Erez Winter, head of the Operational Planning Division in the Southern Command of the Israeli occupation army, admitted that military operations in the early days of the aggression on the Gaza Strip were characterized by randomness and excessive intensity. Winter described the bombing as 'hysterical' in his testimony, indicating that this military approach was primarily aimed at inflicting the greatest possible damage on the Strip and its residents.

The military official responsible for developing field plans for the ground operation explained that the motives behind this level of violence were a mixture of a desire for revenge and inflicting harm, along with a state of distrust that prevailed within the military establishment at that stage. These statements shed light on the combat doctrine followed since October 8, 2023, which left enormous destruction in the infrastructure.

Winter spoke about what he called the 'fire curtain' that accompanied ground forces during their initial incursion into the Strip's territory, confirming that the level of artillery and aerial bombardment was exceptional. He considered that the intensity of the fire used had not been seen in modern wars for many decades, making Gaza an arena for an unequal confrontation in terms of destructive power.

In a striking admission, the military commander indicated that the world would need many years, perhaps decades, to realize the extent of the 'hell' that the Gaza Strip actually experienced. These words reflect the magnitude of the atrocities committed by the Israeli military machine, which, according to statistics, led to the martyrdom and injury of hundreds of thousands of Palestinians and the destruction of 90% of vital facilities.

These statements, broadcast by Hebrew media sources, sparked a wide wave of anger in Palestinian circles and on social media platforms. Activists considered Winter's testimony nothing but official documentation from within the military establishment of the genocidal crimes committed in full view and hearing of the entire world.

Observers believed that the Israeli official's remarks reinforce the human rights narratives and field testimonies documented by the residents of the Strip from the first moments of the war. They affirmed that the admission of a 'desire to inflict harm' proves the premeditated intention to commit war crimes and directly target civilians without any humanitarian or legal considerations.

For their part, Palestinian bloggers reacted to these confessions by emphasizing that they did not need testimony from the occupation leaders to realize the extent of the criminality they had been subjected to. They pointed out that the intense bombing, whose images were broadcast live on television screens, was sufficient to condemn the occupation before history and international justice.

Activists stressed that the use of destructive weapons, including concussion bombs in areas crowded with displaced persons, was a systematic policy to kill the largest number of Palestinians. They added that this policy did not differentiate between a child or a woman, but rather targeted the Palestinian presence in Gaza completely and comprehensively.

Despite this 'hysterical' intensity of fire that Winter spoke about, Palestinian analysts believe that the occupation failed to achieve its strategic and field objectives. They affirmed that the legendary steadfastness on the ground prevented this destruction from turning into a clear political or military victory for the occupation, despite the scale of human and material sacrifices.

These testimonies come at a time when international demands continue for accountability for the occupation leaders for the atrocities they committed in Gaza. Winter's statements are an additional document that can be used in international legal forums to prove the deliberate intent of the occupation army to destroy the means of life in the Strip and turn it into an uninhabitable area.

Humanity will need many decades to understand the extent of the hell that Gaza has been subjected to due to the intensity of fire not seen in contemporary wars.

Palestinian families in the Gaza Strip are facing a worsening tragedy with the escalating numbers of missing children. Estimates from the Palestinian Center for Missing Persons indicate that approximately 2,700 children's bodies are still buried under the rubble of destroyed homes. In parallel with these shocking figures, about 200 other children are believed to have disappeared under mysterious circumstances related to forced displacement or proximity to contact points with occupation forces.

A recent journalistic investigation shed light on this phenomenon, presenting painful human stories of children who disappeared from displacement camps or while searching for food. This comes at a time when Hebrew media often ignores the scale of the humanitarian catastrophe in the Strip, giving these testimonies exceptional importance in documenting the suffering of civilians.

Among the cases documented by the investigation is the story of four-year-old Muhammad Ghabin, who went missing three weeks ago from his family's tent in Beit Lahia, north of the Strip. His mother told media sources that her child was playing in front of the tent before suddenly disappearing within just ten minutes, leaving no trace of his whereabouts.

Reports indicate that Muhammad's case is not isolated, as social media platforms and local groups in Gaza are filled with daily appeals from families searching for their missing children. Most of these children are between three and ten years old, which increases the danger of their situation amid the security and humanitarian chaos left by the ongoing aggression.

The disappearance of some children is directly linked to military operations, as a number of them went missing after approaching the Netzarim axis or aid distribution points. There are serious concerns that these children may have been subjected to direct gunfire or arrest by occupation forces that impose a strict siege on those areas.

In another story reflecting the extent of psychological trauma, ten-year-old Samer Abu Jameh disappeared near the city of Rafah last March. Samer was suffering from severe psychological disorders as a result of witnessing horrific killings during the war, which left him in a state of psychological withdrawal before his disappearance.

Samer's mother spoke bitterly about the absence of any information about her son's fate, noting that she constantly sees him in her dreams crying for help. The family affirmed its determination to continue the search despite the harsh conditions, calling on international bodies to intervene to find out if he is detained or injured.

On the ground, security agencies in Gaza denied the occurrence of organized kidnappings, attributing the disappearances to disorientation resulting from repeated displacement or family disputes. Local sources accused parties linked to the occupation of spreading rumors aimed at inciting panic and destabilizing internal stability in the displaced community.

The investigation revealed extortion methods practiced by the occupation, where the family of the child 'Zeina' was blackmailed by Israeli intelligence after their neighbors' house was bombed. An intelligence officer demanded the family provide security information in exchange for revealing the fate of their missing daughter, which the family categorically refused.

For its part, the International Committee of the Red Cross confirmed that it is dealing with thousands of open requests for missing persons in Gaza, but its ability to act remains very limited. The occupation authorities obstruct the access of international teams to detainees or providing them with lists of names, leaving thousands of families in a state of constant anxiety about the fate of their children.

He always appears in my dreams crying. He is a part of my soul, and I will continue to search for him until my last breath to know what happened to him.

This merger unit of two former prime ministers of the occupation state, Naftali Bennett and Yair Lapid, is based on ending the era of Netanyahu's rule, which is the longest in the history of the occupation state, surpassing the term of the founder of the occupation state, Ben-Gurion. He has been prime minister of the occupation state from 2009 until today. This unit could attract former military leaders Gantz and Ashkenazi, and is supported by the leader of "Yisrael Beiteinu," Avigdor Lieberman. It might also cause a rift and disruption within the Likud, succeeding in attracting a number of its leaders. All indicators suggest that the upcoming political election scene in Israel next October will be the hottest, due to a combination of internal, regional, and international considerations and factors. In the Likud, internal disputes and conflicts over Netanyahu's succession will intensify, after the revelation of his cancer diagnosis. Similarly, disputes and conflicts between the loyalists and the opposition will escalate. Netanyahu, an expert in exporting his internal crises abroad, may resort to exploiting security and political circumstances to his advantage. Perhaps, as is customary in every sharp turn, and the possibility of a ceasefire on one of the fronts, he will pour oil on the fire, or go to open a new military front. He might undertake an adventure that disrupts those elections, where he will use security circumstances as an excuse, and the impermissibility of holding elections in wartime. He realizes that his loss in the elections means that an official investigation committee will be formed into the failures of October 7, 2023, security and intelligence-related, and a fundamental part of the responsibility for that will fall on him. Consequently, he will not only be prosecuted for the criminal charges pending against him before the Israeli judiciary – bribery, breach of trust, and fraud – but those failures will be one of the charges against him. Therefore, Netanyahu will fight with all his might to avoid losing his political and personal future and exiting the scene, even if he resorts to the Samson option. We realize that the unity between Bennett and Lapid brings only a change in form, not in substance. These generals and leaders of these parties are from the core right, entrenched and positioned on the same right-wing ground. They differ with Netanyahu on the strategy of managing the conflict and reducing its scope, while strongly adhering to the position of right-wing forces: no independent Palestinian state on a part of historical Palestine, no recognition of the existence of the Palestinian people, intensification of settlement in the West Bank, and increasing the number of settlers there to one million settlers, to transform it into what is known as the state of Judea and Samaria, through annexation and Judaization policies, and the continuation of geographical and demographic "engineering" operations against the Palestinian people there, and the endeavor to definitively resolve sovereignty and control over Jerusalem, and the continuation of aggression against the Gaza Strip at low to medium levels, through qualitative operations, incursions, assassinations, and liquidations, expanding the seized area, maintaining siege and starvation policies, and expanding the Judaization operations of the Negev and Galilee, what is known as the historical land of Israel. Some believe that if these forces succeed in overthrowing Netanyahu, his government, and his coalition, they will promote and spread false awareness of achieving a resounding victory, added to dozens of previous victories, for which our people pay the price on their skin through oppression, abuse, siege, starvation, expulsion, displacement, and ethnic cleansing. Our fundamental issue is related to the demise and end of the occupation, not the overthrow of Netanyahu, even if that has significant importance. In light of the occupation army's shortage of manpower, especially since the last war on more than one front indicated that this army, given this shortage, will not be able to fight on more than one front, the clash with Netanyahu will be over internal issues such as the endeavor to form an official investigation committee into the failures of October 7, 2023, security and intelligence-related, and the issue of recruiting Haredi Jews and the large budgets poured into religious parties to maintain their loyalty, through spending on their schools and religious institutions. Experts in internal Israeli affairs believe that Benjamin Netanyahu's chances of winning the next elections in six months have become nil after the opposition succeeded in uniting its ranks behind the duo Naftali Bennett and Yair Lapid, ensuring them a comfortable majority that could reach 70 votes amid a significant decline in Netanyahu's popularity to 35% and expectations that his parliamentary bloc with his allies will not exceed 40 deputies. Experts say that failure in Lebanon and the stalemate in an unending war with Iran form the basis of the decline in Netanyahu's and his government's popularity, after this popularity had seen a tangible rise before the last war with the promotion of the equation of eliminating the nuclear and missile programs in Iran and getting rid of the threat of Hezbollah to the occupation army and northern settlements, and the facts strongly refuted these claims. Netanyahu, at this moment, is the strong man in the occupation state, who holds political and military decision-making power, and he is capable of leading the opposition where he wants. This opposition, its alliance comes within a tactical framework, and it does not possess a comprehensive political program, nor does it have solutions for fundamental issues, foremost among them the Palestinian issue, ending the occupation, addressing structural racism, or even proposing regional political solutions. The crisis Netanyahu is going through is multi-dimensional; it relates to his political performance after the ceasefire in Lebanon under American pressure, in addition to his health condition, which suggests that he is going through a phase of political decline. This could lead to a realignment within the Zionist opposition, as well as within the right-wing camp itself, including the Likud, which could weaken Netanyahu's internal position. By the way, we must remember that Israeli political parties, in their historical approaches to forming Israeli governments, have dealt with Arabs as a political reserve used to ensure staying in power, not as a partner in changing policies, ending the occupation, or confronting racism.

Amidst the renewed debate surrounding the position of Islamist currents in public life, the discussion about the Muslim Brotherhood stands out as the most sensitive and divisive. Between those who view it as an existential threat to the nation-state and those who place it within the context of political pluralism, a gray area emerges that requires a deeper and more candid reading, far from both idealization and absolute demonization. The rise of this current cannot be understood without returning to the historical context in which it was formed, especially during the Cold War era, when Arab regimes, to varying degrees, allowed the growth of Islamist movements as a counterweight to their ideological adversaries. In this context, the group gained a margin for social and organizational work, at a time when other political forces were being dismantled or marginalized. This historical paradox not only granted Islamists a space for presence but also contributed to reshaping social consciousness, where the religious intertwined with the political, and the missionary with the ideological. However, this expansion was not without cost. The intellectual structure upon which the group was founded, since its establishment by Hassan al-Banna, stems from a vision that transcends the boundaries of the nation-state, viewing the "Ummah" (global Muslim community) as a higher and more comprehensive framework. This vision, despite its validity in a religious-civilizational context, practically clashes with the concept of the modern state based on sovereignty, borders, and equal citizenship. Here, the first structural problematic emerges: Is the state a final goal or a stage within a broader project? In practice, the group did not provide a decisive answer; instead, a dual discourse often appeared: a flexible political language that recognized the state and its institutions, contrasted by an organizational and intellectual structure that maintained different priorities. This duality was not merely a detail but became one of the reasons for the loss of trust, both from the state and from segments of society. Pluralism, in the view of many critics of the group, seemed closer to a temporary tactic than to a principled commitment, especially when the group approached positions of influence or power. As for citizenship, the group's discourse witnessed a relative evolution, but it remained governed by a religious reference that raised questions about full equality among citizens. When "doctrinal identity" is part of the political structure, it becomes difficult to achieve state neutrality towards all its components. However, the most dangerous dimension in testing these problematics clearly manifested in the Palestinian case, where political competition transformed into a structural division that struck the political system at its core. The events of the 2007 Palestinian division constituted a pivotal turning point when the dispute between national forces and the political Islamist current escalated to the level of field control, accompanied by the disintegration of the unity of political and institutional decision-making. This division was not merely an internal dispute but opened the door for direct and indirect investments by Israel, which found in it an opportunity to deepen the geographical and political separation between the West Bank and Gaza, and weaken the Palestinian position in international forums. Regional polarization axes also fueled this division, making the Palestinian arena part of broader conflicts, at the expense of the unity of the national cause. The result was catastrophic on several levels: erosion of the political system's legitimacy, weakening of the national project, exhaustion of society, and deepening of people's suffering under occupation and division simultaneously. Here, the danger of prioritizing the ideological project over the requirements of national unity becomes clear when "political difference" turns into "political separation." Nevertheless, holding this current alone fully responsible, despite the validity of a large part of the criticism, may overlook other factors related to the structure of the Palestinian political system itself and the nature of its management of internal conflict. But what cannot be ignored is that introducing a closed ideological dimension into a national liberation arena, which inherently requires the broadest degrees of unity, was a decisive factor in deepening the crisis. Jordan, by virtue of its geopolitical specificity and social composition, stands before this experience as a living lesson. The challenge lies not only in managing the relationship with the Islamist current but in avoiding reaching a moment where internal balance breaks down. Any imbalance in this balance—whether through complete exclusion or uncontrolled empowerment—could open the door to unforeseen possibilities. In conclusion: Yes, the Islamist current, and foremost among them the Muslim Brotherhood, has real intellectual and organizational problems in reconciling its ideological project with the requirements of the modern nation-state. The Palestinian experience, especially after the 2007 division, showed how political disagreement, when managed with a closed mindset, can turn into a division that weakens everyone and gives the adversary an opportunity to advance. But the most important truth, which should be clear to everyone, is that the state does not weaken due to only one current, but rather weakens when fair and clear rules that govern everyone without exception are absent. When any current—Islamist or otherwise—feels that it can operate outside the law, or above the state, chaos begins. And when the citizen feels that the state does not represent them equally, or that it favors one party over another, trust erodes, and the rift within society widens. In both cases, the result is the same: internal division, general weakness, and opening the door to external interventions and exploitation. Therefore, the solution does not lie in replacing one current with another, nor in excluding one party in favor of another, because exclusion does not end crises but postpones them and makes them more complex. The real solution lies in building a state with clear rules, felt by every citizen, and based on three fundamental pillars: that the law is above all, so no group, party, or individual is stronger than the state; that citizenship is equal, so people are not discriminated against based on ideology, religion, or affiliation; and that political pluralism is managed within a peaceful, organized framework governed by the constitution, not the logic of open conflict. When these rules are achieved, any political current—no matter its ideology—will be forced to operate within the state's boundaries, unable to impose its vision on society, or monopolize truth or power. In simpler words: a strong, just state does not fear any current, but all currents must submit to a strong, just state. Only then can society be protected, national unity preserved, and the painful experiences witnessed in our region prevented from recurring.

With every failed assassination attempt on the man infatuated with his inflated self, the world must hold its breath for the reaction of the "madman"; who sees his survival as destiny, and his wars as blessings upon humanity, which should pray for his long life until he reaches "political maturity." He believes that his opponents should hold their tongues, for "no voice rises above the sound of battle," and the woman next door to the luxurious hall in the White House should withdraw her lawsuit, for if the celebration had been inside that hall, the failed attempt would not have occurred!The man leaves no incident without exploiting it to intimidate his opponents and incite his supporters; for the hero is in danger. After "Isfahan," where he attempted a landing operation, he sent his ships and aircraft carriers to the high seas to enforce his blockade, and began to practice the hobby of the tyrannical king: "He takes every ship by force," while the world is plunged into darkness and thirsts for the "elixir of life" that he hoards in the strait, making no distinction between enemy and friend.The "trader" trades in everything, even in losses and collapsing stock markets. His volatile words have become an indicator of rising and falling prices, and his price, threats, clamor, anger, and extensions of fragile truces confuse the universe, and ignite red signals before a man who does not hesitate to threaten to destroy civilizations. This is the era of the "rogue state"; where the world is run by the whims of a gambler who sees in the misfortunes of peoples benefits that pour dollars into his greedy piggy bank.

In Palestine, major questions don't arise suddenly; rather, they accumulate slowly until they become too heavy to postpone. Among these questions, the question of the current phase stands out: Is what has happened and is happening merely political chaos, or is it a carefully managed process, in which reality is being reshaped in preparation for something else?

When Donald Trump's administration returned to the forefront, it didn't announce an explicit new plan as much as it revived an old logic in a clearer form: less talk, and let the facts speak for themselves. There was no statement saying that settlements would be granted a 'grace period,' but what happened on the ground was as if it were. Construction accelerated, pressures eased, and effective opposition disappeared, as if time itself had been redirected to serve one party over another.

On more than one occasion, Donald Trump did not hesitate to describe Israel as a 'very small country.' This description might seem fleeting or even purely geographical, but in the context of the conflict, it carries much deeper implications. When a state is presented as 'small,' it implicitly opens the door to justifying expansion, or at least to understanding it as a natural need, not a debatable political choice.

This discourse is inseparable from the Israeli security narrative, which has long linked geography with security, and strategic depth with the ability to survive. In this narrative, settlement expansion is not viewed merely as an ideological project, but as a defensive tool used to reduce risks and enhance control. Here, settlement becomes not only a fait accompli but a necessity that is politically and media-wise reproduced.

And when a narrow political horizon in approaching the conflict is added to this, manifested in Donald Trump's perception that 'Israel's problems' can be dealt with all at once, or at least its concerns, whether imagined or real, can be reduced by imposing new realities, then we are faced with a vision that reduces a complex historical conflict to a matter of security management that can be quickly resolved. This type of thinking does not merely adopt the security narrative but seeks to close it, as if it were a file that can be concluded by rearranging geography, not by redefining the relationship between the parties.

When this perception intersects with practical policies on the ground, accelerating construction, the absence of real international pressure, and gradual normalization with new realities, the result is not just a change in the map, but a redefinition of the concept of 'security' itself. Security for whom? At whose expense? And with what boundaries?

In this context, settlement does not appear to be merely a policy, but a tool to redefine negotiation before it even begins. When the map gradually changes, any subsequent negotiations are governed by what has already been imposed, not by what was theoretically proposed. Here, the question shifts from 'What is a just solution?' to 'What can be salvaged from the existing reality?'

This approach is not entirely new. Its roots go back to what was previously proposed in what was known as the Deal of the Century, where settlements were treated as a fait accompli that could be integrated into any future settlement. What is new today is not the idea, but the pace of implementation and the imbalance in international reactions.

In contrast, the West Bank seems to be undergoing a silent reshaping. Roads, checkpoints, urban expansion—all seemingly minor details, but they accumulate a profound political impact. No comprehensive annexation declaration, no peace agreement, but a gray area that expands day by day.

As for Gaza, it is seemingly in a different position, but it is part of the same equation. However, its practical reality indicates increasing exclusion from any near political horizon, as it will be preoccupied with a long and complex reconstruction that may extend for decades, making its presence in any comprehensive negotiating path limited or postponed.

Amidst all this, 'postponing the solution' no longer seems like a transitional phase, but a policy in itself. There is no rush towards a comprehensive settlement, but rather continuous crisis management, with the door left open for negotiations to come later, if they come, on a completely different footing.

However, this approach carries a fundamental contradiction. Reshaping reality may facilitate the imposition of new conditions, but it does not end the conflict. Rather, it may deepen it, because what is imposed without consensus remains vulnerable to instability, no matter how long it lasts.

And here the first question returns, but in a sharper form: If time is used as a political tool, can it alone be relied upon to resolve the conflict? Or is what appears to be a long-term strategy merely a continuous postponement of a larger explosion?

After all this, reality poses a question that seems simple in its formulation but is extremely complex in its content: Is it still possible to return to the previous situation? Or has what happened crossed the point of no return?

For Israel, the gamble seems to be heading in a clear direction: not just managing the conflict, but reshaping it so that returning to the past becomes almost impossible. Every new settlement expansion, every road built, and every structure erected, not only adds to the present but solidifies a different future, making it difficult to reverse even if the political will were available.

Hence, talk of a two-state solution is no longer just a postponed option, but a possibility that is gradually eroding. Not because the idea has lost its theoretical legitimacy, but because the land on which it is supposed to be based is constantly changing. And even if governments or parties in Israel came to power supporting this direction, they would find themselves facing a reality so complex that implementation would be closer to impossible than to a traditional political challenge.

The complexity here does not fall on the Palestinians alone but extends to the Israeli interior itself. How can a settlement structure that has become part of the economy, geography, and daily life of hundreds of thousands be dismantled? And how can borders be redrawn after realities have intertwined to this extent?

In this sense, the change has not only closed the door to a solution but has redefined it. Instead of the question being: How do we reach a two-state solution? The question becomes: Is this solution still applicable at all, or has it transformed into a political idea that facts precede and do not follow?

In this scene, time does not seem to act as a neutral mediator, but as a weighting factor. Every day that passes without radical treatment does not leave things as they are, but pushes them one step further towards a more complex reality, less amenable to separation or rearrangement.

Thus, the dilemma is not only the absence of solutions but the diminishing possibility of returning to a point where a solution can even be sought. In Palestine, transformations are measured not only by what is announced but by what changes silently. And perhaps the most dangerous thing in this phase is not what was said, but what was passed without needing to be said.

The current crisis between the United States and Iran has entered a new phase of complexity, amid Washington's insistence on continuing its comprehensive embargo policy. US President Donald Trump expressed deep skepticism towards recent Iranian proposals regarding navigation in the Strait of Hormuz and the nuclear program, considering them insufficient to ensure international security.

Informed sources reported that the current US stance is based on serious concerns about Tehran's failure to adhere to its future commitments. The US administration believes that any agreement must ensure the permanent and stable opening of the Strait of Hormuz, away from the repeated threats that marred the past phase, which the latest Iranian offer did not convincingly provide to Washington.

The proposal presented by Tehran included controversial ideas, among them imposing financial fees on commercial ships crossing the strait to allocate them to finance reconstruction operations within Iran. This step was met with widespread international rejection and shock in American circles, where Washington officials considered it an attempt to impose a new legal reality that affects the freedom of international navigation.

A state of reservation prevails within the White House regarding the idea of returning to 'square one,' i.e., before the outbreak of the recent military confrontations. The Iranian proposal calls for ending the embargo and opening waterways first, then starting nuclear negotiations, which Washington sees as an unacceptable political retreat after the heavy military and human costs it has incurred.

Political circles in Washington raise fundamental questions about the feasibility of military operations if they are to end with a return to old negotiating paths without achieving tangible gains. The hardline current believes that accepting the current Iranian conditions would mean the failure of the 'maximum pressure' strategy adopted by Trump since he took office.

In contrast, the US administration is betting on the weapon of economic embargo, especially in the energy sector, which represents the lifeline of the Iranian regime. Technical estimates indicate that the continuation of current restrictions on oil exports will lead to a near-complete paralysis in this industry within a period not exceeding two months, which will put Tehran before difficult choices.

US officials believe that Iran will soon face a severe internal energy crisis as a result of accumulated inventories and the inability to dispose of global production. This technical and economic pressure, in addition to the costs of closing oil wells, may force the Iranian leadership to make fundamental concessions to reach an agreement that alleviates the economic stranglehold.

Domestically, sources revealed clear differences in views within the US administration regarding how to deal with the Iranian file. While a team of advisors tends to open negotiation channels to avoid sliding into an all-out war, another team insists that sanctions will achieve their ultimate goals in a very short time.

The pressures are not limited to the Iranian side only, but the United States also faces economic challenges resulting from rising oil prices in global markets. This rise has led to increased fuel costs domestically and rising inflation rates, which has sparked a wave of popular and political criticism of the administration's foreign policies and their impact on the livelihood of the American citizen.

The current situation is described as an ongoing 'finger-biting game' between the two powers, where each side tries to buy time in its favor, waiting for the other to back down. With options remaining open between military escalation or a conditional political settlement, the region remains hostage to a state of 'no war, no peace' awaiting what the next few weeks will bring.

The Iranian proposal returns matters to before the outbreak of the war, which may be interpreted within the American administration as a political concession after high military and human costs.

April 27, 2026, 7amleh - The Arab Center for the Advancement of Social Media confirms that recent changes across Microsoft platforms' maps have ensured the inclusion of Palestinian geographic references and the removal of a number of false and misleading Israeli labels that had been imposed in the occupied West Bank. 

This matters all the more at a time when Israel is accelerating de facto annexation across the occupied West Bank while intensifying settler violence and forced displacement, which amount to ethnic cleansing. In this context, the way digital systems classify Palestinian places cannot be treated as incidental. Such classifications can reinforce the erasure of the Palestinian geography and normalize unlawful Israeli claims over the occupied territory.

Following months of documentation, direct engagement, and sustained pressure, 7amleh succeeded in compelling changes across Microsoft platforms. This includes Bing’s geolocation infrastructure, which had misclassified locations across the occupied West Bank under the so-called “Judea and Samaria, IL”; a legally incorrect and politically dangerous term used by Israeli settler movements advocating annexation and implicated in ongoing violence against Palestinians. Microsoft has now introduced the appropriate label “West Bank” across these locations, removing “Judea and Samaria” and Israeli attribution from Palestinian areas. This is not a gesture of goodwill but a necessary correction secured through Palestinian pressure after Palestinian geography was misrepresented within a major company’s digital infrastructure. What had been rendered through colonial and settlement-driven nomenclature is now being pushed back toward accurate Palestinian geographic identification. “This is a necessary correction. We now call on all platforms and companies to respect international law and stop participating in the digital erasure of Palestinian geography and the normalization of annexation in the occupied West Bank,” says Lama Nazeeh, Advocacy Manager at 7amleh.

What remains unresolved is accountability. Microsoft cannot reduce this to a limited data issue while leaving unanswered how Palestinian locations were placed under Israeli labels and why no safeguards prevented it before Palestinian advocacy forced a correction. This is not an isolated case, but part of a wider digital reality in which Palestinian rights and geography are treated as negotiable, while Israeli domination is reproduced through supposedly neutral systems.

7amleh will continue to monitor these services and pursue full transparency, accountability, and effective guarantees against recurrence. Technology companies must respect international law and uphold their responsibility not to contribute, directly or indirectly, to the erasure of Palestinian geography or the normalization of Israel’s unlawful annexation and settlement policies in the occupied West Bank

West Bank cities and refugee camps are witnessing an unprecedented Israeli military escalation, with widespread incursions targeting Qalandia refugee camp, Kafr Aqab neighborhood, and Al-Ram town north of occupied Jerusalem. Field sources reported that occupation forces carried out an arrest campaign targeting dozens, while converting a number of citizens' homes into military barracks and observation points.

Concurrently with the military movements, settlers escalated their systematic attacks against Palestinians and their properties, firing live ammunition at citizens in the Jabal Harasha area and Beit Sahour city. These aggressions come within a climate of official incitement provided by the far-right government, exacerbating the security and humanitarian situation in the region.

Dr. Mustafa Barghouti, Secretary-General of the Palestinian National Initiative, described what is happening as a state of 'complete violation' whose pace has sharply accelerated since October 7, 2023. Barghouti affirmed that the occupation is operating according to a strategic plan aimed at absolute control over the land, noting that approximately 50% of the West Bank's area has already been seized through confiscation and force.

For his part, academic and expert in Israeli affairs, Dr. Muhannad Mustafa, analyzed the current occupation policy, considering it to be based on three main pillars, starting with imposing a repressive security grip. He explained that the second layer involves targeting Palestinian refugee camps in the north and south to dismantle their social and political structure, leading to the expansion of Jerusalem's borders and systematic home demolitions.

Observers warned that the ultimate goal of these moves is to make the establishment of a Palestinian state geographically and politically impossible, through the implementation of what is known as 'creeping annexation.' The current Israeli government is exploiting international preoccupation to pass legislation that entrenches permanent control over the occupied territories and alters their demographic reality.

In a related context, reports revealed silent ethnic cleansing operations taking place in Tulkarm, Nur Shams, and Jenin refugee camps, where large parts of them have been evacuated and infrastructure and homes destroyed. Despite direct threats and prevention of return under fire, Palestinians continue to show legendary steadfastness in the face of forced displacement plans reminiscent of the 1948 Nakba.

Regarding internal public opinion in Israel, statistics indicate a sharp decline in support for the two-state solution, with the percentage dropping from 60% two decades ago to only about 30% at present. This shift reflects the Israeli society's drift towards the far-right, amidst a complete media silence regarding the crimes committed against Palestinian civilians in the West Bank.

Internationally, shifts have emerged in the positions of some European countries such as Spain, Ireland, and Slovenia, which have begun to seriously demand the cancellation of the partnership agreement with Israel due to its continuous violations. However, major powers within the European Union such as Germany and Italy still oppose taking tangible punitive measures, hindering the achievement of real international deterrence.

Experts believe that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who faces prosecution by the International Criminal Court, primarily relies on absolute American support, specifically from Donald Trump. Netanyahu uses European pressure as a domestic political tool to appear as a leader who confronts external dictates to protect the settlement project.

In conclusion to the current scene, it appears that the two-state solution has practically reached a dead end given the presence of 800,000 settlers and over 400 settlement outposts tearing apart the West Bank. This reality raises major questions about available alternatives, including the option of a single state that guarantees equal rights, amidst continued Israeli rejection of any just political settlement.

What is happening in the West Bank goes beyond usual operations; it is a state of violation aimed at implementing a strategic plan for unprecedented settlement and expansion.

Four activists from the 'People Against Genocide' organization successfully carried out a security breach at the UAV Tactical Systems facility in Leicester, UK, a site wholly owned by the Israeli company Elbit Systems. This action occurred despite intensive security reinforcements recently imposed by British authorities around the site, with activists managing to reach the heart of the vital facility.

The operation began at 3 AM on Friday, with participants using ten-meter ladders to overcome high fences equipped with barbed wire. Upon reaching the factory roof, the activists proceeded to use advanced power tools to cut through the roof and create openings that allowed them to access and directly damage the equipment and weapons inside.

The operation escalated as activists rappelled down ropes from the openings they made in the roof into the factory, where they specifically targeted the air supply system for the 'clean room.' This room is considered the sensitive nerve center of the facility, as it is used to manufacture precise components for military drones. The activists asserted that contaminating this sterile environment would put the factory out of service for several months.

In statements made by a group spokesperson to media sources, it was explained that this field action came as a result of the occupation's continued use of British-made weapons to kill civilians in the region. He pointed out that the targeted company represents a fundamental pillar in the industry of death and destruction, which necessitated direct intervention to disrupt this war machine based on British soil.

The activists emphasized that all traditional peaceful means, including petitions, protests, and political pressure, had failed to bring about real change or stop the supply of weapons to the occupation. They considered that decision-makers had become effectively complicit in the genocide in the Gaza Strip, which pushed them to bypass official channels and take direct action aimed at closing the facility and disrupting Israeli military supply chains.

It is worth noting that the targeted facility was a joint venture with the French company Thales before Elbit Systems fully acquired it at the beginning of this year. The company is responsible for developing 'Watchkeeper' drones, which actively participated in military operations in the Gaza Strip, and its name has also been linked to incidents targeting international aid workers, including World Central Kitchen staff in the spring of 2024.

Israel continues to kill people with British-made weapons, and we cannot stand idly by while Elbit Systems continues to manufacture death and destruction here in Leicester.

Israeli occupation forces continue their daily series of violations of the ceasefire agreement in the Gaza Strip. Medical sources reported the martyrdom of two Palestinians and the injury of another by Israeli army gunfire in various areas north and south of the Strip today, Monday. These attacks come within the context of ongoing violations of the agreement in effect since October 10, 2025, threatening the fragile calm experienced by the residents of the Strip.

In field details, 15-year-old child Ayham Al-Omari was martyred by occupation army gunfire in the town of Beit Lahia, north of the Strip, and another citizen was injured in the same area. Concurrently, medical sources confirmed the martyrdom of a young Palestinian man in the city of Khan Yunis, south, after being subjected to direct gunfire by occupation forces stationed in areas outside their agreed-upon deployment under the terms of the truce.

Violations were not limited to direct gunfire; the occupation army carried out extensive demolition operations targeting a number of civilian buildings and facilities in the eastern areas of Gaza City. The demolition operations were accompanied by intense artillery shelling and indiscriminate firing in the vicinity of the targeted areas, causing a state of panic among citizens attempting to inspect their properties in those areas.

In the southern part of the Strip, the eastern neighborhoods of Khan Yunis city were subjected to Israeli artillery shelling targeting residential and agricultural areas, in a clear violation of the security understandings in place. These Israeli military movements continue in the absence of effective international oversight of the agreement's provisions, leading to more civilian casualties almost daily since the cessation of major military operations.

Regarding official statistics, the Ministry of Health in Gaza announced that hospitals received 7 martyrs and 18 injuries in the past twenty-four hours as a result of the various Israeli attacks. The ministry clarified that among the martyrs was a person whose body was recovered from under the rubble in one of the recently bombed areas, raising the death toll since the truce began.

According to updated data, the number of martyrs since last October 11 has risen to 817, while the number of injured reached 2296 as a result of Israeli violations. These figures reflect the magnitude of the challenges facing the health system amid the continued direct targeting of civilians, despite the official announcement of a ceasefire that followed two years of comprehensive war.

In a related context, the Ministry of Health revealed the total toll of the Israeli aggression since October 7, 2023, which amounted to 72,593 martyrs and 172,399 injured. The two-year war, supported by the United States, caused massive destruction to nearly 90% of the infrastructure and civilian facilities in the Gaza Strip, making recovery operations extremely slow amid repeated field violations.

The number of victims since the ceasefire agreement came into effect last October has risen to 817 martyrs and 2296 injured, according to Ministry of Health data.

Palestinian Prime Minister Mohammed Mustafa on Monday unveiled an ambitious government plan aimed at advancing the artificial intelligence sector and strengthening the pillars of the digital economy in the country. This announcement came during the opening of the 'Palestine AI Week 2026' events held in Birzeit town, north of Ramallah, with a wide presence of experts and specialists.

The event saw significant participation from over 25 local and international institutions, where Mustafa emphasized that moving towards modern technology is no longer a secondary option but a strategic necessity. He clarified that the government is focused on transforming Palestine into an active hub for producing digital technologies, rather than merely being a consumer in the region.

The national plan includes clear digital targets, most notably training 10,000 young men and women in future skills, in addition to qualifying and employing about a thousand graduates annually in this vital sector. Through this step, the government seeks to bridge the gap between educational outcomes and the rapidly evolving technological labor market requirements.

In the context of developing administrative work, the Prime Minister announced an ambitious goal to digitize 50 percent of government services provided to citizens by 2028. This process aims to improve the quality of public services and facilitate public access to them through advanced and fully secure electronic platforms.

Mustafa pointed out that artificial intelligence has become a key driver of global economic growth, stressing that countries possessing these tools enhance their digital sovereignty and their position on the international economic map. He affirmed that Palestine possesses the necessary human competencies to compete in this field if the appropriate enabling environment is provided.

To ensure the implementation of this vision, the Prime Minister revealed a plan to establish a National Council for the Digital Economy, which will be responsible for coordinating policies between the public and private sectors and academic institutions. The council will work to unify the national agenda for digital transformation and identify priorities that serve the supreme interests of the state and its citizens.

The new strategy also includes developing the legislative environment and laws regulating the digital space, with an intensive focus on strengthening technological infrastructure and cybersecurity. Through these measures, the government aims to reduce the time required to complete official transactions by up to 40 percent, which will positively impact the business environment.

The plan focused on qualitative areas including the development of applications and software solutions in Arabic, in addition to integrating artificial intelligence into the education and digital health sectors. The government also attaches great importance to analyzing big data and using it to make decisions based on accurate facts that contribute to improving the standard of living.

In conclusion, Mustafa stressed the importance of attracting expatriate and creative Palestinian competencies abroad to contribute to this major national project. He affirmed the endeavor to build strong partnerships with major global technology companies to attract investments and transfer knowledge, ensuring the building of local capabilities capable of production and export to international markets.

The world has entered a new phase where artificial intelligence has become one of the most important drivers of growth and competitiveness, and a matter of digital sovereignty and position in the global economy.

Dave McIntosh, a former security contractor and former Royal Marine infantry soldier, gave shocking testimony about the practices of the Israeli occupation army in the Gaza Strip. McIntosh, who worked within a system linked to the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation, confirmed that he witnessed incidents of direct shooting and killing at aid distribution sites, where bullets targeted civilians trying to obtain their livelihood.

The former British soldier described the scenes he saw as closer to a 'hunting day' targeting people exhausted by hunger, rather than a relief operation aimed at protecting civilians. He pointed out that the field environment in Gaza has deteriorated sharply, where humanitarian operations have become mixed with a state of severe security tension imposed by the occupation on the ground.

McIntosh spoke about what he described as the 'color system' used within distribution points, which relies on 'red and green' signals to organize the movement of hungry crowds. He explained that this system has actually turned into a tool for spreading terror and chaos, likening what is happening to a real-life 'Squid Game,' where the movement of civilians becomes linked to signals that could mean death or survival at any moment.

In horrific detail, the witness recounted the incident of a Palestinian child, no older than 12, who was killed after being shot by an Israeli sniper in the shoulder area while near a distribution site. McIntosh confirmed that the child was left bleeding in his place for more than half an hour without being allowed to receive any first aid, until he died in front of those present.

The former security contractor criticized the absence of any official investigations by the operating parties or concerned authorities into these crimes, despite his direct reporting of the details of what he witnessed. He stressed that these incidents are not individual actions, but rather reflect a recurring and systematic pattern in dealing with Palestinian civilians within the vicinity of the relief points designated for them.

McIntosh revealed that he possesses video clips he documented during his work, clearly showing the tragic events taking place within those sites, noting that they have not been officially published yet. He stressed that the humanitarian situation in the Strip has exceeded all logical limits, describing it as 'like the end of the world' as a result of continuous repression and indiscriminate killing.

This testimony sheds light on the serious risks facing relief operations in Gaza and reveals the use of deadly force in an environment that is supposed to be safe for civilians. This direct account places the international community before its responsibilities to protect the hungry who are subjected to physical liquidation while trying to obtain their most basic human rights.

What is happening in Gaza is a 'hunting day' targeting the hungry, not a humanitarian relief operation; it is like the end of the world.

Tehran and Washington are mired in a complex political dilemma characterized by a state of 'no peace, no war,' as diplomatic efforts to launch peace talks between the two parties falter. Each side hopes to outlast the other, facing a confrontation with severe consequences that could directly impact the stability of the global economy.

Analytical readings indicate that officials in Iran show cautious confidence in their ability to withstand the current economic repercussions for a period longer than US President Donald Trump's capacity to wait. However, concern prevails in Iranian circles about remaining in a stalemate that leaves the country vulnerable to continuous threats of sudden American or Israeli strikes.

Sasan Karimi, a former Iranian official and academic at Tehran University, described the current scene as resembling the end of short wars that lack permanent guarantees. He explained that what is happening now is a cessation of military operations without reaching a political framework that ensures the conflict will not resume at any moment.

For its part, the conservative newspaper 'Khorasan' considered the current situation to be a 'strategic stalemate' that entails serious risks that may outweigh the risks of direct military confrontation. The newspaper pointed out that the retreat of both parties from the option of an all-out war was not followed by an abandonment of the logic of maximum pressure and the use of force.

The faltering efforts to restart ceasefire talks, mediated by Pakistan, reflect the complexities of the field and political landscape that followed the recent mutual shelling. Each party claims to have a superior negotiating position, which hinders reaching compromises that would end the escalating tension in the region.

In an escalatory move, President Trump decided to cancel sending his special envoy Steve Witkoff and his son-in-law Jared Kushner to the Pakistani capital, Islamabad. Trump justified this decision by stating that the Iranian side was trying to waste time, reflecting the deep trust gap separating the White House and Tehran.

In contrast, senior officials in Iran adhere to their position of refusing to hold any direct meetings before the lifting of the American naval blockade imposed on Iranian ports. Tehran considers this blockade, which was tightened after the last ceasefire, a violation of initial understandings and an obstacle to any diplomatic progress.

Despite this stalemate, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi is leading intensive diplomatic efforts, including visits to Pakistan and Oman, with plans to travel to Russia. These moves aim to coordinate with regional and international powers to ensure the security of navigation lanes in the strategic Strait of Hormuz.

Observers believe that coordination with Oman is vital for the Iranian side, given its geographical location overlooking the strait and its traditional role as a mediator. Iranians are trying to build a regional front that supports their demands to end the naval blockade in exchange for concessions related to the security of international navigation.

Political experts in Tehran urged the Iranian leadership to establish a comprehensive framework for a potential agreement that includes clear demands and a vision for a regional peace charter. They warned that the current conservative political approach might hold Iran responsible for future failure if the fragile calm collapses.

On the economic front, Iran is betting that the disruptions in the Strait of Hormuz will cost the US administration more than they will cost Iran domestically. Economic analysts believe that the disruption of oil and fertilizer exports could cause global shocks that would push Washington to accelerate the pace of negotiations within weeks.

Despite these stakes, the Iranian economy faces a crushing crisis characterized by a severe shortage of medicines and petrochemical products, in addition to a widespread wave of layoffs. Local economic reports expect the annual inflation rate to jump to record levels ranging between 70% and 120% if the political deadlock continues.

Estimates indicate that the Iranian regime has economic maneuvering margins that enable it to withstand for a period ranging from three to six months at most. This period depends on the government's ability to manage available resources and avoid slipping into hyperinflation that could threaten internal stability.

The question remains about the ability of both parties to continue this dangerous game without sliding back into military confrontation. While Iran remains vulnerable to strategic risks in the absence of a formal agreement, Trump faces increasing international pressure to secure global energy supplies and prevent the situation from exploding.

The current situation may be more dangerous than a short-term war itself, as both parties have retreated from the cost of an all-out confrontation without transcending the logic of power.

Medical staff at Al-Shifa Complex in Gaza City have recorded a remarkable medical achievement amidst the harsh conditions in the Strip, as a surgical team managed to save two-and-a-half-year-old child Yaman Barakat from the risk of permanent motor disability. This success came after a delicate and complex surgical operation on the hip joint, at a time when the health sector is suffering from a near-total collapse due to continuous targeting and a shortage of essential supplies.

The child's mother, Halima Barakat, explained that her child's suffering began from the moment of his birth, as he needed urgent surgical intervention that could not be achieved due to the widespread destruction of the healthcare system and the disruption of travel procedures for treatment abroad. She pointed out that Yaman had an official medical referral for about a year, but the closure of crossings and imposed restrictions prevented his departure, which led to a significant deterioration in his health condition before the operation was performed locally.

The family considered the return of orthopedic surgeon Dr. Faisal Siam to the Gaza Strip as a lifeline for their child, as coordination was made with him to perform the surgery inside Al-Shifa Complex despite the surrounding dangers and lack of equipment. The mother described the decision to perform the operation under these circumstances as a 'necessary risk,' emphasizing that the alternative was to surrender to the reality of permanent disability that would have accompanied her child throughout his life.

For his part, Dr. Faisal Siam, head of the orthopedic surgery department at Al-Shifa Complex, confirmed that this type of surgical intervention requires high technical skill and special techniques, which makes its implementation in an environment lacking the most basic components an unprecedented medical achievement. Medical sources stated that the surgical team is striving to secure the minimum level of care for thousands of injured and sick people who are awaiting their turns on long waiting lists for operations.

Despite the success of the operation, challenges still remain for child Yaman, as he needs an intensive medical follow-up program extending for at least six months to ensure the full success of the surgery. The healthcare system faces severe difficulties in providing post-operative care for patients, amidst the continued siege and the shortage of essential medicines and medical consumables for the recovery and rehabilitation phase.

In a related context, reports issued by the World Health Organization revealed that the rehabilitation of the health sector in Gaza requires huge investments amounting to 10 billion dollars over the next five years. The reports stated that more than 1,800 health facilities, including hospitals, clinics, and laboratories, were completely or partially destroyed, making access to basic medical services extremely difficult.

The humanitarian crisis in the Strip is escalating with the continued evasion of the occupation from its international obligations and ceasefire agreements that stipulated the opening of crossings and facilitating the entry of relief and medical aid. Approximately 1.9 million displaced people face catastrophic living and health conditions, amidst the overcrowding of injured and sick people inside the remaining health facilities that are operating beyond their capacity and with primitive tools.

Performing this operation under the current circumstances is an exceptional achievement, as medical staff are working with almost non-existent capabilities to save thousands of patients.

Palestinian child Thayer Hamayel, 12 years old, revealed horrific details of his arrest journey that began at dawn on April 14th. The child stated in his testimony that the occupation forces took him from his home, initiating a series of forced transfers and harsh interrogations that reflected a tragic reality experienced by children inside Israeli detention centers.

Thayer's suffering began in the 'Al-Asour' camp near his town, where he was left alone in the open, facing severe cold for a full hour without any consideration for his age. Following that, he was transferred to 'Jaba'it' camp, located northeast of Ramallah, where he was thrown into a very narrow room with another prisoner for several hours under conditions lacking the most basic human necessities.

Sources reported that the child was subjected to serious physical and psychological abuses during his interrogation at the 'Binyamin' interrogation center, including severe beatings and attempts at strangulation. Thayer stated that the interrogators accused him of belonging to armed organizations and described him as a 'saboteur,' while keeping his hands bound with painful restraints throughout the interrogation to increase pressure on him.

After the interrogation, Hamayel was transferred to 'Ofer' prison west of Ramallah, where the policy of abuse and ill-treatment continued during the transfer process. The child indicated that the prison administration exerted humiliating psychological pressure on him, reaching the point of forcing him to kiss the Israeli occupation flag under threat, in a blatant violation of international child rights conventions.

Thayer described the daily life in the 'Cubs Section' of Ofer prison as characterized by deliberate cruelty, especially regarding the quality of food and the rough treatment by the jailers. He explained that the administration follows daily punitive measures that include removing mattresses from young detainees from early morning until afternoon, forcing them to sit on the hard floor throughout that period.

This testimony comes at a time when field data indicates an escalation in the repression against Palestinian prisoners, whose number is approximately 9600. Among these detainees, 350 children and 86 women are held in conditions described by human rights organizations as a vengeful journey lacking adequate food, medicine, and blankets, especially in light of the current situation.

According to reports from prisoner affairs institutions, the number of administrative detainees has reached record levels, totaling 3532 people, which is the highest historically. The presence of 1251 detainees under the designation of 'unlawful combatants' was also recorded, a number that does not include all detainees from the Gaza Strip who are held in secret camps belonging to the occupation army, away from legal oversight.

I was beaten and choked during the interrogation, and harsh accusations were leveled against me while my hands were tied the entire time.

Official sources reported the departure of a new relief plane from Sharjah International Airport on Friday, loaded with more than 100 tons of essential food supplies and humanitarian aid destined for the residents of the Gaza Strip. This flight is part of the 'Hamid Air Bridge' initiative, which aims to enhance the urgent humanitarian response to the escalating crisis in the Strip and provide basic needs for affected families.

These relief efforts came under the direct directives of Sheikh Humaid bin Rashid Al Nuaimi, Member of the Supreme Council and Ruler of Ajman, and in coordination with 'Operation Gallant Knight 3'. This step reflects the UAE's continuous commitment to supporting Palestinian brethren and providing intensive relief support to face the difficult living challenges imposed by the current reality in Gaza.

For his part, Hamoud Saeed Al Affari, Coordinator of Relief Operations in 'Operation Gallant Knight 3', stated that the arrival of this plane coincides with the organization of the 'Thawb Al Farah 2' event, a mass wedding aimed at celebrating more than 300 grooms from the Strip. Al Affari affirmed that these initiatives seek to bring joy to the hearts of the residents while providing the necessary material and food support for daily life to continue.

Al Affari explained that the 'Hamid Air Bridge' initiative represents an additional lifeline that embodies the UAE's deep-rooted approach of giving towards the Palestinian cause. He pointed out that efforts are not limited to food only, but include an integrated package of humanitarian and medical services that are being implemented on the ground to ensure aid reaches those in need in various areas of the Strip.

In the context of medical support, sources noted the continued operation of the Emirati field hospital inside Gaza and the floating hospital in the Egyptian city of Arish, both with a capacity of 100 beds. These medical facilities include specialized staff in general surgery, orthopedics, pediatrics, and intensive care, to provide urgent healthcare to the injured and sick.

Regarding sustainable water solutions, 6 desalination plants continue to regularly pump potable water to the residents of the Gaza Strip to address the severe water scarcity crisis. These plants are a pivotal part of the relief infrastructure launched by the UAE to ensure the basic needs of the population are met and to avoid environmental and health disasters resulting from water pollution.

In turn, Hassan Al Obaidli, Director of Community Support and Development Department at the International Charity Organization, confirmed that the organization is working in coordination with charitable institutions in Ajman to operate a continuous air and sea bridge. He explained that the current shipment includes 3300 food parcels, and is part of a comprehensive plan to send 1000 tons of various aid in the coming period.

Al Obaidli indicated that the organization is keen to meet the urgent food needs of the most affected groups by the humanitarian crisis in the Strip. He expressed his appreciation for the Emirati leadership, which places humanitarian work at the forefront of its priorities, affirming that the state will remain proactive in extending a helping hand and assistance to those in need in all exceptional circumstances.

In the same context, Ahmed Abdullah bin Malik, Director of Community Life Support Department at Al Etihad Charity Foundation, stated that contributing to this initiative translates the leadership's vision in promoting the values of solidarity and compassion. He affirmed that the foundation primarily focuses on food support as a top priority to alleviate the living burdens on the affected in Gaza and to establish the UAE's global humanitarian message.

This relief journey comes within the Hamid Air Bridge initiative to alleviate the daily suffering of thousands of Palestinian families under the current circumstances.

The Turkish state faces a complex diplomatic and military test amidst the raging war against Iran, as Ankara strives to maintain the policy of neutrality that has characterized its modern history. Observers note that decision-makers in Turkey are recalling the experience of World War II to avoid siding with any party, fearing a repeat of the Ottoman Empire's collapse, which resulted from mistaken strategic choices in the past.

Despite Turkey's efforts to play the role of an influential regional power, especially after the geopolitical changes in Syria in late 2024, it still lacks sufficient economic and military tools to impose its conditions. The air defense crisis stands out as one of the biggest challenges, as the purchase of the Russian S-400 system led to American sanctions that deprived Ankara of advanced technology such as F-35 fighters.

Field developments in March 2026 revealed the fragility of Turkish air protection, as NATO interceptor aircraft took on the task of shooting down Iranian missiles that penetrated Turkish airspace. These missiles targeted vital facilities, including Incirlik Air Base and a NATO radar system, putting Ankara in an awkward position between its Atlantic commitments and its desire not to provoke Tehran.

Analytical sources confirm that Ankara categorically refused to provide any logistical support for the American-Israeli military campaign against Iran and prevented the use of its airspace for offensive strikes. This stance stems from Turkey's desire to maintain a 'competitive coexistence' relationship with its eastern neighbor, a relationship whose roots extend to the Treaty of Qasr-e Shirin signed in the 17th century.

The Turkish leadership fears that the collapse of the regime in Tehran could lead to widespread chaos and the influx of millions of refugees across the border, which could destabilize the already strained Turkish economy. Ankara also believes that the existence of a stable Iranian state, even if an adversary, is far better than a fragmentation scenario that could fuel Kurdish separatist tendencies in the region.

Regarding the Kurdish issue, the war in Iran threatened the fragile peace process that began in Turkey in 2025, as Ankara fears that external powers might exploit Iranian Kurds. Turkish officials expressed concern about the Trump administration's intentions to arm Kurdish factions, which could bring tensions with Washington to unprecedented levels and undermine efforts to politically integrate the Kurds.

On another note, the Israeli military rise in the region after the fall of the Assad regime in Syria represents a major strategic concern for Ankara, which now views Tel Aviv as a direct threat. Turkish politicians believe that Israeli movements in Syria and Lebanon aim to encircle and contain Turkey, especially with the strengthening of Israeli defense cooperation with Greece and Cyprus.

Turkish-Israeli rivalry is no longer just a political dispute but has turned into a long-term strategic animosity that is difficult to overcome under the Netanyahu and Erdoğan governments. Ankara watches with concern as Israel transforms into the sole dominant power in the region, reducing Turkey's room for maneuver in the Eastern Mediterranean gas files and the future of the new Syrian regime.

Analyses indicate that Turkey prefers the '2015 nuclear deal' model as a framework for dealing with Iran, rather than the maximum pressure policy adopted by Washington. An Iran constrained by international agreements serves Turkey's commercial interests and opens up economic prospects for it towards Central Asia via the South Caucasus corridors, away from the disruptions of southern shipping routes.

To emerge from this crisis in a stronger position, experts suggest the necessity of accelerating legal and political reforms related to the Kurdish issue within Turkey to fortify the domestic front. Granting broader powers to Kurdish municipalities and enacting laws that allow militants to lay down their arms could close the door to any external attempts to exploit this sensitive issue during wartime.

Ankara must also strengthen security coordination with Baghdad and Damascus to ensure border stability and protect trade and energy routes connecting Turkey to the Arab Gulf states. The stability of Iraq and Syria represents the first line of defense for Turkish national security and prevents these countries from becoming arenas for settling scores between major and regional powers.

Amidst political fluctuations in Washington, it seems that the wisest course for Turkey is to strengthen its ties with European defense structures and NATO, while focusing on building an independent national defense industry. Self-reliance in air and missile defense has become an urgent necessity that cannot be postponed in light of increasing missile threats.

Observers believe that opening the border with Armenia and developing the 'Middle Corridor' could give Turkey a central role in a post-war system based on trade links rather than crises. This strategic step would reduce the Turkish economy's dependence on troubled regions and make Ankara an indispensable bridge between East and West.

In conclusion, a policy of 'tactical hedging' and passive neutrality may not be enough to protect Turkey from impending geopolitical earthquakes, requiring proactive diplomacy and courageous decision-making. Turkey's ability to adapt to the new regional order will determine whether it emerges from this era as a leading power or as a state besieged by crises from all sides.

Merely avoiding being drawn into war is no longer the best way for Turkey to advance its interests in a turbulent neighborhood; rather, it must act proactively to ensure it emerges in a stronger position.

Demonstrations against the occupation government witnessed a strange incident reflecting a state of excessive security tension, as police officers confiscated the flag of Hungary from one of the participants. This step was taken on the pretext that the three colors of the Hungarian flag, red, white, and green, match the colors of the Palestinian flag, which could lead to what the police described as 'provocation'.

According to Hebrew press sources, the incident took place at the vital 'Karkur' junction in the northern regions, during weekly protests demanding the departure of the current government. Despite the demonstrator's attempts to clarify that the flag represents a friendly European country and carries no political connotations related to the Palestinian conflict, police officers insisted on their position, claiming that passersby might misunderstand the symbol.

The sources reported that the demonstrator tried to reach a settlement with the security force present at the scene by offering to remove the flag and return it to his private vehicle to avoid any friction. However, the occupation police officers categorically rejected this proposal and insisted on seizing and confiscating the flag immediately. It was not returned to its owner until after the demonstration was dispersed and the protest activity completely ended.

This incident comes in the context of a broader campaign led by the occupation authorities to restrict the raising of any Palestinian national symbols in public spaces, where crackdowns on demonstrators raising the Palestinian flag are frequent. Observers believe that the confiscation of foreign flags merely due to color similarity reflects the peak of security sensitivity and confusion in dealing with visual symbols that evoke the Palestinian cause.

It is worth noting that current laws do not explicitly prohibit raising the Palestinian flag, but political-level instructions to the occupation police grant field commanders broad powers to confiscate it under the pretext of 'maintaining public order'. The Hungary flag incident reveals an expansion in the use of these pretexts to include any manifestations that might suggest solidarity with Palestinians, even if it is merely a coincidence in the colors of another country's flag.

Some may not understand that.. colors can cause provocation to the public.

Various areas in southern Lebanon witnessed a bloody military escalation on Monday, as Israeli aircraft launched a series of airstrikes that resulted in the martyrdom of four people, including a woman. Medical sources confirmed that the attacks also led to 51 people sustaining various injuries, reflecting the continued field tension despite international efforts for de-escalation.

These attacks come amidst a truce announced by US President Donald Trump on April 17, which was supposed to last for ten days before being extended for an additional three weeks. Despite these understandings, Israeli forces continued their military operations, exceeding the declared decisions regarding the cessation of air attacks on Lebanese territory.

In an official statement, the Lebanese Ministry of Health clarified that the toll of victims from the Israeli shelling included children and women, with three children and six females among the 51 wounded. The injuries were distributed among several hospitals in the south, where medical teams are working to provide necessary first aid to the injured under difficult field conditions.

On the ground, local sources reported that the Israeli army did not limit itself to airstrikes but also carried out demolition operations of buildings in the towns of Hanin in Bint Jbeil district and Shiheen in Tyre district. These operations caused widespread destruction of property and infrastructure, increasing the suffering of local residents in those border areas.

Intensive airstrikes included the towns of Majdal Zoun and the area between Qana and Siddiqin, in addition to targeting the towns of Haddatha, Baraachit, and Haris in Bint Jbeil district. These raids coincided with intensive overflights by warplanes and reconnaissance aircraft in the skies of southern Lebanon, causing a state of panic among civilians.

In Nabatieh district, the Almaan - Shoumaria area was subjected to intermittent Israeli artillery shelling, targeting forests, open areas, and areas surrounding residential homes. These Israeli military movements come within what local sources describe as continuous violations of the Washington-sponsored ceasefire agreement.

For its part, the Israeli army claimed in a statement that it targeted more than 20 Hezbollah infrastructures in the Beqaa and southern Lebanon regions. The statement alleged that the attacks targeted sites for the production and storage of combat means and missile launch platforms, in an attempt to justify targeting civilian areas where martyrs and wounded fell.

Israeli claims contradicted the field data documented by the Lebanese Ministry of Health, which confirmed the direct civilian casualties as a result of the shelling. Israel continues its policy of targeting Lebanese villages and towns, claiming the presence of military targets in populated areas, which official Lebanese reports deny.

It is worth noting that the Israeli aggression on Lebanon, which began on March 2, has left a heavy toll of victims, reaching 2509 martyrs and 7755 wounded. The ongoing military operations have also caused the displacement of more than 1.6 million people from their homes, creating a worsening humanitarian crisis in various Lebanese governorates.

Today's Israeli enemy raids on southern Lebanon resulted in the martyrdom of 4 people, including a woman, and 51 injured, including 3 children and 6 females.

The military confrontation launched by US President Donald Trump in cooperation with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu against Iran is approaching its third month. Despite the intensity of military operations, described as a blatant violation of international law, the field still witnesses escalating operations despite attempts at de-escalation and opening negotiation channels that have not yielded tangible results so far.

Field data confirms that the strategic objective set by the White House since the first week of the war, which was to overthrow the Iranian regime, has failed. State institutions in Tehran have shown a high capacity for resilience and absorbing major military shocks that directly and unprecedentedly targeted command and control centers.

The martyrdom of Supreme Leader Imam Ali Khamenei, along with a group of senior military and political leaders, represented the toughest test for the Islamic regime. Nevertheless, Iran managed to overcome the shock of loss by rapidly reorganizing its leadership ranks, which was evident in the election of Imam Mojtaba Khamenei as the country's new leader to ensure the continuity of political and military decision-making.

The confrontation was not limited to inside Iran but extended to include widespread military coordination with regional forces in Lebanon, Yemen, and Iraq. This axis, joined by the Gaza front, which shares the same fate, put additional pressure on American and Israeli calculations, making a military decisive victory elusive.

Observers believe that Trump, who aspired to control the timing of the war's end as he started it, found himself facing a completely different reality. Iranian components, including the Revolutionary Guard, army, and Basij, united behind the new leadership, supported by millions of popular marches, which deprived Washington of the ability to impose surrender terms or end the conflict according to its own vision.

Recent Islamabad negotiations revealed the extent of the American dilemma, as Trump was forced to withdraw his delegation after confirming the change in the balance of power on the ground. This withdrawal came as a result of the US administration's realization that the results intended by the decision to launch the war on February 28 had not been achieved, but rather led to completely opposite outcomes.

The White House is currently in a state of hesitation between the option of comprehensive escalation to destroy Iranian infrastructure and the desire to avoid a resounding political defeat. This confusion is evident in the continuous threats to strike power stations, bridges, and hospitals, countered by a keenness to keep the doors of Pakistani mediation ajar to preserve what remains of military prestige.

Analytical sources indicate that American military power, despite its immense destructive capability, has become politically ineffective at this stage. Waving the threat of occupying the Strait of Hormuz or blockading Iranian ports is no longer sufficient to extract diplomatic gains; rather, it has become a means of escaping the dilemma of field stagnation surrounding the attacking forces.

Trump's options have become confined to a narrow circle, where every potential path carries severe political or economic losses without guarantees of profit. In this deadlock, Washington finds itself gradually approaching acceptance of the terms set by Tehran for a ceasefire, which represents a significant retreat from the initial American demands.

The American position is further complicated by the exacerbation of internal crises in the United States and the shaking of the global economy due to the ongoing war. Moreover, increasing pressure on pro-Israel lobbies has begun to tangibly affect the US administration's reputation and influence in international forums, especially with the continuation of massacres and destruction.

On the other hand, Benjamin Netanyahu faces existential challenges amid successive military failures on the Lebanese front. These failures, coupled with fierce resistance in the Gaza Strip, have made the Israeli ally an additional burden on the American strategy in the region, rather than a partner in achieving a quick victory.

The shift in regional power balances has proven that destructive power alone does not create a sustainable political reality. Iran, despite deep wounds and the loss of its historical symbols, has proven that its institutions are capable of operating under the harshest conditions, making Trump's bet on a rapid collapse a losing bet by all measures.

The coming days remain pregnant with possibilities, as Trump seeks to secure an exit that saves face before the American voter and the world. However, the price demanded by Tehran and its allies for a ceasefire seems exorbitant and requires American concessions that could change the face of balances in the Middle East for decades to come.

Ultimately, this war shows that the policy of maximum pressure and direct military action has reached a dead end. The resistance shown by the targeted peoples and regimes has redefined the rules of engagement and forced major powers to reconsider their tools of influence and impact in a region that does not accept coercive dictates.

Trump decided to be the decision-maker for starting and ending the war, but he faced the failure of overthrowing the regime behind which the Iranian people united.

US President Donald Trump held a high-level meeting with his senior national security advisors on Monday to discuss a new Iranian proposal aimed at breaking the deadlock in the current crisis. The Iranian offer includes reopening the Strait of Hormuz to international navigation, in exchange for Washington lifting the naval blockade imposed on Iranian ports for some time.

White House spokeswoman Caroline Leavitt confirmed that the Iranian proposal is currently under discussion and evaluation within the US administration. Leavitt stated in a press conference that the President met with his security team immediately after reports of the offer, but she declined to disclose Trump's final stance on accepting or rejecting this initiative.

For his part, Secretary of State Marco Rubio expressed strong reservations about the proposal, indicating that the current Iranian position does not meet US expectations and demands. Rubio stated in media remarks that Tehran's condition for prior coordination or obtaining permission to pass through the strait is not a true opening of the international waterway through which one-fifth of the world's oil passes.

Rubio stressed that the United States cannot accept a system that seeks to normalize its control over international waterways and impose fees or conditions on their users. He affirmed that the US administration rejects leniency with Tehran's attempts to impose a new reality that grants it decision-making authority over who is allowed to cross the strategic Strait of Hormuz.

Press reports indicated that the White House meeting also addressed the stalemate in diplomatic negotiations and the available options for dealing with the upcoming stages of the conflict. The US administration appears to be balancing military and economic pressures with the possibility of reaching an agreement that ends maritime threats in the region.

Informed sources reported that there is increasing confidence within the Trump administration in the effectiveness of the naval blockade imposed on Iran and its direct impact on its economy. In contrast, there is a kind of skepticism about the ability of current Iranian negotiators to make substantial concessions that achieve the goals set by Washington for a sustainable resolution of the crisis.

Leaked data indicates that the conditions put forward by Tehran in its latest proposal are still far from the 'red lines' drawn by the Trump administration. The White House spokeswoman affirmed that these lines are completely clear to the Iranian side and to public opinion, and there is no intention to backtrack on them under the current circumstances.

According to media sources, the Iranian proposal aims to separate the navigation and current war file from the nuclear file, so that the strait is opened and military operations are ended first. Tehran proposes postponing negotiations related to its nuclear program to a later stage, which Washington may consider an attempt to buy time and alleviate economic pressure.

Sources from Washington reported that American rhetoric has escalated in recent hours regarding the completion of the naval blockade as a key pressure tool. President Trump believes that this card is the most effective in forcing Tehran to comply, especially with the increasing technical and economic difficulties facing the Iranian oil sector as a result of the halt in exports.

Trump had previously warned that Iran's oil fields and crude pipelines would face a major crisis due to the accumulation of quantities that cannot be discharged. The US President went so far as to predict that these wells might explode due to the pressure from oil accumulation, which he sees as a decisive pressure tactic in the coming days.

The US administration faces a legal challenge in the form of the 60-day constitutional deadline for military operations, which is nearing its end this month. Extending these operations requires a vote from Congress, which may face political obstacles given the current divisions over the utility of continued military escalation.

In an attempt to circumvent this restriction, a team of lawyers in the US administration is studying constitutional loopholes that might allow Trump to continue operations without returning to Parliament. The next few weeks are considered crucial in determining the course of the conflict, whether by moving towards a political settlement based on the Iranian proposal or continuing with the option of a comprehensive naval blockade.

If what they mean by opening the strait is coordinating with Iran and obtaining its permission, otherwise they will attack you, then this is not opening the strait.

The Ukrainian Ministry of Foreign Affairs announced a new diplomatic escalation towards Tel Aviv, summoning Israeli Ambassador Michael Brodsky for a formal reprimand session. This move comes after the detection of Russian cargo ships arriving at Israeli ports, laden with agricultural products that Kyiv asserts were plundered from its occupied territories.

Ukrainian Foreign Minister Andriy Sibiga clarified that bilateral relations should not be harmed by what he described as 'illegal trade' practiced by Russia. Sibiga indicated that his country has repeatedly warned against accepting these shipments, considering Israel's silence on these violations to raise deep questions about the nature of the partnership between the two sides.

In response, Israeli Foreign Minister Gidon Sa'ar reacted sharply on social media platforms, stating that international relations are not managed via 'Twitter'. Sa'ar claimed that the Ukrainian side had not provided concrete evidence or formal requests for legal assistance before resorting to media escalation, emphasizing that Israel adheres to the rule of law.

Field reports indicate that the Russian vessel 'Panormitis' indeed docked in Haifa port last Sunday, carrying massive quantities of wheat. Ukrainian diplomatic sources confirm that this ship is the second of its kind in just two weeks, reflecting a recurring pattern of Israeli disregard for Ukrainian warnings.

Kyiv warned that the continued unloading of these shipments would have 'dire consequences' for the future of bilateral relations between the two countries. Ukrainian sources considered Israel's current stance to be an act of ingratitude, especially after the steps Ukraine had taken to support Israel in international forums and against its regional adversaries.

It is worth noting that Ukraine had made strategic decisions in favor of Israel, including designating the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps as a terrorist organization. Ukrainian authorities also tightened laws related to combating antisemitism, steps that aimed to strengthen the alliance with Tel Aviv in the face of Russian pressure.

Despite official Israeli denials, an investigative journalistic report revealed documents proving Israel's reception of at least four Russian ships this year. Shipping movement data and satellite images showed that these ships were carrying grain originating from areas controlled by Russian forces in Ukraine.

The investigation confirmed that the stolen wheat is being sold within Israeli markets to local buyers, making Israel an indirect partner in circumventing sanctions. The value of recently arrived shipments is estimated at millions of dollars, providing Moscow with a crucial financial lifeline amidst the international economic blockade imposed on it.

Sources also revealed that Russian ships use sophisticated jamming techniques to conceal their true navigation routes and avoid international detection. These deceptive methods aim to camouflage the origin of the goods and facilitate their entry into ports that do not strictly adhere to origin verification protocols, including Haifa port.

In a related context, reports indicated that 2023 saw the arrival of seven other ships with strong suspicions surrounding the origin of their cargo. It appears that Israel has become a preferred destination for the disposal of these goods, exploiting loopholes in the international sanctions regime led by the United States and the European Union.

Observers believe that this crisis places Israel in an awkward position with its Western allies, who impose strict restrictions on trade with Russia. While Tel Aviv tries to maintain a delicate balance in its relations with Moscow, increasing Ukrainian pressure may force it to take a clearer stance.

The protest note that Kyiv will deliver to the Israeli ambassador includes specific demands to stop receiving any suspicious ships in the future. Ukraine emphasizes the need for transparent investigations into the origin of the grain that entered Israeli markets, considering that 'profiting from stolen goods' is unbecoming of a country that claims adherence to international law.

These developments come at a sensitive time in the conflict in Ukraine, as Kyiv seeks to dry up Russian funding sources by all available means. The grain sector is one of Ukraine's most important economic resources, making the defense of ownership of these crops a matter of national security for it.

In conclusion, the question remains about the extent to which Israeli law enforcement authorities will respond to Ukrainian requests in the coming days. Either Tel Aviv will take measures to restrict the arrival of these ships, or the crisis will escalate further, potentially leading to the withdrawal of ambassadors or a reduction in diplomatic representation.

It is not honorable for Israel to profit from stolen goods, and ignoring legitimate Ukrainian demands is a slap in the face.

Israeli occupation forces withdrew from Qalandia camp and Al-Ram town, north of occupied Jerusalem, after a wide-ranging military operation that lasted for about 18 continuous hours. The invading forces left behind widespread destruction of private and public property, in addition to sending direct threat messages to residents via paper leaflets and loudspeakers.

Local sources from inside the camp reported that the occupation army carried out a mass arrest campaign targeting more than 80 Palestinians of different ages, who were taken blindfolded and handcuffed to field interrogation centers. The majority of the detainees were later released after undergoing harsh interrogations under threat and abuse.

During the hours of the raid, Israeli forces converted a number of inhabited homes into military barracks and observation points, after forcing their owners to evacuate them. Military bulldozers also closed vital streets and main entrances with earth mounds and concrete blocks, completely isolating the area from its surroundings.

Citizen Muhammad Abu Ghoush recounted details of eight hours he spent in detention, where soldiers stormed his home at four in the morning and took him with other young men to a residential complex that had been emptied of its residents. Abu Ghoush explained that the area officer directly threatened him with arresting his family members before deciding to release him after hours of psychological pressure.

For his part, journalist Saif Al-Qawasmi stated that Al-Ram town is subjected to almost daily incursions, but this time was different in terms of the duration of the siege and the closure of all access points. Al-Qawasmi pointed out the occupation's use of drones to heavily drop tear gas canisters towards citizens who tried to move between neighborhoods.

In another testimony, citizen Muhammad Bazie spoke about forcing his sister and her four children to leave their home at gunpoint to turn it into a military point. Bazie considered that these practices aim to spread terror among refugees and push them towards forced displacement by creating an unsafe and repellent living environment for residents.

Camp residents confirmed that the acts of sabotage were not limited to homes, but also included smashing shop doors and destroying infrastructure in narrow streets. Residents also observed intensive drone flights monitoring movements within the camp's alleys throughout the military operation, which was described as the most violent in months.

In turn, the media advisor to the Jerusalem Governorate, Maarouf Al-Rifai, explained that the strict siege began at dawn on Monday and directly targeted the families of martyrs and released prisoners. Al-Rifai added that most of those subjected to field arrests reported being severely beaten and deliberately humiliated before being released in batches.

Al-Rifai indicated that the occupation deliberately used loudspeakers to broadcast intimidating messages threatening residents with more collective punishments if the resistance continued. He considered this policy a clear condemnation of the occupation's attempts to impose a new security reality in the areas surrounding occupied Jerusalem and isolate it from its Palestinian depth.

In a related context, the Jerusalem Affairs Department of the Palestine Liberation Organization condemned the dangerous field escalation in the towns of Al-Ram, Kafr Aqab, and Qalandia camp. The department said in a statement that what is happening is a systematic policy to dismantle the Palestinian social fabric and impose a coercive security reality aimed at liquidating the Palestinian presence in Jerusalem.

The department stressed that targeting humanitarian facilities, such as storming an UNRWA clinic and destroying its contents, constitutes a blatant violation of international laws. It added that these attacks come within the framework of fighting institutions that provide essential services to Palestinian refugees to weaken their steadfastness in their camps.

Observers believe that the timing and intensity of these incursions are linked to broader plans aimed at liquidating the refugee issue, starting with targeting the camps, which are considered strongholds of refuge. These military operations are part of attempts to consolidate the isolation of Jerusalem through the apartheid wall and permanent military checkpoints such as the Qalandia checkpoint.

Finally, medical sources confirmed that field teams dealt with several cases of suffocation due to tear gas, in addition to contusion injuries resulting from beatings. Despite the withdrawal of military vehicles, tension still prevails in the area amid fears of renewed incursions in the coming hours.

Forcing people to leave their homes creates a state of fear and terror, and the occupation aims to create a repellent environment to displace camp residents.

In the alleys of the Old City of Jerusalem, stories intertwine with ancient stones to form a memory resistant to obliteration, despite attempts to change the historical narrative of the place. Historical testimonies indicate that the division of the city into religious quarters (Muslim, Christian, Jewish) is a new, alien concept to Arab culture, imposed by Europeans during the Mandate period to reinforce policies of separation.

Sources reported that this division was unknown a century ago, where urban and social overlap was the dominant feature. Mosques are located in the heart of the Christian Quarter, and churches line the Via Dolorosa in the Muslim Quarter, reflecting a complex reality that transcends any attempt at forced separation between beliefs and residents.

The historic 'Sharaf Quarter' is a striking example of this transformation. What is known today as the Jewish Quarter represented only a small percentage of the quarter's area before 1948. With the 1967 Naksa, the occupation authorities demolished the historic Maghariba Quarter and expanded control over Palestinian properties in the area to build a new settlement neighborhood.

The Omar Mosque stands today as the sole and silent witness to what remains of the features of the Sharaf Quarter, whose Arab identity has been erased. Beside this mosque, the dome of the 'Tiferet Israel' synagogue rises in an attempt to impose a new visual scene that competes with the city's historic domes, as part of a fierce struggle over symbols and visual identity.

There are numerous human stories that embody the legal conflict, most notably the story of the Burqan family, who possess Ottoman documents proving their ownership of their home for two centuries. Despite the Israeli judiciary's recognition of the family's ownership, it issued a decision prohibiting non-Jews from residing in that area, a legal paradox that legitimizes demographic replacement.

Lawyer Mohammed Dahleh, specializing in settlement issues, explained that these settlement outposts within Arab neighborhoods represent a significant security and economic burden. Settlers cannot live there without strict security and 24-hour surveillance cameras, costing the occupation budget enormous sums to secure their unnatural presence.

Numerically, historical data reveals that Jewish ownership in Old Jerusalem did not exceed 2% of the total properties until the mid-1960s. However, this control expanded through seizure and research into old documents, in addition to the immense economic pressures exerted on the indigenous population to push them to leave.

Jerusalemite 'Abu Khadija' recounts part of these pressures, revealing that he received financial offers amounting to 40 million dollars in exchange for giving up his property. His response was decisive in refusing to sell, emphasizing that these properties are Islamic endowments that no one has the right to dispose of, and that the role of the residents is limited to being guardians of this trust.

Researchers in Jerusalem affairs believe that the settlement project within the Old City has not fully achieved its demographic goals, despite all inducements. The majority of seized buildings have been converted into religious schools temporarily inhabited by students, or properties owned by wealthy Jews living abroad, making the neighborhood lack normal social life.

Jerusalem today is fighting what can be called a 'war of views,' an Israeli attempt to control the city's general landscape from above. By building high domes near the Al-Aqsa Mosque and the Dome of the Rock, the occupation seeks to mislead visitors and tourists into believing in an overwhelming Jewish identity for the city, ignoring thousands of years of Arab civilization.

Experts confirm that the language of the people, the sounds of the call to prayer, and the arches of the Old City remain the true identity that cannot be erased by flags or military checkpoints. The occupation tries to highlight its presence through artificial symbols, while the walls and alleys speak an authentic Arab, Islamic, and Christian language that needs no proof.

Palestinian steadfastness within the Old City is not limited to physical survival but extends to preserving the collective consciousness of rejecting division. Jerusalemites realize that the battle is a battle of demographics and control over public space, and that every home preserved is a first line of defense for the Al-Aqsa Mosque and the Church of the Holy Sepulchre.

Despite all geopolitical transformations, the relationship between the Jerusalemite and their place remains an organic relationship that cannot be divided, as residents prefer to live in difficult conditions within the Old City rather than leave it. This steadfastness has thwarted many plans that aimed to empty the city of its original inhabitants and turn it into a closed religious museum.

In conclusion, Old Jerusalem remains an ongoing story of daily resistance, where residents write its chapters with their patience and steadfastness in the face of change. It is a city that refuses to be summarized in modern maps or neighborhood names imposed by force of arms, so that its original spirit remains the only constant truth amidst the rubble of transformations.

"Oh good people, how can we sell something we don't own? How can we sell something that is an Islamic endowment? We are just guardians here."

Washington – Said Arikat – 28/4/2026

News Analysis

The recent statements by US Secretary of State Marco Rubio reveal the extent of the dilemma faced by President Donald Trump's administration after the disruption of the latest round of negotiations with Iran, and the transformation of the Strait of Hormuz into an open conflict zone threatening the global economy. Instead of presenting a diplomatic vision to end the tension, the US administration chose the language of dictates and threats, then was surprised that the war it waged with Israel did not result in Iranian surrender, but rather an escalating international crisis.

Rubio stated that the United States cannot accept Iran controlling who passes through the Strait of Hormuz or imposing fees on passing ships. His remarks appeared to be an attempt to portray Washington as a protector of freedom of navigation, forgetting that the crisis itself did not exist before the American-Israeli war on Iran at the end of last February. The strait was operating normally, and markets were relatively stable, before Washington and Tel Aviv decided to open a military confrontation under the pretext of the Iranian nuclear program.

Reports indicated that Tehran offered an interim agreement to reopen the strait in exchange for ending the US naval blockade on Iranian ports, and postponing the more complex nuclear issues to a later stage. However, the US administration dealt with the proposal with great hesitation, reflecting internal confusion between those who want a quick exit from the crisis, and those who insist on continuing the policy of maximum pressure, even at the expense of the global economy.

The irony is that Washington talks about rejecting Iran's "blackmail" of maritime passages, while it itself practices a military blockade and uses naval force to impose political conditions. When the United States uses fleets to prevent Iran-linked ships from sailing, it is not much different from the logic it claims to reject, but rather gives Tehran an additional argument to present itself as a victim of external aggression.

Domestically, the war has begun to turn into a political burden for Trump. The rise in fuel prices in the United States directly affected the American voter, making the question more pressing: Why is Washington fighting a new war in the Middle East while the American citizen suffers from inflation and the cost of living? This question becomes more acute the longer the crisis continues without clear achievement.

In Europe, Western capitals have shown increasing resentment towards the American approach. European countries find themselves facing a new energy crisis, at a time when they were trying to avoid being drawn into an additional conflict. German Chancellor Friedrich Merz's statements, in which he described the United States as being "humiliated" in front of the Iranian leadership, reflected the extent of tension within the Western camp itself.

The deeper truth is that the Trump administration repeated an old strategic mistake: the belief that military force alone can impose complex political arrangements. But experiences extending from Iraq to Afghanistan have proven that wars may open the doors to chaos, but they do not create lasting stability. And here is Iran, despite the losses and pressures, still negotiating from a position of equality, not from the position of the defeated.

In the UN Security Council, France warned that allowing the transformation of maritime passages into tools of blackmail or militarization would create a dangerous precedent threatening global trade. However, this warning also applies to US policy itself, because the militarization of the strait did not start from a vacuum, but from the decision of war and escalation.

Perhaps the most dangerous aspect of the scene is not merely the closure of a strait or the rise in oil prices, but Washington's readiness to drag the world into a widespread economic crisis in service of Israel's regional calculations. By waging this war in response to Israeli demands, the United States has shown a willingness to ignite a broad conflict that could extend beyond the Gulf, for objectives that do not serve international stability or the interests of the American citizen.

The Hormuz crisis reveals that Washington is still captive to an old colonial perception that considers international passages as purely American spheres of influence. When another country, even a regional one, controls part of the maritime security equation, it is immediately viewed as a threat that must be crushed. This mentality does not recognize new power balances or the fact that the world is no longer unipolar. Therefore, every negotiable crisis turns into a military confrontation. The result is not the restoration of American prestige, but its accelerated erosion, because coercion fails where balanced settlements succeed, and produces stronger resistance instead of the expected political and military submission.

Politically, Trump finds himself facing a fundamental contradiction. He rose to popularity with a promise to end foreign wars and focus on the American interior, but today he returns to the same model he criticized. The average American voter does not care much about the details of the Strait of Hormuz, but he cares about the price of gasoline and the grocery bill. And with each day the crisis continues, the image of the president capable of decisive management erodes. If he does not achieve a quick breakthrough, the war may turn into an electoral burden that haunts him, just as the Middle East wars haunted his Republican and Democratic predecessors electorally later on.

As for Israel, the biggest strategic beneficiary of the escalation, it is once again pushing Washington towards a battle that drains others. Every American preoccupation with confronting Iran means easing pressure on Tel Aviv's policies in Palestine and the region. Moreover, turning Iran into the primary threat gives Israel a wider margin to expand its military and political influence. However, this approach is short-sighted; because it links American interests to a narrow regional agenda, and pushes the United States to bear the financial, military, and diplomatic costs, while Israel reaps security gains without paying the real price alone or bearing the full consequences of the escalation.

By: Said Arikat

April 28, 2026

News Analysis

Washington, D.C- For more than two years, official Washington has labored to avoid one word: genocide. It has preferred softer formulations—“humanitarian crisis,” “tragic consequences,” “disproportionate force,” “mistakes in war.” But language can only conceal reality for so long. When Wendy Sherman, former Deputy Secretary of State (to Sec. of State Anthony Blinken) under President Joe Biden, said on Monday, April 27 on Bloomberg’s Mishal Husain Show, that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had led Israel and its allies down a road that had “in essence created a genocide in Gaza,” she pierced the wall of euphemism.

Even though Sherman later retreated into legal caution—saying she could not determine whether Gaza was “literally a genocide”—the political significance of her first statement remains immense. Senior American officials do not casually use such terms. They do so when facts have become too overwhelming to ignore.

Sherman’s remarks matter not simply because of who she is, but because they reflect a growing recognition inside the Democratic Party and broader American establishment that the devastation of Gaza cannot be explained away as collateral damage. Entire neighborhoods were erased. Hospitals were destroyed or rendered inoperable. Universities, bakeries, mosques, churches, water systems, refugee camps, and civilian infrastructure were systematically targeted or reduced to rubble. Tens of thousands of Palestinians—men, women, and children—were killed, with many more buried under ruins, missing, maimed, or dying slowly from hunger and disease.

This was not merely war. It was the destruction of a society.

The Evidence Was Never Hidden

Those arguing that genocide is too strong a word often pretend intent is unknowable. But intent in Gaza was repeatedly stated in public by Israeli officials, ministers, military commanders, and soldiers.

Israeli leaders described Palestinians in dehumanizing terms, spoke of cutting off food, water, electricity, and fuel to an entire population, and called for Gaza to be flattened, emptied, or permanently transformed. Senior ministers openly advocated population transfer. Some lawmakers demanded the use of overwhelming force without distinction between militants and civilians. Soldiers posted videos celebrating demolition, humiliation, and collective punishment.

When perpetrators announce their intentions, the world cannot claim uncertainty.

Genocide, under international law, is not only mass killing. It includes acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group—through killing, inflicting destructive conditions of life, causing serious bodily or mental harm, and preventing the group’s continued existence. Gaza’s starvation siege, forced displacement, medical collapse, and relentless bombardment fit disturbingly within that framework.

Ben Rhodes Said the Quiet Part Loudly

Former Obama deputy national security adviser Ben Rhodes also acknowledged what many in Washington knew but would not say plainly: that statements by Israeli officials provided evidence of genocidal intent. This was a striking admission from a figure deeply embedded in the national security establishment.

Rhodes’s intervention matters because it undercuts the fiction that only activists, academics, or critics of Israel raised these concerns. When former insiders begin citing genocidal rhetoric by Israeli leaders themselves, the debate shifts from ideological accusation to documentary evidence.

The issue is no longer whether people used the word. The issue is why so many refused to hear it.

Washington’s Complicity

Sherman also said, crucially, “we have been part of it.” That may be the most honest sentence uttered by a former Biden official on Gaza.

The United States armed Israel, shielded it diplomatically, vetoed ceasefire efforts, repeated discredited talking points, and treated every Israeli escalation as self-defense while demanding endless Palestinian restraint. American bombs, aircraft parts, intelligence support, and political cover enabled the campaign.

Without Washington’s backing, the scale and duration of Gaza’s destruction would have been far harder to sustain.

This is why the debate over terminology matters. If genocide occurred, then American complicity becomes not a policy disagreement but a moral and legal scandal of historic proportions.

Netanyahu Was the Vehicle, Not the Whole Story

It is tempting for establishment voices to place all blame on Netanyahu personally. Certainly, he bears direct responsibility. His government included some of the most extremist figures in Israel’s history, many of whom openly embraced ethnic cleansing fantasies.

But reducing Gaza’s catastrophe to one man is another evasion.

The assault was supported by major sectors of Israel’s political system, military command structure, and much of its media environment. It was tolerated—often enthusiastically—by successive Western governments. Netanyahu may have driven the vehicle, but many others supplied fuel, maps, and diplomatic escort.

A Shift Too Late

Sherman’s comments signal that rhetoric once considered taboo is entering mainstream Democratic discourse. That shift is real—but painfully late.

Where were these voices when families were crushed under rubble? When children underwent amputations without anesthesia? When famine warnings spread? When aid workers and journalists were killed? When refugee tents were bombed after civilians had been ordered to flee there?

Moral clarity after the destruction is safer than moral clarity during it.

The Historical Reckoning Ahead

Years from now, commissions, courts, historians, and survivors will document what happened in Gaza in granular detail. The archive already exists: official statements, drone footage, satellite imagery, testimony from doctors, journalists, aid workers, and soldiers themselves.

The central question may not be whether genocide occurred, but why so many powerful people insisted on semantic hesitation while the evidence accumulated in plain sight.

Wendy Sherman’s statement matters because it reveals cracks in the old consensus. But history will ask more than who eventually spoke. It will ask who armed, excused, delayed, rationalized, and obstructed accountability while Gaza burned.

And on that question, Washington’s record is already written.

Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi arrived in the Russian city of St. Petersburg, where he held an important meeting with President Vladimir Putin at the Boris Yeltsin Presidential Library. This visit comes as part of an intensive diplomatic tour aimed at mobilizing international support and discussing new proposals to de-escalate tensions in the region.

During the meeting, Russian President Vladimir Putin affirmed his country's determination to continue strengthening strategic relations with Tehran in various fields. Putin indicated that Moscow would do its utmost to support Iranian interests and achieve stability for the countries of the region, emphasizing the importance of joint coordination in these complex circumstances.

Araghchi handed the Russian President a special message from the Supreme Leader of the Islamic Republic, expressing his country's appreciation for Russia's continued support. The Iranian minister described the partnership between Tehran and Moscow as strategic and strong, stressing the necessity of continuous consultation on the developments of the current war and political changes.

The meeting coincided with the circulation of information about a new Iranian proposal that primarily focuses on reopening the Strait of Hormuz to international navigation. The proposal includes postponing the discussion of the details of the Iranian nuclear program to a later stage, in an attempt to defuse the escalating economic and military crisis.

These diplomatic moves came after the failure of the second round of negotiations that were scheduled between Tehran and Washington in the Pakistani capital, Islamabad. Araghchi attributed this failure to what he described as 'exaggerated demands' from the American side, which hindered the progress made in previous rounds.

Informed sources reported that Iran conveyed written messages to the American administration through the Pakistani mediator, clarifying Tehran's red lines. These messages included the Islamic Republic's vision on nuclear issues and navigation security in the Strait of Hormuz, despite Tehran's assertion that it is not part of direct negotiations.

International press reports stated that the new Iranian proposal aims to end the state of war and open the vital shipping lane in exchange for political and economic gains. However, estimates indicate the difficulty of Washington accepting this offer, especially given the American administration's insistence on a comprehensive agreement that ends the nuclear program.

Araghchi had begun his tour from Islamabad, where he met with senior Pakistani officials to discuss ways to ensure safe passage for ships in the region. He then moved to the Sultanate of Oman to consult with Sultan Haitham bin Tariq on the safety of navigation, describing it as a global issue of utmost importance.

In a related context, the Iranian minister held a phone call with his Turkish counterpart, Hakan Fidan, to coordinate regional positions regarding the crisis. Through these contacts, Tehran seeks to create a regional front that supports its proposals aimed at alleviating the international pressures currently imposed on it.

On the American side, President Donald Trump canceled a scheduled visit by a high-level delegation to Pakistan, which was supposed to include his son-in-law, Jared Kushner. Despite this cancellation, Trump left the door open for the possibility of direct communication with the Iranians if they wished to reach an agreement that satisfied his aspirations.

The international community awaits a meeting of the UN Security Council in New York to discuss maritime navigation security in the Strait of Hormuz. This strait is a vital artery for the global economy, as about one-fifth of the world's oil and liquefied gas production passes through it, making its closure a direct threat to energy security.

Observers believe that the Iranian proposal to postpone the nuclear file aims to buy time and reduce the military and political pressure exerted on it. In contrast, Washington insists that any agreement must be final and comprehensive, ensuring the complete and permanent dismantling of Iranian nuclear capabilities.

Pakistan plays a pivotal role as a mediator between Tehran and Washington, striving to prevent the region from sliding into a comprehensive military confrontation. Pakistan's national security is closely linked to the stability of the situation in Iran, which prompts Islamabad to pressure both parties to make mutual concessions.

All eyes remain on the outcomes of the Security Council meeting and what Russian and Chinese moves in the region may yield. While Iran attempts to maneuver through partial proposals, the international position remains divided on how to deal with Iranian nuclear ambitions and navigation threats in Hormuz.

Bilateral Russian-Iranian relations are a strategic and enduring partnership, and we seek to coordinate with our friends on the developments of the current stage.

Legislative circles in the United States have witnessed a new move aimed at providing legal cover and exceptional privileges to American citizens serving in the ranks of the Israeli occupation army. This move comes through a bill numbered H.R. 8445, which seeks to make fundamental amendments to existing federal laws to include this category of dual nationals.

This legislative proposal is led by Republican Congressmen Guy Reschenthaler and Max Miller, who affirmed that the initiative directly aims to support Americans involved in Israeli military operations. The bill's sponsors pointed out that more than 20,000 American citizens are currently participating in military service with the occupation, considering it Washington's duty to provide them with legal protection.

The proposed bill focuses on expanding the scope of two basic federal laws. The first is the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA). This law grants military personnel immunities against eviction from homes or property seizure, in addition to lowering interest rates on personal loans and debts during their service period.

As for the second pillar of the project, it is the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA), which guarantees those who join military service the right to return to their civilian jobs immediately after their duties end. Under the proposed amendment, service in the occupation army will be treated as qualifying military service for these guarantees within the American labor market.

This step is a notable departure from prevailing legal norms in the United States, where military privileges are exclusively linked to service within the US Armed Forces. According to the definition in federal law, 'veteran' status is granted only to those who served under direct US military command or within officially recognized international alliances.

Specialized reports indicate that the American legal system has never before granted benefits based on its citizens' foreign military activities. Citizens serving abroad retain only their acquired rights within the country and are not entitled to claim additional benefits as a result of their involvement in foreign armies, which the new project seeks to change.

Historically, Washington has not granted any similar programs to Americans who participated in international conflicts within the ranks of foreign forces such as the French Legion or, more recently, Ukrainian forces. Successive US administrations usually emphasize that citizens who choose to serve in the armies of other countries bear full legal and financial responsibility for their personal decisions.

Currently, soldiers in the Israeli occupation army receive a package of benefits funded by the occupation budget and approved by the Knesset, including monthly salaries and support for housing and education. The new American proposal attempts to add a second layer of protection for these soldiers, with its consequences borne by institutions, companies, and banks within the United States.

Observers warn of the legal repercussions of this legislation, as it creates new legal obligations for American employers and banks towards individuals serving another country. It also opens the door to future claims that may include expanding healthcare and military retiree benefits to include these individuals, thus burdening the federal system.

The project sparks sharp division, as critics see it as breaking the principle of linking privileges exclusively to loyalty and service under the American flag. In contrast, defenders of the law insist that American citizenship should be the primary criterion for providing protection, especially when it comes to service with a close strategic ally of the United States.

More than 20,000 American citizens are currently defending Israel, and this legislation aims to ensure that everything possible is done to support them.

The Israeli occupation authorities announced today, Monday, new punitive financial measures against the Palestinian Authority, which included the seizure of clearance funds and the deduction of the vast majority of them. This step comes amid a severe financial crisis afflicting Palestinian institutions, threatening their ability to meet their obligations towards employees and vital sectors.

Bezalel Smotrich's office, the Israeli Minister of Finance, confirmed that Tel Aviv decided to deduct the largest part of the tax revenues collected on behalf of the Palestinian side during the current month. The Israeli statement claimed that these deductions aim to settle outstanding bills and debts owed to Israeli entities, a step that reflects the current government's hardline approach.

Clearance funds are known as the taxes and customs duties imposed by Israel on goods imported into the Palestinian territories through ports and crossings it controls. Under economic agreements, Israel collects these funds for a specific commission, to be transferred monthly to the Palestinian Authority's treasury.

Digital data revealed that the total revenues collected this month amounted to about 740 million shekels, equivalent to approximately 248 million dollars. However, the Israeli Ministry of Finance deducted 590 million shekels from this amount, which represents about 80% of the total assumed monthly revenues.

Israeli sources justified this massive deduction by stating that it would go to cover outstanding debts to electricity and water companies and environmental bodies affiliated with the occupation. The measures did not stop at the deduction only, but also included freezing the remaining balance of funds and preventing its access to the Palestinian government's accounts in Ramallah.

These decisions fall within a systematic policy pursued by Smotrich since he took office, aimed at financially restricting the Palestinian Authority in response to its diplomatic moves. This policy specifically targets punishing the Palestinian side for its recourse to the International Criminal Court and UN institutions to prosecute the occupation.

For his part, Palestinian Prime Minister Mohammed Mustafa stated that what Israel is doing represents a comprehensive siege that does not stop at the borders of the Gaza Strip, but extends to suffocate the West Bank and Jerusalem. Mustafa considered that the use of financial tools as a political pressure tool is part of the colonial schemes aimed at undermining the Palestinian entity.

The Palestinian official explained that the pace of Israeli deductions has escalated unprecedentedly during the past year, as Tel Aviv refrained from regularly transferring tax revenues. He described these measures as 'another face of the occupation,' stressing that the government is seeking through international channels to pressure for the release of these financial rights.

Official reports indicate that the total Palestinian funds held by Israel have reached record levels, with previous government sources estimating the amount at about 4.4 billion dollars. This continuous detention has led to the Authority's inability to fully pay public sector employees' salaries for long periods, and increased the indebtedness of local banks.

In light of this escalation, the Palestinian economy faces existential challenges with the accumulation of debts to the private sector and the decline in citizens' purchasing power. The Palestinian government continues its attempts to provide the minimum basic needs, amid warnings of an imminent collapse of the service system if the Israeli piracy of funds continues.

These deductions have escalated in recent months, representing another occupation aimed at subjugating our people by economically suffocating the West Bank.