouts immediately after the assault.

The occupation authorities claimed in their statement their full commitment to what they described as 'protecting freedom of worship' and providing security for religious figures of various denominations in the holy city. They also stressed that such behaviors, which they described as racist, would not be tolerated, considering that targeting religious figures represents a serious crossing of red lines.

In a related context, the detainee is currently undergoing in-depth investigations by the competent authorities to determine the true motives behind the commission of this crime. The suspect is scheduled to be brought before the competent court immediately after the completion of the necessary legal procedures to ensure accountability for the actions attributed to him.

It is worth noting that this incident comes amid escalating tensions, as France had earlier condemned this assault as 'shocking,' demanding severe penalties against the perpetrators. This incident reflects the extent of the challenges faced by religious institutions in occupied Jerusalem in light of repeated attacks targeting symbols and holy sites.

Harming religious symbols is a red line that aims to disturb the peaceful coexistence in the holy city.

Palestinians in the Gaza Strip are facing a changing reality on the ground characterized by the expansion of the Israeli occupation army's geographical control, nearly 200 days after the ceasefire agreement came into effect. Instead of a gradual withdrawal, the occupation authorities have introduced what is known as the 'Orange Line,' a new demarcation that goes beyond the 'Yellow Line' agreed upon in October 2025.

This shift constitutes a clear violation of the understandings that stipulated the separation of the army's control areas in the east from the areas where Palestinians are allowed to be present in the west. Under this new encroachment, the occupation has seized additional areas deep within the Strip, turning areas that were classified as safe zones into areas under direct military control.

Hamas leader Basem Naim confirmed that the occupation has shifted the Yellow Line towards the western areas by an additional area estimated at about 8 to 9 percent. This measure has increased the total area controlled by the Israeli army to more than 60 percent of the total area of the Gaza Strip, tightening the noose on the residents.

For its part, the United Nations expressed its grave concern about these developments, with the spokesperson for the Secretary-General, Stéphane Dujarric, indicating that Israel has expanded its occupation by establishing the 'Orange Line.' Dujarric clarified that the organization received maps including this new line, which imposes additional restrictions on the movement of humanitarian aid.

UN sources reported that the occupation stipulated that relief teams coordinate their movements in advance when crossing this line, which Dujarric considered an indication that things are not going in the right direction. These Israeli demands reflect a desire to transform the western areas into unstable security zones under the administration of the army.

The announcement of the 'Orange Line' was not a surprise to observers, but rather came as a result of a series of field measures that included land leveling and the removal of yellow concrete blocks. Eyewitnesses confirmed that the army had been working for months to move these virtual border markers deeper into citizens' lands.

This repeated violation led to new waves of displacement, as dozens of Palestinian families were forced to leave their homes and tents in Khan Yunis, Al-Zaytoun neighborhood, and Jabalia and head west. This encroachment was accompanied by air and artillery strikes targeting anyone approaching the new lines, resulting in dozens of martyrs and wounded.

Hamas condemned these violations in an official statement, considering that the shifting of the colored lines represents clear evidence of the Netanyahu government's reneging on the efforts of mediators. The movement said that the occupation seeks to thwart the agreement by imposing a new geographical and security reality that contradicts the spirit of the international understandings reached.

Hamas indicated in a detailed memorandum that the occupation imposed additional fire control zones, reaching in some areas an additional depth of 1700 meters, especially in the northern part of the Strip. The area of this fire control reached about 34 square kilometers, which the movement described as the 'actual demolition' of the principle of redeployment and gradual withdrawal.

These measures are reshaping the lives of more than two million Palestinians, who are now confined to an area not exceeding 38 percent of the total area of the Strip. Residents near these lines live under constant threat from drones and artillery shelling, making their daily lives a continuous hell amid catastrophic humanitarian conditions.

On the Israeli side, official statements show a clear intention to turn these lines into permanent borders, with Chief of Staff Eyal Zamir describing the Yellow Line as 'the new border.' Zamir considered that these areas constitute an advanced military base to protect settlements and carry out rapid offensive operations within what remains of the Strip.

In the same context, Defense Minister Yoav Gallant affirmed that the army will not retreat one millimeter from these positions until the war's objectives are achieved and the resistance is disarmed. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu also reinforced these trends by announcing that more than half of Gaza's territory is effectively under Israeli military control.

These field developments come amid a political stalemate surrounding the discussions aimed at activating the second phase of the ceasefire agreement. Diplomatic efforts are clashing with complex Israeli conditions, at a time when Palestinian parties are demanding the necessity of implementing the requirements of the first phase and stopping the geographical encroachment.

It is worth noting that the Gaza Strip is suffering from massive destruction affecting 90% of its infrastructure as a result of the ongoing war since October 2023, which has left unprecedented human and material losses. The United Nations estimates the cost of reconstruction at about 70 billion dollars, amid the continuation of starvation and siege policies and the closure of vital crossings.

The Yellow Line constitutes a new border line, an advanced defense line for settlements, and a military base for carrying out rapid attacks.

Israeli violations of the ceasefire agreement in the Gaza Strip continued, with two Palestinians martyred and others injured by the bullets and shelling of the occupation army in various areas in the central and southern parts of the Strip. These bloody field developments come amid the ongoing truce agreement, which was supposed to be in effect since October 10, 2025, and which has witnessed repeated violations leading to hundreds of casualties.

In details of the field attacks, medical sources confirmed the martyrdom of the young man Ammar Talal Abu Shab after he was directly shot by occupation forces in the eastern Al-Satar area, located north of Khan Yunis city. This coincided with Israeli military movements in the border areas of the Strip, leading to a state of extreme tension among citizens attempting to inspect their properties.

In the central Strip, an occupation drone launched a raid targeting the vicinity of Al-Qastal towers east of Deir al-Balah city, resulting in one martyr and another citizen sustaining various injuries. Local sources reported that the shelling targeted a gathering of citizens, and the victims were transferred to nearby hospitals amid the continued hovering of drones in the region's airspace.

According to the latest data issued by the Ministry of Health, the total death toll from the occupation's aggression on the Gaza Strip since October 7, 2023, has risen to 72,608 martyrs, in addition to 172,445 injured. These figures reflect the scale of the ongoing humanitarian catastrophe despite international attempts to establish a ceasefire that remains fragile.

Regarding the violations of the recent agreement, the Ministry stated in a statement on Saturday that the number of martyrs since the truce began last October reached 828 martyrs and 2,342 injured. These statistics indicate that Israeli military operations have not actually stopped, but have taken forms of concentrated targeting, and intermittent aerial and artillery shelling.

Politically, informed sources revealed intentions by the administration of US President Donald Trump to close the civil-military coordination center run by Washington near the Gaza Strip. This intention comes amid sharp criticism of the center for its failure to effectively monitor the truce, and its limited ability to secure access to necessary humanitarian aid for the besieged population.

In contrast, the so-called 'Peace Council' denied these reports, asserting that the coordination center would continue its duties in the region to ensure communication mechanisms. However, observers believe that the center lacks the real powers that would enable it to enforce a ceasefire on the ground, especially with the Israeli side's insistence on continuing its military operations within the cities and camps of the Strip.

Israeli violations of the agreement since its inception have resulted in the martyrdom of 828 Palestinians and the injury of 2,342 others.

The Israeli occupation army announced a series of wide-ranging airstrikes targeting various areas in southern Lebanon, claiming to have destroyed dozens of Hezbollah sites. According to a military statement, the attacks included the destruction of approximately 70 buildings allegedly used for military purposes, in addition to 50 other infrastructure sites, despite a fragile ceasefire agreement being in effect.

In a significant development, media sources revealed instructions issued by the Chief of Staff of the occupation army, Eyal Zamir, to expand the targeting scope to include deep inside Lebanese territory. These orders come at a time when ceasefire understandings impose restrictions on military operations, limiting confrontations to only southern Lebanese areas.

Zamir's directive focused directly on the necessity of striking Hezbollah's production line of explosive drones, which have become a major security problem for the occupation. Through this strategy, the army seeks to shift the battle from attempting to intercept drones in the air to destroying them at their primary manufacturing and assembly centers.

There is widespread skepticism regarding the accuracy of Israeli intelligence information about the locations of these factories, and whether the previous abstention from striking them was due to technical or political reasons. Sources indicated that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu might override American reservations to carry out qualitative operations deep inside Lebanon to impose a new reality on the ground.

Observers believe that Zamir's moves are primarily aimed at absorbing public anger and sharp criticism directed at the military establishment due to its failure to counter the drone air force. Recent confrontations have demonstrated Hezbollah's ability to penetrate Israeli defense systems and reach sensitive targets with high precision.

Hezbollah had introduced new types of drones into service, including the 'optical drone,' which is difficult to detect by traditional radars. This technological development has increased the complexity of the occupation army's defensive mission, prompting the military leadership to search for alternative offensive solutions deep within Lebanese territory.

Reports indicate that Netanyahu is banking on a margin of maneuver with the American administration, allowing him to target vital facilities under the pretext of 'preemptive defense.' The occupation has previously targeted energy and gas infrastructure in Lebanon, despite previous international promises not to repeat such attacks that affect civilian and vital facilities.

In contrast, Hezbollah continues to carry out qualitative operations using kamikaze drones against gatherings and bases of the occupation forces, achieving direct hits as acknowledged by field commanders. These ongoing operations confirm that the option of escalation deep inside could lead to unexpected reactions, putting the ceasefire agreement on the brink of total collapse.

Zamir's statements fall under an attempt to reassure Israelis that the solution is to target factories, given the inability to intercept drones in the air.

Hundreds of Palestinian workers in the city of Khan Yunis, southern Gaza Strip, marched on Saturday in a large protest that swept through the city's streets. Participants in the event demanded the securing of their basic rights to work, food, and shelter, warning of the continued deterioration of humanitarian and living conditions, which have reached catastrophic levels as a result of the ongoing war.

This march was organized at the call of leftist Palestinian factions, coinciding with the commemoration of International Workers' Day, which falls on May 1st of each year. Demonstrators raised banners condemning international silence regarding the suffering of workers in Gaza, emphasizing that the working class is the most affected by the policies of siege and continuous aggression on the Strip.

Participants, through their chants and slogans, stressed the urgent need for intervention by international and Arab bodies to open closed crossings and ensure the flow of humanitarian aid. They also demanded a complete end to the war and the initiation of reconstruction plans to compensate for the enormous losses incurred by economic and productive facilities.

Ashour Banat, a leader in the Palestinian People's Party, affirmed during a speech at the march that Gaza workers today face the triangle of hunger, siege, and deprivation. Banat explained that workers' demands currently focus on stopping the aggression, ensuring fair wages, and providing a safe and healthy working environment that befits the dignity of the Palestinian human being.

For his part, Issam Muammar, a member of the Workers' Union in Khan Yunis, indicated that this event is a clear message to the world about the extent of the tragedy experienced by workers. He explained that the war has caused a near-complete paralysis in the agricultural and industrial sectors, leading to hundreds of thousands of workers losing their only sources of livelihood.

Muammar called on labor unions around the world to show effective solidarity with Palestinian workers and provide urgent material and relief support to their families. He considered that continued silence regarding what is happening in Gaza represents a green light for the continuation of the systematic starvation policy practiced against the population and displaced people in tents.

In a related context, Hani Al-Assar, a member of the Political Bureau of the Palestinian Arab Front, stated that the occupation deliberately destroyed economic infrastructure, including factories and agricultural lands. Al-Assar affirmed that this systematic destruction aims to push the Palestinian economy towards complete collapse and transform society into one entirely dependent on aid.

The latest data issued by the Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics showed shocking figures regarding the reality of the labor market in the Strip during 2025. The unemployment rate jumped to 68 percent, an unprecedented rate reflecting the scale of the catastrophe that has befallen the Palestinian workforce as a result of ongoing military operations.

Statistics also indicated a sharp decline in the labor force participation rate, which fell from 40 percent before the outbreak of the war to only about 25 percent. This means that about three-quarters of those previously working in the public and private sectors are now out of the labor market or among the unemployed.

These protests coincide with international reports describing the economic situation in the Palestinian territories as the deepest and harshest in their modern history. The United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) confirmed that the Gaza Strip faces a comprehensive economic collapse that will require many years of recovery if the war stops and the siege is lifted.

Currently, about 1.9 million displaced people live in temporary tents and very harsh living conditions, out of a total population of 2.4 million in the Strip. Despite the ceasefire agreement coming into effect last October, restrictions on crossings still hinder the arrival of basic necessities and fuel.

The suffering of workers continues under a tight siege imposed since 2007, exacerbated by the war of extermination that began in October 2023. This war, according to medical and local sources, has resulted in hundreds of thousands killed and injured, as well as widespread destruction of Palestinian cities and towns in various areas of the Strip.

Gaza workers do not celebrate their international day; instead, they face hunger, siege, and deprivation of the most basic rights amidst an unprecedented economic collapse.

Washington – Said Arikat – 3/5/2026

News Analysis

Iran has presented a 14-point response to the American proposal aimed at ending the war that erupted following US and Israeli strikes against it on February 28. This move reflects Tehran's attempt to extract political and strategic gains from a military confrontation that continues to weigh heavily on Gulf security, energy markets, and international navigation.

According to the semi-official Tasnim news agency and official Iranian media, the Iranian plan demands an end to the war and the resolution of all outstanding issues within just thirty days, instead of a two-month truce previously proposed by Washington. Iranian demands also include guarantees against any future military attack, the withdrawal of US forces from Iran's vicinity, the lifting of the naval blockade, the unfreezing of Iranian assets, compensation payments, the lifting of economic sanctions, a halt to fighting in Lebanon, and the establishment of a new mechanism for regulating navigation in the Strait of Hormuz.

While none of the US media outlets have independently confirmed the authenticity of the points in the Iranian proposal, an Iranian official stated that the document was delivered to Pakistan, without officially disclosing its details. In response, US President Donald Trump announced on Saturday that he is reviewing the new proposal, while the Associated Press quoted him as saying he is "not satisfied" with the Iranian offer so far.

The United States had previously put forward a 15-point framework that included, among other things, the full reopening of the Strait of Hormuz and the complete termination of Iran's nuclear program. Tehran considers these conditions closer to "surrender dictates" than to a negotiated settlement.

Observers believe that the Iranian response reflects an understanding within the Iranian leadership that Washington, despite its military superiority, faces increasing difficulty in translating military pressure into lasting political achievement. After months of military operations, naval blockades, and reciprocal strikes, the region does not appear closer to stability, but rather to a more complex and dangerous phase.

An increasing number of strategic experts in Washington believe that Trump succeeded in achieving a limited tactical victory through the initial military strikes against Iranian infrastructure, but failed to turn that into a sustainable political gain. The blockade imposed on Iranian ports, the disruption of navigation, and the rigidity in negotiation terms have all pushed Tehran towards greater intransigence instead of collapse. According to these experts, the "complete strangulation" policy adopted by the White House has transformed a moment of American military superiority into a state of strategic stalemate, even into something resembling a political defeat that is draining Washington and its allies economically, securely, and diplomatically.

The latest Iranian demands confirm that Tehran seeks to redefine the rules of engagement in the Gulf, not just a temporary ceasefire. The reference to a "new mechanism" for regulating the Strait of Hormuz carries political dimensions that go beyond maritime security, as it practically means Iran's demand for a recognized regional role in managing one of the world's most important oil passages.

The demand to end fighting in Lebanon also reveals the interconnectedness of regional confrontation arenas, amid escalating tensions on the Lebanese-Israeli border and the widening scope of the conflict to more than one front. Analysts believe that Tehran is trying to use its regional influence as part of a comprehensive deal, rather than limiting negotiations to the nuclear file only.

Researchers at American think tanks believe that Trump made a classic strategic error by overusing economic and military force simultaneously. The naval blockade on Iranian ports, instead of pushing Tehran to a quick surrender, gave it an opportunity to portray itself as a "besieged and attacked" country, which helped it mobilize the Iranian interior and gain relative international sympathy, especially in Asia and some countries of the Global South. They emphasize that maximum sanctions and comprehensive blockades rarely produce stable political solutions, but often lead to prolonging the conflict and expanding its cost for everyone.

Meanwhile, the US administration faces a complex equation. Retreating from the blockade policy could be interpreted domestically as weakness, while continuing it threatens further escalation in a region on which global markets depend for energy supplies. These concerns have already been reflected in oil prices and maritime shipping, amid growing anxiety about any long-term disruption to navigation through the Gulf.

Iran's demand for the unfreezing of its assets and the lifting of sanctions also indicates that the economic file has become central to any potential settlement. Tehran understands that easing financial pressures could give it internal breathing room, while Washington fears that this could strengthen Iranian influence regionally.

Critics of Trump's policy say that the US president turned an opportunity to contain the crisis into an open confrontation with no clear horizon. Instead of leveraging American military superiority to impose a quick and balanced settlement, he chose a policy of naval blockade and maximum pressure, which pushed Iran to intransigence and to link any agreement to broad demands that go beyond the nuclear file. They believe that the continued strangulation of Iranian ports and the threat to its oil exports did not lead to the collapse of the Iranian state as some American circles expected, but rather created a regional attrition that harms American interests themselves and weakens Washington's international image as a power capable of managing crises.

In contrast, Trump insists that maximum pressure is necessary to force Iran to make real concessions, considering that any easing of sanctions before achieving Washington's goals would be seen as an Iranian victory. However, this argument faces criticism even within conservative American circles, where some Republicans warn against being drawn into a long and costly war of attrition in the Middle East.

Analysts suggest that the current Iranian response may be an attempt to test Washington's willingness to make actual concessions, especially in light of global economic pressures and increasing international criticism of the continued war and blockade.

According to experts in international relations, the most dangerous outcome of Trump's policy is not just the stalled negotiations, but the entrenchment of a conviction among Washington's adversaries that the United States is capable of starting wars but less capable of ending them politically. The blockade on Iranian ports and the disruption of maritime trade have created widespread global tension, without achieving a decisive negotiating breakthrough. They believe that Iran, through steadfastness and maneuvering, has managed to turn American pressure into an element of exhaustion for Washington itself, making the initial American "tactical victory" now appear closer to a strategic quagmire open to dangerous and uncalculated possibilities.

As the exchange of political and military messages continues, eyes remain on whether Washington and Tehran will succeed in moving from a logic of blockade and deterrence to a logic of settlement, or whether the region is heading towards a more turbulent phase, in which the Strait of Hormuz and other Middle Eastern arenas will be hostages to an open-ended conflict with no clear end.

US President Donald Trump confirmed that he had received a briefing on the broad outlines of a potential agreement with the Islamic Republic of Iran, indicating that he is awaiting the precise and final wording of this proposal. Trump's statements came before his departure to Florida, where he clarified that the US administration is carefully studying the ideas presented before making any final decision on them.

In a cautionary tone, Trump did not rule out returning to the military option and targeting Iranian sites again if Washington deemed Tehran to be misbehaving. He added in statements via social media platforms that Iran has not yet paid a sufficiently heavy price for its past actions, reflecting skepticism about accepting the current proposals.

For its part, media sources revealed that Tehran had delivered a comprehensive 14-point proposal to the American side via the Pakistani mediator, in response to a previous American offer. This proposal includes a concrete roadmap aimed at ending ongoing hostilities and has undergone careful reviews within Iranian decision-making institutions before its adoption.

The Iranian provisions include fundamental demands, foremost among them the withdrawal of US forces from areas surrounding Iran and the complete lifting of the economic blockade imposed on it. Tehran also demands the release of all frozen financial assets abroad, financial compensation, and the lifting of sanctions that have burdened the Iranian economy for many years.

On the regional level, the Iranian proposal links ending the war in the region with a cessation of fighting on all active fronts, including the Lebanese arena. The Iranian side also proposes creating a new monitoring mechanism for navigation in the Strait, to ensure the stability of vital waterways and avoid any future military friction in the region.

In return, the Iranian proposal stipulates international guarantees from the United States and Israel not to launch any future attacks against Iranian territory in exchange for fully opening navigation. Tehran considers these guarantees to be the cornerstone of any long-term agreement that ensures mutual security and ends the existing state of tension in the Middle East.

For his part, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi stressed that his country remains open to the diplomatic path, but linked the success of this path to Washington changing its current approach. Araghchi clarified that Tehran is ready for serious negotiations if it perceives a genuine desire from the other side to respect Iranian sovereignty and adhere to international agreements.

Despite these diplomatic moves, the US President insists on his position rejecting Iran's possession of any nuclear weapons, considering this red line non-negotiable. These developments come at a sensitive time, as the international community monitors the extent of the two parties' ability to reach a compromise that spares the region a comprehensive military confrontation that could have catastrophic consequences.

If they misbehave, if they do something bad, we'll see then. But that's a possibility that could happen.

Washington Message

Washington – Said Arikat – 5/2/2026

In an unprecedented move within an American university, the Student Union at The New School in New York City voted to place the Hillel student organization branch in a state of “ineligibility,” meaning it will be deprived of funding, logistical support, and joint activities provided by the Student Union. This decision comes amidst accusations related to supporting programs linked to the Israeli army during the ongoing war on the Gaza Strip.

The decision, approved by a majority vote on May 1st, followed a lengthy investigation by the Student Union's compliance committee, which concluded that Hillel had violated university principles that oblige student organizations to respect and adhere to international law.

According to the report on which the vote was based, the Hillel branch at The New School and its affiliated Baruch College branch participated in promoting programs that send students to Israel for volunteer work at military bases and to provide logistical support to the Israeli army. Among these programs are: "Hillel on Peace," "Onward Israel," and "Volunteers for Israel."

The student committee considered these programs to represent direct support for a military institution accused of committing widespread violations against Palestinians in Gaza, at a time when international criticism of the Israeli war and its widespread destruction and significant human casualties is increasing.

The report also pointed to direct financial partnerships worth millions of dollars between “Hillel International” and the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which it said were aimed at “promoting pro-war propaganda” within American university campuses.

This decision is a significant development in the context of escalating student protests within American universities against the Israeli war on Gaza, where universities have, in recent months, become arenas of political and moral confrontation between students supporting Palestinian rights and groups supporting Israel.

Hillel International is considered one of the largest Jewish Zionist student networks in the United States and the world, active in hundreds of universities by offering cultural, political, and religious programs for Jewish students. However, the organization has faced increasing criticism for years due to its close ties to official Israeli institutions and its continuous defense of Tel Aviv's policies, including military operations against Palestinians. Student and human rights movements also accuse it of promoting the Israeli narrative within American universities and funding visit programs and activities aimed at strengthening political and moral support for Israel and justifying its aggressive policies against Palestinians historically.

It is worth noting that The New School was founded in 1919 as a progressive academic institution dedicated to freedom of thought and research, and includes several prominent colleges, including "Parsons" School of Design, "Eugene Lang" College of Liberal Arts, the College of Performing Arts, in addition to the College of Social Sciences.

The Student Union's decision comes at a time when the United States is witnessing a remarkable expansion of popular criticism of Israel, especially among youth and students, many of whom believe that the war on Gaza has exposed the limits of traditional American discourse on human rights and democracy.

The widening scope of protests within American universities indicates a profound shift in public sentiment, especially among young people who now view unconditional support for Israel as complicity in violence against Palestinians. After months of images of destruction and killing in Gaza, the official American narrative is no longer able to convince large segments of students and academics. Anger increases when university funds are used to support institutions linked to programs serving the Israeli army. This shift does not reflect fleeting sympathy for Palestinians, but rather a deepening crisis of confidence in political and media elites who have ignored the extent of suffering under decades of continuous military occupation.

Increasing criticism within American circles of Israel is no longer limited to traditional activists or human rights groups, but has extended to students, professors, artists, and even Jewish figures who oppose occupation policies. Many believe that successive American governments have granted Israel political immunity, encouraging it to continue using excessive force against Palestinian civilians in Gaza and the West Bank. A wide segment of Americans also feel resentment at attempts to silence voices critical of Israel through ready-made accusations of antisemitism. Therefore, universities today appear to be an arena of political and moral confrontation reflecting a growing American division over the limits of support provided to Tel Aviv domestically.

Decisions by student bodies in some American universities reflect a growing feeling that pro-Israel institutions ignore human rights principles when it comes to Palestinians. Many students believe that the continuation of the war on Gaza, and the accompanying killing, starvation, and widespread destruction, has exposed the double standards in Western discourse on freedom and democracy. Moreover, American political and media support for Israel has aroused increasing resentment among young people who see their country spending billions on foreign wars while social crises worsen domestically. For this reason, boycott and protest campaigns are expanding within universities as a means of moral and political pressure against the Israeli occupation in the current phase.

Observers believe that the escalating anger within American universities towards Israel reflects a clear generational shift in understanding the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. While previous American generations adopted the Israeli narrative as an almost absolute truth, students today rely on independent media and digital platforms that transmit images of Palestinian victims directly from Gaza and the West Bank. This daily influx of bloody scenes has made many question the unconditional pro-Israel American political discourse. It has also led youth segments to consider the defense of Palestinians a matter of human justice, and not merely a political stance related to the Middle East alone in the United States over the years.

By: Said Arikat

May 2, 2026

News analysis

Washington, D.C-Trita Parsi’s latest analysis offers one of the most penetrating critiques yet of Donald Trump’s Iran policy and Washington’s enduring addiction to coercion. Writing in Responsible Statecraft, Parsi, a well known scholar and author, argues that Trump managed, once again, to “snatch defeat from the jaws of victory” by embracing the maximalist fantasies of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD), the hawkish Washington think tank ( launched by the Israeli army some 25 years ago, and funded by Sheldon and Miriam Adelson),  that has long promoted economic strangulation and military escalation against Tehran. The result, according to Parsi, is a self-inflicted strategic reversal that has weakened Washington’s position, destabilized global markets, and further narrowed the prospects for diplomacy.

Parsi’s central argument is both simple and devastating. Following the recent ceasefire between Iran and the United States, Trump had actually secured an advantageous position. The ceasefire allowed him to exit an increasingly dangerous confrontation without becoming trapped in another costly Middle Eastern war. Iran, meanwhile, lost its principal leverage: the inflationary shock caused by soaring oil prices and instability in the Strait of Hormuz. Tehran still faced crushing sanctions and remained dependent on negotiations with Washington if it hoped to secure meaningful economic relief.

This imbalance favored Trump heavily. The United States had time on its side, while Iran faced mounting economic pressure and diminishing leverage. Oil prices were stabilizing, global markets were calming, and Washington could have approached negotiations from a position of relative strength. In Parsi’s telling, Trump had inadvertently stumbled into a quiet strategic victory.

Yet instead of consolidating that advantage through diplomacy, Trump once again succumbed to the illusion that Iran could be forced into total capitulation through overwhelming pressure. Encouraged by FDD and allied hawks, the administration embraced a blockade strategy designed to choke off Iranian oil exports entirely. Advocates of the policy promised rapid economic collapse inside Iran, insisting that Tehran’s oil revenues would vanish within days and that its storage facilities would soon overflow, forcing the shutdown of oil production itself.

Trump reportedly celebrated the plan as “genius,” believing it would compel Iran to surrender without requiring additional military action. But as Parsi carefully documents, reality has moved in the opposite direction. Satellite imagery continues to show Iranian oil shipments moving through Kharg Island despite the blockade. The predicted collapse never materialized. Instead, the restrictions tightened global supply and pushed oil prices even higher than during the war itself.

The consequences extend far beyond Iran. Rising oil prices threaten inflation, increase domestic political pressure on the White House, and deepen economic uncertainty worldwide. Even more alarming are warnings that disruptions linked to the blockade could trigger fertilizer shortages and broader food insecurity in vulnerable regions. In other words, the policy designed to strengthen American leverage has instead amplified global instability while leaving Iran standing.

Parsi’s broader insight concerns what he describes as Washington’s pathological search for a “silver bullet” against Iran. Across nearly five decades, successive American administrations have convinced themselves that one more escalation, one more sanction regime, one more military threat, or one more covert operation would finally force Tehran into submission. Diplomacy, compromise, and mutual accommodation are repeatedly discarded in favor of fantasies of decisive victory.

Trump’s conduct exemplifies this cycle. First came the belief that military threats alone would intimidate Iran into surrender. When Tehran refused to yield, Washington escalated further through regional deployments and direct confrontation. Then came the fantasy that assassinating Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei would trigger either regime collapse or immediate capitulation. Even large-scale bombardment campaigns against civilian infrastructure failed to produce the promised breakthrough.

Each escalation generated more instability without delivering strategic success. Yet the architects of these policies continue to insist that the next escalation will finally work. Parsi’s critique is particularly powerful because it exposes the intellectual emptiness beneath these recurring schemes. The problem is not simply tactical failure. It is the refusal to accept that Iran cannot be coerced into unconditional surrender without catastrophic regional consequences.

What emerges from Parsi’s analysis is a portrait of a superpower trapped by its own illusions. Rather than recognizing the limits of coercion, Washington repeatedly mistakes resistance for weakness and escalation for strategy. The blockade represents merely the latest iteration of this destructive pattern.

Parsi’s profound assessment cuts through the rhetoric that often dominates Washington’s Iran debate. He demonstrates that the pursuit of domination rather than negotiated coexistence repeatedly transforms limited gains into setbacks. In doing so he offers a reminder that diplomacy remains the only path forward.

US President Donald Trump announced his reservations and dissatisfaction with a new negotiating proposal put forward by Tehran aimed at ending the current state of tension between the two countries. Trump affirmed in his statements that Washington does not intend to retreat or withdraw early from the current confrontation strategy with Iran, emphasizing the need to ensure that the same crises do not re-emerge in the near future.

In a related context, informed sources reported a significant development in the mediation process, as Tehran conveyed new amendments through the Pakistani mediator related to previous negotiating papers. These amendments include an updated vision based on the paper presented by Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi during his recent diplomatic tour, in an attempt to formulate understandings acceptable to the American administration.

The available data indicate that the Iranian initiative focuses on three strategic axes, foremost among them being a comprehensive cessation of hostilities in exchange for an American commitment not to launch any future attacks on Iranian territory. This axis aims to establish a state of mutual security stability as a first step to building trust between the two parties, who are experiencing a continuous state of crisis.

As for the second axis, it concerns the reformulation of security and navigation arrangements in the Strait of Hormuz, a file that is highly sensitive for global trade and energy security. The third axis focuses on the Iranian nuclear file, where reports speak of the possibility of an active Russian role in shaping this technical and political path to ensure its outcome in a balanced international format.

Despite these intensive diplomatic moves, indicators from the White House suggest a continued stalemate in the negotiation process. Observers believe that Trump's insistence on formulating a comprehensive agreement that ends all Iranian threats at once makes it difficult to accept fragmented proposals, leaving the door open to all possibilities in the region.

The United States does not want to withdraw early from its confrontation with Iran only for the problem to reappear.

Hatem Abdel Qader: The Christian world must stand up to its responsibilities in restraining the occupation from harming Islamic and Christian holy sites and change its behavior on the ground

Dimitri Diliani: A propaganda step to mislead public opinion and cover up the occupation's crimes against religions, the latest of which was an Israeli soldier destroying a statue of Christ in Dabel

Nevin Abu Rahmoun: The discourse collapses due to its contradiction with the facts, and any attempt at beautification through symbolic appointments will not change the reality that justice is not managed by diplomacy but measured by actions

Amir Makhoul: The appointed envoy to the Christian world does not represent Christians inside or in Palestine and does not speak on behalf of the church, which has condemned Israeli violations

Antoine Shalhat: A purely Israeli propaganda step to contain the isolation suffered by the occupying state in the Christian world due to multiple backgrounds

Jack Sara: The reality on the ground that the world sees is the decisive factor in changing public opinion, and no matter how many attempts are made, they will not succeed in beautifying the image of the occupation

Exclusive to "Al-Quds"-

In an attempt to improve its image, after many crimes and violations that caused criticism in the Christian world, the latest of which was a soldier destroying a statue of Christ in southern Lebanon, Israel announced the appointment of former ambassador George Deek as a special envoy to the Christian world, with the aim of "strengthening Israel's relations with Christian communities around the world."

Observers and analysts, in interviews with "Al-Quds," view this step as propaganda to mislead global public opinion and an attempt to improve Israel's image, which is increasingly politically isolated, noting that it will not be able to beautify Israel's ugly image, whose ugliness reached a great extent when an Israeli soldier destroyed a statue of Christ in southern Lebanon, in a crime that reflects a violation of religious symbols and a provocation to the feelings of millions of Christians and Muslims.

He considered that as long as violations against holy sites continue and access to Al-Aqsa Mosque and the Church of the Holy Sepulchre is restricted, any discourse about religious openness loses its meaning and becomes merely a political cover, pointing out that the relationship with any religious community is not built through envoys, but through actual respect for worship rights and the preservation of holy sites.

An ironic step

Hatem Abdel Qader, Secretary-General of the Islamic-Christian Commission for the Support of Jerusalem and Holy Sites, describes Israel's appointment of a Christian envoy to the Christian world as an absurd and ironic step that will not be able to beautify Israel's ugly image, whose ugliness reached a great extent when an Israeli soldier destroyed a statue of Christ in southern Lebanon, in a crime that reflects a violation of religious symbols and a provocation to the feelings of millions of Christians and Muslims.

Abdel Qader asks: Can a job title repair an ugly and shameful image of the occupation, shattered by documented criminal acts against Islamic and Christian holy sites and symbols? And does Israel believe that improving its image in the Christian world can be managed through the appointment of an envoy while the occupation persists in its violations against holy sites, imposing arbitrary restrictions that prevent worshipers from reaching their holy places, whether Al-Aqsa Mosque or the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, in addition to assaulting celebrants during Christian holidays, as happened on glorious Easter, and preventing the Patriarch of Jerusalem from entering the Church of the Holy Sepulchre?

The Christian world will not fall for black propaganda

Abdel Qader affirms that the Christian world will not fall for this black propaganda, and Israel will not succeed in deceiving anyone, because the truth has become clear to everyone that behind every envoy is a cover for the truth with a diplomatic cloak that reveals what is beneath it.

Abdel Qader concludes his statement by saying: The Christian world has a duty to stand up to its responsibilities in restraining the occupation from harming Islamic and Christian holy sites, and to send a clear message to the occupation that without a change in behavior on the ground, no envoy can beautify an ugly face.

Misleading international public opinion

Dimitri Diliani, head of the National Christian Gathering in the Holy Land, says: "The announcement by the foreign minister of the Israeli extermination state, Gidon Sa'ar, of the appointment of a so-called 'special envoy to the Christian world' is a propaganda step aimed at misleading international public opinion and covering up the occupation's crimes against religions. The latest of these crimes was an Israeli extermination army soldier destroying a statue of Christ in the Lebanese village of Dabel, and filming and boasting about committing this crime on social media."

Targeting the Palestinian Christian presence

Diliani affirms that the targeting of the Palestinian Christian presence is carried out through policies of uprooting and ethnic cleansing that have targeted all members of our Palestinian people for decades, and that these crimes against humanity are escalating in the context of a colonial reality that is inhumane par excellence.

Diliani reveals that the data available to the National Christian Gathering in the Holy Land records 111 attacks against churches, cemeteries, Christian clergy, nuns, and pilgrims during 2024, including 46 physical assaults and 35 attacks targeting churches, monasteries, and cemeteries. The number of attacks rose to 181 during the past year, including 109 physical assaults committed by settlers against Christian clergy and pilgrims.

He also affirms that the Israeli occupation authorities impose strict restrictions on the practice of religious rituals, especially during Easter at the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, thereby depriving Christian worshipers of their right to worship freely in their holy city, just as their Muslim brethren are deprived.

Diliani adds that the Israeli extermination army bombed the historic Saint Porphyrius Church in Gaza, leading to the martyrdom of 18 citizens, and the Holy Family Church was subjected to repeated Israeli attacks that resulted in martyrs and wounded among the displaced families there, in the context of ongoing hate crimes and genocide that have claimed more than 73,000 martyrs, including approximately 5% of Christians in Gaza over the past two and a half years.

Diliani stresses that Palestinian Christians are an integral part of the national fabric, bearing with the rest of the Palestinian people the responsibility of defending the land and identity, and no colonial propaganda will succeed in obliterating this truth.

It is unacceptable to turn religious and humanitarian issues into tools for polishing an image

Political writer Nevin Abu Rahmoun says: It is unacceptable to turn religious and humanitarian issues into tools for polishing an image.

Abu Rahmoun adds: When violations against holy sites continue and access to Al-Aqsa Mosque and the Church of the Holy Sepulchre is restricted, any discourse about religious openness loses its meaning and becomes merely a political cover.

Abu Rahmoun points out that "this is not a communication crisis with the Christian world but a credibility crisis," stressing that the relationship with any religious community is not built through envoys, but through actual respect for worship rights and the preservation of holy sites.

The issue is what Israel does, not who speaks for it

She says: What is happening on the ground presents a completely opposite picture, affirming that both political and moral stances necessitate rejecting this approach: rejecting the transformation of diplomacy into a mask, and rejecting dealing with violations as if they were a detail that can be overcome by a media campaign, stressing that the issue is not who speaks for Israel but what Israel does on the ground.

Abu Rahmoun says: When facts contradict discourse, discourse collapses, and any attempt to beautify the scene through symbolic appointments will not change one truth: justice is not managed by diplomacy but measured by actions.

The whole matter is largely flimsy

Amir Makhoul, a writer specializing in Israeli affairs, points to a popular proverb that says: "What can a hairdresser do with a sour face?" indicating that the whole matter is largely flimsy, and reflects a propaganda nature more than an expression of the reality on the ground.

Makhoul adds that the violations extend from the destruction of the statue of Christ in Lebanon, to the assault on holy sites in Jerusalem, through the demolition of churches in Gaza, and the assault on the Church of the Holy Sepulchre on glorious Easter, in addition to the assaults on Islamic endowments that seem to be permissible.

A message that the Islamic world is not of interest

Makhoul explains that the implicit message from appointing an envoy to the Christian world suggests that the Islamic world is not of interest, and that its oppression and the obliteration of its features can continue, especially regarding Islamic holy sites, foremost among them the blessed Al-Aqsa Mosque.

He affirms that no matter how much Israel tries to beautify its image, the truth on the ground remains stronger than any promotional campaigns, especially in light of the practices committed by the Israeli government, including the war on Gaza and the accompanying violations.

The Church's positions are clear in rejecting Israeli violations

Makhoul points out that the person appointed as an envoy to the Christian world does not represent Christians inside or in Palestine in general, and does not speak on behalf of the Church, which in turn expressed a clear position weeks ago through statements issued by churches in the region, condemning Israeli practices, including assaults on clergy, restrictions, and ongoing violations.

Makhoul also notes that the Church's positions were also evident through the statements of the Pope of the Vatican, who expressed clear humanitarian positions.

Makhoul affirms that the problem is not in the image that Israel is trying to improve, but in the essence of policies and practices on the ground, pointing to a shift in the army's identity towards religious Zionism, and the ideological dimensions that this entails, which are reflected in the targeting of religious symbols, including Christian ones.

Makhoul concludes by saying: This appointment will not change anything in reality, and he describes it as a formal procedure that will not affect Israel's image, which is shaped by the facts on the ground, stressing that the Palestinian narrative remains the strongest, because it is based on what the world sees as facts, and does not need propaganda campaigns as much as it needs the world to pay attention to these facts.

A predictable and not surprising step

Political writer Antoine Shalhat views the step of appointing G. Deek as Israel's ambassador to the Christian world as a purely Israeli propaganda step to contain the isolation suffered by the occupying state in the Christian world due to several backgrounds, including the war of extermination and comprehensive destruction against Palestinians, especially in the Gaza Strip, Israeli policy against Christian holy sites in the Holy Land, and Jewish religious extremism that affects Christianity and its symbols with repeated touching and assaults.

Writer Shalhat believes that it is a previously expected step and not surprising. But what is unexpected and surprising is that a Christian person from the 1948 Palestinians agrees to perform such a dirty mission, being one of the most prominent victims of criminal and hateful Israeli policy, whether against Palestinians or against Christians, simply because he is Palestinian and Christian.

Condemnation and denunciation

Shalhat adds: Therefore, it is natural that his step arouses a great deal of condemnation and denunciation, as well as wishes that his mission will suffer a dismal failure, in light of the increasing awareness throughout the world regarding the essence of Israeli policy despite all the propaganda efforts made to cover it up or beautify it.

Shalhat points out that despite this, this step reflects the political isolation that Israel has been suffering from recently, which warns that it will turn into a pariah state in the longer term.

Political isolation is increasing

He points out that this political isolation is increasing at the level of relations with states, but it has become exacerbated at the level of global public opinion, and is reflected, according to what is frequently published even in the media and research institute studies in Israel, in several manifestations, most notably the decline in popular support in Europe and America, especially among young people, the expansion of boycott movements, and the escalation of criticism within diaspora Jewish circles.

Shalhat adds: There is a consensus among everyone that the future implication of these developments lies in deepening the gap between the governmental policies of states supporting Israel and public opinion in these states.

Israel's image will remain bleak

For his part, the coordinator of the Holy Land Christian Forum, Wadie Abu Nassar, affirms that this step is in the right direction, but it may be insufficient, stressing the need to complete it with two main things.

Abu Nassar explains that the first is for Israel to reconsider its calculations regarding the violations and crimes it commits, not only against holy sites, but also against innocent people.

He affirms that such measures, even if a large number of envoys are appointed, will not improve Israel's image as long as these practices continue, especially those emanating from some soldiers and settlers.

Abu Nassar adds that the second is the importance for Israel to reconsider its decision-making mechanisms, explaining that it is not enough to appoint an envoy to polish the image, but it is necessary for decision-makers to surround themselves with honest and aware advisors, capable of understanding reality as it is, and contributing to changing it for the better.

Abu Nassar points out that in the absence of these fundamental reviews, any attempts at clarification or beautification will remain limited in effect, and Israel's image will remain bleak, and more importantly, violations will continue.

Abu Nassar concludes his statement by emphasizing the need for a radical change in policies, not just cosmetic adjustments in positions and roles.

An image stained with the blood of innocents

Jack Sara, President of Bethlehem Bible College, affirms that Israel does not lack money, recruits, employees, or envoys to try to beautify its image.

Sara points out that this image has been stained with the blood of the people of Gaza and with many crimes, both those committed against holy sites and against humanity and people on the ground.

He adds that this reality is not new, as much has been heard about initiatives and attempts, both from within and from various parts of the world, to improve its image.

Sara refers to a comment by one of the most prominent supporters, who expressed his anger at what an Israeli soldier did to a statue of Christ in southern Lebanon, saying that they work hundreds of days and spend thousands of dollars to beautify Israel's image, only for one soldier to undermine all those efforts with his actions.

Sara stresses at the end of his speech that no matter how many attempts are made, they will not succeed in beautifying the image, because the world today sees what is happening on the ground.

He says: Christians in this country are not represented only by church institutions or church leaders, despite the importance of their positions and statements, affirming that the reality on the ground has become the decisive factor in shaping public opinion.

Various areas in the occupied West Bank witnessed a new wave of attacks by extremist settlers on Saturday, resulting in injuries among Palestinian citizens. These attacks focused on the town of Jalud, south of Nablus, as well as the Jabal Jales area in the eastern part of Hebron, leading to seven people sustaining various injuries and bruises.

Regarding the attack on Jalud, local sources reported that a group of settlers attacked the Al-Dhahr area and violently attempted to storm citizens' homes. The town's residents confronted this attempt with their bare chests, leading to clashes that resulted in three citizens being injured. They were immediately transported to a medical center in the neighboring town of Qabalan for necessary treatment.

In Hebron, the attack was characterized by excessive brutality, as armed settlers from the 'Havat Gal' settlement targeted citizens in the Jabal Jales area. The attack was carried out with direct support from occupation soldiers, resulting in four citizens being injured, including two women, amid a state of panic among the families residing in that settlement-targeted area.

Palestinian Red Crescent teams transferred three injured individuals from Hebron to the government hospital, among them the 71-year-old elderly woman 'Umm Hamed Al-Zarou Al-Tamimi'. Medical sources confirmed that the elderly woman was severely beaten by the settlers, necessitating urgent medical intervention to monitor her health condition, which was damaged due to the physical abuse.

Citizen Rashed Al-Zarou Al-Tamimi explained that large numbers of settlers gathered in the Jabal Jales area in a clear attempt to seize citizens' lands and expand the settlement area. He pointed out that these attacks are not isolated but come within a systematic policy aimed at pressuring residents and pushing them towards forced displacement to abandon their lands and properties.

These field developments come amid an escalation in the violence perpetrated by settlers in various governorates of the West Bank, with the protection and facilitation of the occupation army. Residents in threatened areas are appealing for urgent international protection to stop these crimes that target the Palestinian presence and work to change the demographic and geographical reality in the region.

Residents are subjected to continuous abuse aimed at forcibly displacing them for the benefit of settlement expansion in the Jabal Jales area.

Informed sources have reported that the Islamic Resistance Movement, Hamas, is on the verge of finalizing the selection for the head of its political bureau, following intensive consultations held recently. Current indications suggest that the competition has primarily narrowed down between Political Bureau member Khalil al-Hayya and the movement's leader abroad, Khaled Meshaal, with an official announcement expected in the coming days.

The sources confirmed that the Gaza Strip region has already completed its internal voting process to elect the head of the Political Bureau, which constitutes a fundamental pillar of the movement's electoral process. This step comes as part of Hamas's efforts to organize its internal affairs and overcome the leadership challenges imposed by the complex field and political circumstances in the current phase.

Concurrently, logistical and organizational arrangements are underway to complete the voting processes in the West Bank and diaspora regions, ensuring the participation of all organizational bases in decision-making. This accelerated electoral movement aims to conclude the leadership file in the shortest possible time, thereby ensuring the stability of the movement's administrative and political structure in anticipation of upcoming challenges.

In the context of internal arrangements to ensure a smooth transition of power, sources revealed that the Gaza region has also decided on the identity of who will succeed Khalil al-Hayya as the movement's head in the Strip, should he win the top position. This proactive step reflects the movement's desire to maintain the cohesion of its organizational frameworks and avoid any leadership vacuum that could affect operations in different regions.

It is worth noting that Hamas has been managed over the past year and a half by an interim leadership council, which undertook caretaker duties due to the difficulty of holding comprehensive elections under the current security conditions. The decision to activate the electoral path at the beginning of this year came as an urgent necessity to inject new blood into the senior leadership and establish organizational legitimacy for the next phase.

The current term of the Political Bureau was supposed to end in 2025, but the movement's institutions decided to extend the term for an additional year to ensure the completion of all technical arrangements. These moves are part of a broader vision aimed at completing the formation of the Political Bureau with all its members, in preparation for holding comprehensive general elections that may take place at the end of this year or early next year.

Political circles are awaiting the results of this competition between al-Hayya and Meshaal, given its implications for the movement's political and field orientations in the coming period. While al-Hayya represents significant weight internally and in the Gaza Strip, Meshaal possesses extensive diplomatic experience and broad regional relations, making the identity of the winner a focal point for observers of Palestinian and international affairs.

The Gaza Strip region has already completed the voting process to elect the head of the Political Bureau, a significant step forward in the movement's internal electoral path.

Recently, questions have been escalating regarding the future of the power hierarchy in Iran, especially with recurring reports about the health status of Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei. These questions go beyond the personal dimension to touch upon the essence of the 'Leader of the Revolution' position and its pivotal role in formulating the country's supreme strategies, at a time when Tehran faces increasing international pressure.

The position of Supreme Leader is not merely a transient political function; rather, it is an entity formulated according to complex religious requirements consistent with the doctrine of the awaited Mahdi in Twelver Shiite thought. Although this position represents the highest authority in the country, the structure of the Iranian system is characterized by institutional entanglement that may absorb the shock of the absence of any personality, no matter how significant.

Historically, the problem of governance among Shiites began with the 'Major Occultation' in 941 AD, which created a vacuum in political and religious leadership. Initially, the idea of deputyship was confined to minor religious and social affairs, while major powers and the establishment of the state remained exclusive to the awaited Imam according to the traditional perspective.

The Safavid era witnessed a fundamental shift, as jurists began to lean towards accepting the legitimacy of the existing authority as a fait accompli to serve the community. The scholar Sabzevari in the 17th century represented this trend, emphasizing the legitimacy of political authority for non-Imams, which marked the beginning of a separation between temporal and religious authorities.

The theory of general deputyship developed in the 16th century by the Second Investigator, who granted authorization to rule in the name of the 'Deputy of the Imam'. By the early 19th century, jurists such as Ahmad al-Naraqi called for jurists to take direct control of affairs under the title of 'Grand Imamate', rejecting the idea of passive waiting.

In contrast, early 20th-century Iran witnessed the 'Constitutional Revolution' which called for an end to royal despotism and the establishment of the rule of law. This revolution represented a break with traditional Imamate thought, advocating for the necessity of a constitution to govern the relationship between ruler and ruled, away from absolute divine authorization.

Ayatollah Mohammad Hussein Na'ini emerged as one of the most important theorists of the constitutional state, considering that authority should be a trust in the hands of the people and not an individual possession. Na'ini warned that the absence of 'infallibility' from the jurist makes the concentration of power in his hands a gateway to injustice, suggesting that the constitution should be the alternative to the infallibility of the absent Imam.

Despite these liberal ideas, the current of absolute Guardianship of the Islamic Jurist re-emerged in the 1960s led by Khomeini, who argued that the jurist possesses all the powers of the infallible Imam. With the success of the revolution in 1979, this theory was constitutionally codified, making the final say in state affairs in the hands of the Supreme Leader.

The Iranian system created a unique blend that combines absolute guardianship with democratic mechanisms such as the election of parliament and the president. However, these institutions ultimately remain subject to the supervision of the Leader and the Assembly of Experts, ensuring that strategic decisions remain within the narrow religious circle.

This model has faced severe challenges in recent decades, manifested in waves of widespread popular protests that shook the foundations of the regime. Despite the severe repression these movements faced in 2009 and 2022, the roots of popular discontent remained dormant, awaiting the moment of explosion.

Current political readings indicate that Iran is experiencing a state of suppressed tension due to the decline of its regional influence and the economic consequences of wars. Observers believe that the end of current military crises may open the door to a popular explosion that will not be limited to livelihood demands, but will call for a radical change in the structure of the regime.

Historical experiences confirm that military defeats or existential crises often lead to the collapse of major ideological narratives. In the Iranian case, the erosion of the legitimacy of 'Guardianship of the Islamic Jurist' in the face of a young generation aspiring to citizenship and law may accelerate the end of this unique model of governance.

The conflict between the constitutional state and religious guardianship still exists in the Iranian political consciousness, a conflict fueled by successive crises. With the increasing gap between the aspirations of the people and the rigidity of the ruling establishment, it seems that the system is approaching a historical crossroads that will determine the country's fate for decades to come.

In conclusion, the Guardianship of the Islamic Jurist remains a controversial political experiment, combining religious sanctity and political pragmatism at the same time. While the ruling elites try to preserve their gains, the question remains about the ability of this system to withstand the winds of change sweeping the region and within Iran.

The reduction of power to the person of the Guardian Jurist may lead to injustice instead of justice, which prompted historical thinkers to demand the guardianship of the nation over itself.

The Spanish government strongly condemned the Israeli authorities' detention of Spanish-Palestinian activist Saif Abu Kashk, describing the action as illegal and a blatant disregard for international norms. Spanish Foreign Minister José Manuel Albares affirmed that this detention occurred in international waters, placing it outside any legal jurisdiction that would grant Israel the right to intercept ships or arrest those on board.

In press statements, Albares demanded the immediate release of Abu Kashk to ensure his safe return to Spain, emphasizing that his country would not tolerate any negligence in following up on the case of its forcibly detained citizens. These demands come at a time when diplomatic relations are experiencing escalating tension following the interception of the 'Global Freedom Flotilla,' which was en route to break the siege on the Gaza Strip.

For its part, the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs confirmed the transfer of two activists from the flotilla to interrogation centers inside Israel: Saif Abu Kashk and Brazilian Thiago Avila. Israeli sources claimed that Abu Kashk is a prominent leader in the Palestinian Conference for Palestinians Abroad, while Avila was accused of engaging in activities that Tel Aviv describes as illegal and supportive of hostile organizations.

In a strongly worded joint statement, the Spanish and Brazilian governments described this Israeli action as a flagrant violation of international law that warrants accountability before competent international courts. The statement indicated that intercepting ships in the open sea, far from Israeli coasts, represents a dangerous precedent in infringing upon the freedom of international navigation and the rights of peaceful activists.

Last Thursday, the Israeli army intercepted the 'Freedom Flotilla' off the coast of the Greek island of Crete, an area hundreds of kilometers from the Gaza Strip. The operation resulted in the arrest of approximately 175 activists who were on board twenty boats, before an agreement was reached to release most of them in Greece, with the exception of the Spanish and Brazilian activists who were forcibly deported to Israel.

The organizers of the Freedom Flotilla aim through these voyages to highlight the escalating humanitarian suffering in the Gaza Strip and demand an end to the siege that has been ongoing for years. The organizations behind the flotilla affirm that the humanitarian aid entering the Strip remains below the minimum required to meet the needs of more than two million people living in catastrophic conditions.

Field reports indicate that the majority of the Strip's residents suffer from repeated displacement and live in temporary tents or on the ruins of their destroyed homes as a result of ongoing military operations. Despite previous understandings to increase the flow of aid, strict Israeli restrictions continue to impede the arrival of essential medical and food supplies, prompting international activists to organize such flotillas.

It is worth noting that this is not the first time the Israeli army has intercepted maritime attempts to break the siege; last October witnessed a similar incident during which hundreds of participants were arrested, including Swedish activist Greta Thunberg. These maritime confrontations continue in the absence of a comprehensive political solution that guarantees the lifting of the siege and the securing of permanent and stable humanitarian corridors for the residents of the besieged Gaza Strip.

We are facing an illegal detention in international waters, outside the jurisdiction of any Israeli authorities, and Saif Abu Kashk must be released immediately.

The Israeli occupation's Ministry of Foreign Affairs announced today, Saturday, the transfer of activists from the 'Global Freedom Flotilla,' dedicated to breaking the siege on the Gaza Strip, to interrogation centers within the occupied territories. This step came after the occupation army carried out a military interception operation against the flotilla's ship last Thursday while it was sailing off the Greek coast. Occupation authorities claim that the detainees will be investigated for links to banned organizations and activities they describe as illegal.

Sources revealed that the detained activists are the Spaniard Saif Abu Kashk, whom Tel Aviv accuses of leading the 'Palestinian Conference for Palestinians Abroad,' and the Brazilian activist Thiago Avila. They have been referred to law enforcement authorities to complete security investigations, amidst ongoing Israeli efforts to prevent any maritime aid convoys from reaching the residents of the Gaza Strip, who are suffering from a severe blockade.

Field reports indicate that the Freedom Flotilla was subjected to a violent assault in international waters in the Mediterranean Sea, where occupation forces used seven warships and drones to take control of the convoys. The attack resulted in injuries to about 31 activists, after occupation forces cut off all internet and communication services to the ships before suddenly storming them 1500 kilometers from the coast.

According to activists' testimonies, the occupation detained between 180 and 211 international solidarity activists on board a war destroyer, part of which was converted into a 'floating prison' for three days. Those released described the conditions inside the destroyer as inhumane, where they were subjected to beatings, sleep deprivation, and continuous abuse, before 59 of them were deported to Istanbul Airport and another group to the Greek island of Crete, with the Spanish and Brazilian activists remaining in detention.

It is worth noting that the Global Freedom Flotilla includes more than 20 boats loaded with essential medical and food aid, and is completely devoid of any weaponry. Participants, including human rights activists and international figures, aim to draw attention to the humanitarian crisis in Gaza. These Israeli measures face widespread international human rights criticism, as they constitute a violation of conventions guaranteeing freedom of navigation and the delivery of humanitarian relief to affected areas.

Intercepting ships in international waters is considered a blatant violation of freedom of navigation and humanitarian conventions that ensure the delivery of aid to besieged civilians.

Press reports have observed a remarkable shift within the American Right, where prominent media figures and influencers have begun to re-evaluate their traditional anti-Islam stances. This trend has moved from viewing Islam as an existential threat to Western civilization to presenting it as an alternative model to confront liberal modernity, which they see as a cause of the decline of Western societies.

Sources indicated the emergence of a new wave within alternative media and podcast spaces, adopting a more sympathetic discourse towards Islamic values after decades of incitement following the September 11th events. These influencers believe that adherence to religious traditions represents a strong bulwark against what they describe as the erosion of values and the disintegration of the social fabric in the United States and Europe.

Famous names such as journalist Tucker Carlson and Candace Owens stand out in this context, as they have begun to show differing positions by praising aspects of Sharia and criticizing the systematic hostility towards Muslims. This trend reflects a desire to seek new allies who share with the conservative right a rejection of multiculturalism and modern liberal policies.

In more radical cases, the matter has gone beyond mere intellectual admiration to actual conversion to Islam, as happened with the controversial influencer Andrew Tate. These individuals promote the idea that Islam offers an effective means to restore social discipline and confront the challenges posed by globalization and the current world order to individual and collective identity.

Analysts believe that this shift does not stem from purely religious motives, but rather falls within a broader ideological vision aimed at dismantling the 'Judeo-Christian civilization' model. This current seeks to form what can be called the 'Islamist-Christian Right' which focuses on traditional family values and rejects liberal social patterns related to gender.

Some Western youth find a particular attraction to what they describe as the 'strong masculine model' they perceive in conservative Islamic discourse. They compare this clarity in social roles with what they consider to be a weak or hesitant contemporary Christian discourse in resolving issues of identity and authority within society.

Politically, Islam is used in this discourse as a tool to criticize American foreign policy and the global order led by liberal elites. This is evident in the proposals of thinkers such as Alexander Dugin, who calls for building a global alliance that includes traditional powers, including Islamic countries, to confront Western hegemony.

Proponents of this view believe that Islamic Sharia may offer a moral and economic alternative to the savage capitalism that has exhausted societies. Calls are increasing within these circles for rapprochement with the Islamic world, not out of religious tolerance, but as a strategic necessity in the struggle of major powers and the reshaping of the international order.

However, observers question the accuracy of these right-wing perceptions, considering them to be based on a selective and idealized vision that does not reflect the complex reality of Islamic countries. Arab and Islamic societies, in turn, face similar challenges to those in the West, and are not immune to the effects of modernity and profound social changes.

Data also indicates that Muslims residing in the United States often adopt more liberal positions than these right-wing influencers assume. This contradiction illustrates that the far-right's admiration for Islam may be superficial and linked to temporary political goals rather than a genuine understanding of the essence of the religion.

The report draws attention to the fact that the geopolitical reality does not necessarily support the idea of a unified Islamic front against the West at present. The significant divergence in the positions of Islamic countries on international conflicts and various political agreements makes the idea of a 'traditional alliance' merely a theoretical concept far from practical application.

In conclusion, this surprising admiration for Islam by the Western Right remains an attempt to build a symbolic alternative to the modernity they feel frustrated with. Despite all the criticisms directed at the Western model, its ability to absorb these contradictions and ultimately impose its conditions remains, making this right-wing shift a new test of the resilience of liberal values.

This shift is not merely a religious interest, but part of an ideological vision that seeks to replace the Judeo-Christian civilization model with what can be called the Islamist-Christian Right.

Today, the world is entering an unprecedented historical phase of collapse in press freedom, where the word is no longer the tool that demolishes the walls of tyranny as it once was. The Reporters Without Borders 2026 report indicates that freedom of expression has reached its lowest levels in a quarter-century, reflecting a bleak landscape where repression expands and the space for truth shrinks.

The figures in the international report are not just fleeting statistics; they are maps reflecting a turbulent political and ethical reality experienced by the international community. More than half of the world's countries are now classified as difficult or very dangerous environments for journalistic work, a serious indicator of the regression of human rights gains achieved over decades.

Alarmingly, the percentage of the population living in countries with truly free press has fallen to less than 1%, a harsh paradox in an era that claims technological and intellectual progress. This decline strikes at one of the most important pillars of democracy: the inherent right of citizens to access accurate and independent information.

Historically, the rise of political awareness has been linked to press freedom, which served as a mirror for major social transformations since the 19th century. However, what we are witnessing today is a disguised return to the logic of security control, but using more complex digital and legislative tools aimed at taming the free voice and turning it into a perpetual accused.

The tragedy appears in its worst forms in conflict zones, where international organizations have documented the martyrdom of over 220 journalists in the Gaza Strip since October 2023. This bloody toll represents not only a human loss but also a complete collapse of the protection function that international humanitarian law is supposed to provide for journalists.

The targeting of journalists in the field constitutes a blatant violation of the Geneva Conventions, which criminalize attacks on civilians and observers in armed conflicts. Nevertheless, the gap between legal texts and their application on the ground is widening, where the journalist is treated as an adversary in the conflict instead of a professional witness to events.

In the Arab world, the crisis takes on more complex dimensions due to increasing legislative pressures and direct censorship imposed by authorities. The restriction is no longer limited to preventing publication but has extended to transforming the media space into a permanent surveillance arena where the independent word is besieged and constrained by narrow political ceilings.

This sharp contraction in the space for expression has often led to a state of self-censorship, where many prefer to avoid fundamental issues for fear of prosecution. Thus, the media landscape transforms from a platform for public dialogue into a space for repeating official narratives that do not reflect the aspirations of the people.

In occupied Palestine, journalism faces a harsh existential test that goes beyond merely reporting the news to an attempt at survival. The silencing of the professional witness through killing or arrest primarily aims to obscure the crime and turn war zones into dark spaces where the narrative is told by only one side.

Globally, even countries once considered democratic models have not been spared from this decline, as hostility against journalists has escalated through smear campaigns and economic pressures. This hostile climate has made the profession of trouble a real risk even in environments without armed conflicts or direct wars.

_The current reality reveals a dangerous reshaping of the concept of freedom of expression, where the word has become a subject of conflict, besieged by laws at times and by force at others. The targeting of free pens reflects the desire of dominant powers to hide truths that do not align with their interests or political agendas.

This decline is also linked to negative social phenomena, such as the inflation of the 'model self' and illusory successes promoted by some platforms, far from true visions. This superficiality of content contributes to the absence of fundamental issues and their replacement with marginal discussions that do not serve the development of creative or conscious individuals.

The solution to confronting this collapse lies in adhering to the values of understanding and enlightenment and building media institutions capable of withstanding pressures. The balance between conveying the truth and upholding professional values must remain the compass guiding journalistic work in these complex and bitter times.

In conclusion, press freedom remains a value resistant to cancellation, no matter how intense the siege, because truth possesses an inherent ability to rise from the rubble. And when society realizes the importance of the free word as a guarantee for the future, fate will inevitably respond to the will of peoples to live in freedom and dignity.

When voices are suppressed, pens are targeted, and testimonies are silenced, we lose not only journalism but also our ability to understand the world as it is.

Ten-year-old Hassan Saad found himself forced to play the role of family head overnight, becoming solely responsible for supporting nine family members in the Gaza Strip. With the war entering its thirtieth month, there is no longer room for a normal childhood, as Hassan spends his day among piles of rubble and debris searching for a livelihood.

Hassan's daily task focuses on moving between the destroyed neighborhoods of Gaza, such as Shuja'iyya and Zeitoun, to collect salvageable stones and bricks resulting from the shelling that affected 90% of the Strip's buildings. The child uses his hammer and chisel to clean the stones from cement residue, in preparation for their reuse in primitive and temporary construction operations.

In return for this arduous effort that drains his small energy, Hassan receives a meager wage not exceeding 20 shekels daily, an amount barely enough to feed his family amidst a wave of exorbitant price increases hitting the markets. The child confirms that this work is not suitable for his age, but the lack of alternatives and dire need push him to continue despite the physical dangers surrounding him.

His mother, Yusra Saad, speaks bitterly about her son's condition as she pours water on his head to relieve the heat of the scorching sun he is exposed to for long hours. The mother says that what Hassan earns is the family's only income, noting that she lives in a constant state of anxiety, fearing heavy stones falling on his frail body.

Hassan suffers from chronic back and head pains as a result of the heavy loads he carries on his small shoulders to trucks, and he has already sustained several injuries and fractures in his hands and feet. The child describes his suffering, saying that he finds it very difficult to sleep due to the pains that plague his body, emphasizing that these arduous tasks are for adults, not children.

The tragedy is not limited to Hassan alone but extends to the owners of destroyed homes who are forced to sell the stones of their demolished houses to secure the price of food and drink. The child pities these people who face miserable conditions, considering that everyone in Gaza has become hostage to a bitter reality imposed by the war machine that has been ongoing for two and a half years.

Hassan's family lives in a dilapidated tent that leaks water, which increases the child's determination to continue working despite physical and psychological fatigue. The mother says that the harsh conditions have left them no other choice, either hard work or hunger in the absence of sufficient aid and the destruction of the Strip's economic infrastructure.

Despite all this hardship, Hassan still dreams of returning to school and living in safety and peace like other children in the world, away from the noise of hammers and the weight of stones. The little one hopes that this war will end so he can return to his normal life, where he can sleep without pain and wake up to go to school instead of rubble sites.

Hassan's story comes in a broader tragic context, as data from the Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics indicates that more than 18,500 children have been killed in the Gaza Strip since the start of the aggression. Forced child labor is one of the harshest consequences of the war, which has deprived an entire generation of its basic rights to education, protection, and a dignified life.

This work is not for children like me but for adults; I sleep with difficulty and complain of pains all over my body.

The commander of the Central Region in the Israeli occupation army, Major General Avi Bluth, condemned the escalating attacks by settlers in the occupied West Bank, describing them as explicit 'Jewish terrorism'. Bluth warned in statements made during a closed forum that the continuation of these practices would inevitably lead to the outbreak of a violent Palestinian intifada, noting that the current Palestinian indifference would not last forever.

Informed sources revealed that the military commander distinguished in his speech between settlement farms established in coordination with state institutions and the army, and random outposts from which most acts of violence originate. He stressed that the 150 coordinated farms serve the occupation's goals of preventing Palestinian urban expansion in areas classified as 'C', while the other outposts constitute a security and moral burden.

Bluth described the attacking settlers as 'anarchic youth' who need firm social and legal intervention, accusing them of trying to exploit the confrontation with Iran to escalate the situation in the West Bank. He explained that some of these people mistakenly believe that the time has come to fight a 'Gog and Magog' battle and fully occupy the areas under the Palestinian Authority.

The military official indicated that he conveyed direct warnings to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and ministers about the seriousness of the current situation in the West Bank. He stressed that the decline in operations at certain times does not mean permanent stability, but rather a cautious calm that could quickly collapse as a result of settler attacks and hardline government policies.

Bluth strongly criticized the policy of withholding Palestinian tax funds, stressing that it weakens the Palestinian security services, whose members have received only 40% of their salaries for about a year. He suggested to the cabinet the necessity of having tools to de-escalate tension through 'carrot and stick' together, and not relying solely on military force, which could increase street unrest.

In a remarkable admission, the military commander said that there is a direct and documented link between the 'price tag' acts carried out by settlers and violent Palestinian reactions. He explained that the occupation army monitored cases of Palestinian citizens who were subjected to brutal attacks and immediately decided to carry out retaliatory operations in response to the burning of their homes and property.

Bluth also expressed his shame at the behavior of settlers who 'do not consider Arabs to be human beings', referring to incidents of burning inhabited homes that occur almost daily. He mentioned an incident in which settlers burned military diagnostic equipment belonging to the army in the 'Bat Ayin' settlement to ensure that their identities were not revealed while they were on their way to attack the neighboring village of Surif.

The military commander attacked the Israeli judiciary and police system, describing their procedures against settlers as 'ridiculous' and not deterrent. He gave an example of the arrest of five masked men who burned three Palestinian villages, only to be released three days later by a judge's decision, and immediately returned to committing violence in other areas.

Bluth hinted that Defense Minister Yisrael Katz's decision to stop using administrative detention orders against settlers ties the hands of the security services in confronting this growing danger. He stressed that he is doing his utmost to curb these crimes despite legal restrictions, emphasizing that these 'savages' should be behind bars to protect the security of the region.

The commander of the Central Region concluded his speech by pointing out that Israeli society as a whole has become more violent after the Gaza war, which is clearly reflected in public discourse and field behavior. He warned that the presence of millions of Palestinians in direct contact with settlements and highways makes any upcoming explosion a massive event that exceeds the army's ability to contain it traditionally.

When homes are burned with their residents, this is called Israeli terrorism. These are savages and their natural place is prison.

Various areas of the West Bank witnessed a significant escalation in the pace of settler attacks and Israeli occupation forces today, Saturday, with attacks focusing on Palestinian properties and agricultural areas. Field sources reported that settlers attacked poultry farms located between the towns of Qusra and Jalud, south of Nablus, leading to violent confrontations with residents who tried to repel the attack, before occupation forces intervened by heavily firing tear gas canisters.

In the Jenin governorate, occupation forces carried out a series of raids and incursions at dawn today, targeting the village of Kafr Qud, west of the city, where citizens Moatasem Dandis and Youssef Ghanem were arrested after their homes were searched and their contents tampered with. Military activities also extended to the towns of Arraba, Bir al-Basha, and Silat al-Harithiya, amid strict security measures, with no additional arrests reported in those areas.

In the southern West Bank, settlers continued their systematic targeting of Masafer Yatta, south of Hebron, where they released their livestock into agricultural lands with the aim of destroying crops. Local sources documented settlers uprooting and breaking about 30 olive trees in Khirbet Rujum al-Ali, owned by a citizen, in addition to destroying large areas of crops in the Hamroush area, east of the town of Sa'ir.

The scope of Israeli raids expanded in recent hours to include vital centers and camps in the West Bank, including the city of Hebron, the town of Beit Ummar, and Al-Arroub refugee camp, extending to Bethlehem and the towns of Tuqu' and Al-Khader. Incursions also targeted the areas of Kafr Aqab and Qalandia, north of occupied Jerusalem, in addition to the towns of Deir Jarir and Silwad, east of Ramallah, and Dheisheh refugee camp, where many homes were searched and their residents terrorized.

These field developments come amidst official statistics indicating that the number of arrests in the West Bank and occupied Jerusalem has reached about 22,000 since October 2023, some of whom were later released. These figures reflect the scale of the ongoing escalation practiced by the occupation authorities, which coincides with daily acts of abuse and direct targeting of the infrastructure and economy of Palestinians in various governorates.

Regarding human casualties, documented data indicate that more than 1,155 martyrs have fallen and over 10,000 Palestinians have been injured by the fire of the army and settlers in recent months. Observers confirm that these attacks fall within a systematic policy aimed at restricting citizens and forcing them to leave their lands, especially in areas classified as 'C' which are witnessing intense settlement activity.

Israeli field operations continue almost daily in various governorates of the West Bank, with repeated raids and attacks on properties.

By: Said Arikat

May 2, 2026

Washington, D.C- On Friday, May 1, I watched ‘All That’s Left of You’  , Cherien Dabis’s (2025) devastating cinematic chronicle of Palestinian dispossession and survival — a film that lays bare not only the original violence of the 1948 Nakba, but the continuity of Israeli aggression, displacement, and dehumanization that has persisted unabated for generations. What gives the film its extraordinary moral force is its refusal to present Palestinian suffering as an isolated historical tragedy. Instead, it exposes a system of domination and violence that continues to shape Palestinian life today, while expanding outward into Lebanon, Gaza, and even international waters with near-total impunity.

Dabis constructs her film around a painful but undeniable truth: the catastrophe that befell Palestinians in 1948 never ended. The destruction of villages, the theft of homes and land, the expulsions carried out by Zionist militias, and the mass uprooting of hundreds of thousands of Palestinians were not temporary wartime excesses. They became the foundation of an ongoing structure of occupation, siege, fragmentation, and systematic dispossession. Insists that the Nakba is not merely history; it is a continuing political reality.

The film opens in the occupied West Bank during the First Intifada, where teenage Noor navigates the suffocating landscape of checkpoints, armed patrols, and constant military intimidation. Dabis captures the physical and psychological violence of occupation with remarkable precision. Palestinian life unfolds under permanent surveillance and threat, where even ordinary acts — walking to the market, joining friends in the street, chanting at a protest — can provoke lethal force. When Israeli soldiers open fire on demonstrators, the scene is not framed as an aberration but as the predictable logic of military domination imposed on a civilian population denied freedom, sovereignty, and security.

From there, Dabis returns to 1948, tracing the destruction of Noor’s family in Jaffa. These sequences are among the film’s most haunting. Sharif and Munira lose their home, orange groves, and sense of permanence as Zionist armed gangs violently expel Palestinians to make way for the establishment of Israel. The terror generated by massacres such as Deir Yassin hangs over every decision, every hurried departure, every terrified glance exchanged between parents and children. Dabis presents these events not as disputed abstractions but as lived human devastation — families shattered, histories erased, entire communities transformed into refugees overnight.

What makes the film especially powerful is its implicit challenge to decades of Western political and media narratives that have minimized or rationalized Palestinian suffering while shielding Israel from accountability. Dabis understands that Palestinians have not only endured dispossession, but also the systematic denial of their narrative. The film therefore becomes an act of historical reclamation, restoring humanity and memory to people so often reduced to statistics, security threats, or diplomatic talking points.

That relevance has become even more urgent in light of contemporary events. Watching the film today, it is impossible not to connect its historical scenes of expulsion and bombardment to the ongoing devastation in Gaza, where entire neighborhoods have been obliterated, civilian infrastructure systematically destroyed, and tens of thousands of Palestinians killed under the justification of “self-defense.” The patterns are chillingly familiar: collective punishment, forced displacement, siege, starvation, and overwhelming military force directed against a trapped civilian population. The film’s argument is unmistakable — the mechanisms of dispossession inaugurated in 1948 continue to evolve, but never fundamentally cease.

Nor is this violence confined to Palestine alone. Israeli military aggression in Lebanon over decades, from invasions and bombardments to repeated violations of sovereignty, reflects the same broader doctrine of overwhelming force and regional impunity. Even the high seas have not been exempt, as seen in attacks and seizures involving humanitarian flotillas attempting to challenge the blockade of Gaza. Dabis’s film resonates precisely because it situates Palestinian suffering within this larger continuum of unchecked power.

Yet despite its fury and sorrow, it never abandons the humanity of its characters. Dabis fills the film with weddings, laughter, arguments, family rituals, flirtation, and communal warmth. Palestinians are not portrayed solely through suffering, but through life itself — resilient, wounded, loving, and stubbornly attached to memory and land. These moments of tenderness become acts of resistance against a political reality designed to erase them.

The performances are uniformly exceptional. Adam Bakri imbues Sharif with quiet dignity and restrained anguish, while Muhammad Abed Elrahman gives Noor a restless vulnerability that embodies a generation raised under occupation yet still searching for freedom and joy. The cinematography, rich with Mediterranean light, crowded alleyways, orchards, and weathered stone homes, gives the film both intimacy and epic scale.

At times, Dabis’s political messaging becomes direct and overt. Certain monologues function more as testimony than drama. But under present circumstances, such directness feels less like a flaw than a necessity. When entire populations continue to struggle for recognition of their basic humanity, silence and subtlety can become forms of evasion.

Ultimately, it is not simply a historical drama. It is an indictment — of dispossession, occupation, impunity, and the international normalization of Palestinian suffering. More importantly, it is a refusal to allow memory itself to be extinguished. Cherien Dabis has created a film of immense emotional gravity and political courage, one that confronts audiences with the enduring human consequences of a catastrophe that, for Palestinians, has never truly ended.