Dam Square, the famous square in the heart of the Dutch capital Amsterdam, hosted a large solidarity event on Sunday to commemorate Palestinian children and journalists who have fallen victim to the ongoing Israeli attacks on the Gaza Strip. The event gathered hundreds of supporters who condemned the crimes of genocide, emphasizing the necessity of holding the occupation accountable for its blatant violations of international and humanitarian laws.

'Plant an Olive Tree' foundation supervised the organization of this symbolic demonstration, where the central square was transformed into an open exhibition embodying the scale of the humanitarian tragedy in the Strip. Thousands of children's shoes were displayed, symbolizing the lost lives, alongside platforms raising pictures and names of journalists targeted by the occupation while performing their professional duty of conveying the truth.

The event included moving segments in which a selection of Dutch artists, actors, and producers participated, taking turns reading the names and ages of the martyred children one by one. Silence prevailed throughout the venue with each name pronounced, in an attempt to humanize the stark numbers and remind the world that behind every number is a life story cut short by bombing and aggression.

Esther van der Most, director of the 'Plant an Olive Tree' foundation, stated that this event is being organized for the sixteenth time in loyalty to the children of Gaza, and for the fourth time in honor of the martyred journalists. She affirmed in her speech that the popular movement in the Netherlands aims to break the barrier of international silence regarding the systematic extermination and direct targeting of civilians that the Palestinian people are subjected to.

Van der Most pointed out that the official statistics speaking of 20,000 martyred children do not reflect the true scale of the catastrophe, given the thousands missing under the rubble of destroyed homes. She also drew attention to the suffering of detained children in Israeli prisons, who face harsh conditions away from any human rights or international oversight, which exacerbates the tragedy of Palestinian families.

The event highlighted the systematic targeting of journalistic cadres, as sources revealed the martyrdom of 313 journalists over the past two and a half years, an unprecedented toll globally. Participants considered the killing of journalists a desperate attempt by the occupation to obscure the crime and prevent images of massacres from reaching global public opinion, which has begun to grow restless with the Israeli narrative.

The director of the foundation strongly criticized the Dutch government's stance, describing it as weak and hesitant in the face of a regime openly practicing genocide. She demanded the necessity of taking firm political measures, including imposing economic and diplomatic sanctions on Israel, stressing that continued support or silence constitutes indirect participation in the crimes committed against innocent people.

For her part, Dutch artist Georgina Verbaan expressed her full solidarity with the Palestinian cause, noting that her participation comes from a purely humanitarian motive to draw attention to the suffering of children. Verbaan said that through her voice and fame, she seeks to motivate decision-makers to take immediate action to stop the bloodshed, emphasizing that the scenes coming from Gaza cannot be endured by any living conscience.

Volunteers in the square made great efforts to distribute awareness leaflets to passersby and tourists, explaining the roots of the conflict and the details of the ongoing war of extermination since October 2023. This step aimed to correct misconceptions and present a documented Palestinian narrative with facts and figures about the extent of the destruction that has affected infrastructure and vital facilities in the Gaza Strip.

This event comes at a sensitive time, as field reports indicate that Israel continues to disregard humanitarian work protocols despite a ceasefire agreement. The occupation authorities prevent sufficient entry of medical aid, food, and fuel, which has led to an exacerbation of famine and the spread of diseases among displaced persons in overcrowded camps.

Local sources confirmed that the toll of the genocidal war that began on October 7 has exceeded 72,000 martyrs and more than 172,000 injured, most of whom are women and children. Despite international pressure and demonstrations sweeping global capitals, the Israeli war machine continues its operations in various forms, threatening more victims amid the collapse of the health system.

The event in Amsterdam concluded with calls to escalate popular action in Europe to pressure parliaments and governments to stop exporting weapons to the occupation. The organizers affirmed that Dam Square will remain a platform for the Palestinian voice until the people achieve their legitimate rights and the daily massacres committed in cold blood before the eyes and ears of the whole world cease.

What the Dutch government is doing towards a regime practicing genocide is very weak, and these violations must stop immediately.

Medical sources reported the martyrdom of three Palestinian citizens and the injury of others with varying degrees of wounds, as a result of a raid carried out by an Israeli occupation army drone on Sunday evening. The raid targeted a gathering of citizens in the Al-Mazra'a area, located east of Deir al-Balah city in the central Gaza Strip, leading to casualties among the displaced and local residents in that densely populated area.

The sources stated that the shelling was concentrated around Al-Mazra'a School near the end of Abu Aref Street, an area that has witnessed repeated waves of displacement due to previous military threats. The bodies of the martyrs and the injured were transferred to Al-Aqsa Martyrs Hospital for necessary treatment, while the full identities of the victims are still undergoing official verification due to the severity of the injuries.

In another field development in the northern Strip, four Palestinians were injured by the bullets of occupation forces stationed near Al-Halabi roundabout in Jabalia camp. This coincided with an escalation in artillery shelling that targeted the Al-Shakoush area west of Rafah city in the south, in addition to targeting the eastern outskirts of Al-Tuffah neighborhood northeast of Gaza City, and the border areas of Khan Younis city.

Official data issued by the Palestinian Ministry of Health indicates a tragic increase in the number of casualties since the start of the aggression on October 7, 2023, with the toll reaching 72,329 martyrs and 172,192 injured. These figures reflect the immense human devastation left by the ongoing military operations in various governorates of the Gaza Strip without cessation.

These attacks come amidst the continued violation by the Israeli occupation army of the ceasefire understandings that came into effect last October. Israeli forces continue to launch air raids and concentrated artillery shelling operations on civilian gatherings and infrastructure, threatening the collapse of the fragile calm and the exacerbation of the already deteriorating humanitarian conditions in the besieged Strip.

The death toll from the ongoing Israeli aggression since October 7 has risen to over 72,000 martyrs and 172,000 injured.

The Peace Council, headed by US President Donald Trump, announced the stability of its financial situation and categorically denied any obstacles preventing the implementation of its planned initiatives. In an official statement, the Council affirmed that all funding requests submitted had been met immediately and in full, emphasizing that work is proceeding according to the specified timelines without delays due to resource shortages.

In contrast, informed sources revealed a significant gap between official statements and reality, indicating that the Council had received only a small fraction of the $17 billion previously pledged for the reconstruction of the Gaza Strip. The sources explained that this severe liquidity shortage represents a real impediment to Trump's ambitions to move forward with his vision for the future of the war-torn sector.

According to available data, only three out of ten countries that pledged support have committed to paying their financial shares, with the United States leading these committed nations. Sources stated that the total amounts actually received did not exceed one billion dollars, a very small figure compared to the enormous needs required by the administration and reconstruction plan proposed by the Peace Council.

Sources attributed this financial setback to escalating regional tensions, asserting that the military confrontation with Iran directly impacted donor priorities and international supply and funding chains. This tense climate has led to increased logistical and security difficulties, making it challenging to secure the necessary cash flows to support emergency projects in the Palestinian territories.

On the ground, reports indicated that the national committee tasked with managing the Gaza Strip has not yet been able to enter the sector to begin its duties, due to the intertwining of financial problems with security complexities. In a related context, Palestinian sources quoted international envoy Nikolay Mladenov as explicitly telling Palestinian factions that no funds are currently available, which puts the future of the new administration of the sector at risk.

No funds are currently available at a time when the war with Iran has affected everything and increased funding difficulties.

The American state of Pennsylvania witnessed a remarkable incident, documented by surveillance cameras inside a store, where an American youth of Arab descent confronted an attempt at provocation by two individuals who support the Israeli occupation. The incident began when the two individuals targeted the young man because he was wearing a necklace depicting the historical map of Palestine, leading to a verbal altercation that ended with their expulsion from the premises.

According to the recordings, one of the customers initiated a question to the young man about the symbolism of the necklace he was wearing, in a manner that carried a hint of veiled sarcasm. The young man responded clearly and firmly, saying: 'You know exactly what it represents,' and when the other party tried to claim that the map symbolized 'Israel,' the young man firmly corrected him, asserting: 'No, it is Palestine.'

As the discussion escalated, the store owner asked the two individuals to leave immediately if the presence of the Palestinian symbol bothered them. However, one of them tried to question his right to the place and asked him if he was the actual owner of the store. The young man's response was decisive: 'This is my store, and I own it, get out of here now,' refusing any attempt at intimidation or belittling him within his private property.

The young man explained the motives behind his decision to expel them, indicating that it was not about religion but about ethical and political behavior, saying: 'Let's call the police if you want, I am not expelling you because you are Jewish, but because you acted rudely and insulted my country.' He emphasized in his speech that the land whose symbolism he defends is Palestine, and he will not allow it to be insulted inside his store under any circumstances.

The video clip gained widespread circulation on social media platforms, where thousands of followers expressed their admiration for the young man's courage and his ability to maintain self-control while adhering to his national stance. Commentators described his action as 'heroic,' affirming that defending Palestinian identity in diaspora requires great boldness in light of the pressures that business owners may face.

In the context of public interaction, activists expressed their desire to visit the store located in Pennsylvania to provide moral and material support to its owner, considering that what he did represents a model of dignity and pride in one's roots. Encouraging words continued to pour in, urging the young man to persist in his stance, with an emphasis that the Palestinian cause remains present in the hearts of expatriates no matter how long time passes.

I am not expelling you because you are Jewish, but because you acted rudely and insulted my country… It is Palestine.

The intensity of official and media Israeli incitement against the Republic of Turkey has escalated, with explicit calls emerging for the new US administration, led by Donald Trump, to exclude Ankara from any future political or security arrangements in the Middle East. Security circles in Tel Aviv accuse the Turkish leadership of working to undermine what is called the 'new regional order' that Israel and the United States seek to establish through hybrid economic and military alliances.

In this context, General Amit Jagur, former head of Israeli Naval Intelligence, claimed that the time has come to confront what he described as the 'ideological axis' led by President Recep Tayyip Erdogan. Jagur, in an analysis published by the occupation press, considered that Turkish moves are no longer limited to political statements but have turned into a direct military threat targeting both Israeli and American interests in the region.

The former security official indicated that President Erdogan's recent speeches, in which he hinted at the possibility of his country's military intervention to protect Palestinians, as it did in Libya and the Karabakh region, represent an actual declaration of war. Jagur called on the Secretaries of State and Defense in the Trump administration to take these threats with utmost seriousness, considering that Turkey has become a strategic obstacle to the military and security campaigns launched by Israel.

Hebrew sources touched upon the legal aspect of the conflict, expressing concern about the moves led by the Public Prosecutor's Office in Istanbul to bring charges of 'crimes against humanity' against the Israeli leadership. Tel Aviv believes that these legal steps aim to tighten the noose on Western movements in the region and portray the conflict with the Iranian axis as an illegal act contrary to international laws.

Israeli incitement accused Turkey of acting as a 'strategic safety net' for Iran from within NATO, citing Ankara's decision to prevent the use of Incirlik Air Base in any military operations targeting Tehran. Israeli observers believe that this Turkish stance endangers American forces and undermines the effectiveness of military operations aimed at imposing hegemony in the region.

Regarding support for the resistance, Israeli reports claimed that Turkey has become the de facto global haven for Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood, describing them as 'freedom fighters' in official Turkish discourse. The sources alleged that the thwarting of resistance cells in the West Bank proved the existence of active activity originating from Turkish territory to harm the stability that Israel seeks to impose in the occupied territories.

In the geopolitical dimension, the conflict over trade corridors stands out as one of the motives for incitement, as Erdogan tries to obstruct the US-backed IMEC economic corridor in favor of the 'Development Road' linked to the Chinese-Iranian axis. Ankara asserts in its official statements that no economic or political axis can be established in the Middle East without passing through Turkish territory, which Israel considers a blatant challenge to its economic vision.

Jagur described Turkish officials as 'jihadists in suits,' warning that they are patiently awaiting the end of Trump's term to prevent complete American hegemony over the region. He called for a firm message to be delivered to Ankara that continued military threats against Washington's allies would inevitably lead to the suspension of Turkey's NATO membership and the imposition of comprehensive economic isolation.

Israeli demands also included the necessity of obliging Turkey to ban Hamas and classify it as a terrorist organization, and to act decisively against its funding sources within the country as a test of Erdogan's true intentions. Hebrew circles believe that Washington's silence regarding Turkish moves encourages Ankara to proceed with building an alternative 'axis of resistance' that would replace Iranian influence if it declines.

The reports reviewed a series of statements by Turkish ministers that were considered 'red lights,' including Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan's description of Israel as living in an illusion of security by undermining its neighbors. Tehran's praise for Turkish positions was also considered a 'certificate of honor' reflecting a shared destiny against what Turkish officials described as 'Western imperialism' in the region.

The intensity of Israeli anger was further fueled by statements from Turkish Defense Minister Yaşar Güler, who officially announced that Turkish territory would not be a launching point for attacking any Muslim country, in a clear reference to Iran. Israel believes that this stance empties Western military alliances of their content and provides its adversaries with strategic cover that protects them from preemptive strikes.

In a related context, sources indicated that Turkish intelligence chief Ibrahim Kalin is exerting intense international pressure to prevent the expansion of the war, holding the Israeli side responsible for igniting global crises. Tel Aviv believes that this active diplomacy aims to isolate Israel internationally and portray it as a rogue entity threatening international peace and security for the sake of its leadership's personal whims.

Israeli incitement concluded that Turkey has become the 'voice of conscience' that challenges what Ankara describes as the 'Zionist evil machine,' which raises serious concerns about the growing Turkish power as an obstacle to Israeli expansion. These reports confirm that curbing Turkey has become a strategic necessity to ensure the success of American-Israeli plans to reshape the region's map.

In conclusion, these lines reflect the extent of Israeli concern about Turkey's escalating role, as the occupation's propaganda machine seeks to demonize Turkish positions and link them to terrorism to ensure pressing American action. The relationship between Ankara and Washington remains under significant test amidst these continuous Israeli pressures to break down communication bridges between the two parties.

It is time to act against Turkey's operational ideological axis, and against its attempts to sabotage the military operation against Iran and Washington's intentions for the future of the region.

Washington – Said Arikat – 13/4/2026

News Analysis

The collapse of the Islamabad negotiations between the United States and Iran confirmed that the crisis between the two parties is no longer merely a technical dispute over the nuclear program, but has transformed into an open conflict of wills where politics intertwines with military and economic aspects. After more than twenty hours of intensive talks, US Vice President JD Vance announced the end of the round without an agreement, a clear indication of the depth of the gap between the two sides, especially regarding the American conditions that Tehran rejected as an infringement on its sovereignty.

However, what followed this failure was even more significant and dangerous. US President Donald Trump quickly announced a naval blockade on the Strait of Hormuz, a move reflecting Washington's shift from the logic of negotiation to a policy of imposing facts by force. This shift not only reflects the faltering diplomatic path but also reveals confusion in American strategy, which appears unable to achieve a negotiating breakthrough, and at the same time unwilling to retreat.

American demands, as leaked from the negotiation atmosphere, were not limited to halting uranium enrichment but extended to dismantling parts of Iran's nuclear infrastructure and imposing strict restrictions on missile programs. These are conditions that, from Tehran's perspective, go beyond any balanced negotiating framework and are closer to dictation. Therefore, it was not surprising that the round ended without results, given the absence of a minimum level of trust between the two parties, a gap that has deepened since Washington's withdrawal from the nuclear agreement in 2018.

In this context, it appears that the United States is still captive to the “maximum pressure” approach, even though previous experience has shown its limited effectiveness. Instead of pushing Iran to make concessions, this policy contributed to strengthening its negotiating position and encouraging it to develop deterrence tools. Nevertheless, Washington continues to use the same tools, as if expecting different results, which reflects the absence of a real strategic review.

This approach cannot be separated from internal considerations and regional alliances, especially the relationship with Israel, which plays a pivotal role in shaping the American position. This intertwining of domestic and foreign policy weakens Washington's credibility as a mediator and reinforces Tehran's conviction that any potential agreement may be temporary and subject to collapse with changes in administrations.

The announcement of the naval blockade on the Strait of Hormuz represents a dangerous turning point in the crisis. The blockade, even if presented as a pressure tool, is considered a hostile act under international law and could push Iran to unconventional responses, either through indirect targeting or by expanding the scope of the confrontation. In a region already suffering from security fragility, such an escalation could quickly spiral out of control.

The strategic importance of the Strait of Hormuz makes any tension there a global, not just regional, issue. The strait is a vital artery for the flow of about one-fifth of the world's oil supplies, and any effective disruption would immediately impact international markets through a sharp rise in prices and disruption of supply chains. This factor puts all parties under significant pressure, but at the same time gives Iran a bargaining chip that cannot be ignored.

On the international level, the situation in the Security Council reflects a clear division among the major powers. The double Russian-Chinese veto led to the rejection of a draft resolution that would have legitimized the use of force to keep the strait open. This international rejection indicates limits to American escalation, but at the same time reveals the international system's inability to impose effective collective solutions.

Amidst these developments, the United States finds itself in a complex strategic dilemma. Military escalation carries the risk of sliding into a widespread war whose political and economic costs could be exorbitant, especially in the absence of supportive international consensus. Conversely, retreat or making concessions could be interpreted as weakness, which would reflect on America's deterrence image. As for the diplomatic option, it remains constrained by a high ceiling of demands that are difficult to achieve, leaving Washington stuck in an equation that allows neither decisive action nor withdrawal.

The potential scenarios in the coming days reflect this complexity. We may witness a limited and calculated escalation through indirect military messages, aimed at imposing a balance of deterrence without reaching an all-out confrontation. Conversely, economic pressures, especially in energy markets, may push towards tactical de-escalation and the opening of indirect negotiation channels through regional mediators.

However, the most dangerous scenario remains the possibility of sliding into a wider confrontation, should events spiral out of control or a miscalculation occur, especially in a charged environment lacking effective communication channels. Nevertheless, there remains a fourth possibility: Trump announcing an extension of the ceasefire, in response to pressure from countries like Pakistan and Oman, in an attempt to give diplomacy a new chance.

Ultimately, the current crisis appears more like an open test of the parties' ability to manage escalation rather than resolve it. The absence of trust, conflicting interests, and high demands all make any negotiating breakthrough difficult in the short term. Between the logic of force and its limits, the region stands on the brink of a new phase, which may redraw the features of its balances, or push it towards further turmoil.

The current crisis reflects a deeper dilemma in American strategic thinking, where complex issues are dealt with a short-term mindset focused on achieving quick political gains, without building sustainable paths. This pattern is clearly evident in the rapid transition from negotiation to escalation, which weakens the credibility of any future diplomatic initiative. Moreover, the absence of a comprehensive vision for managing the relationship with Iran makes American policy appear to oscillate between pressure and containment, without being able to decisively achieve either.

This crisis also highlights a flaw in assessing regional balances, as Washington assumes that its traditional tools are still sufficient to impose its will, despite profound changes in the balance of power. Iran, supported by a network of regional alliances and unconventional tools, is no longer a party that can be easily contained. This reality compels American decision-makers to re-evaluate their strategy, because continuing the current approach only increases complexity and raises the cost of any potential confrontation without guaranteeing the achievement of clear objectives.

The tragedy of the Engineers' Tower in Nuseirat camp remains a testament to one of the most horrific chapters of the genocide war in the Gaza Strip, where more than 250 Palestinians were martyred under the rubble of 22 residential apartments. More than a year later, at least half of these victims are still under the rubble, their bodies turned into remains mixed with the debris of the destroyed building due to the absence of heavy equipment.

The bereaved families live in a state of helplessness and oppression, as the pain did not stop at losing loved ones, but extended to depriving them of the right to a dignified burial and a final farewell. Fears are escalating that the remains of these martyrs will be lost to the wind amidst the continued prevention by the occupation of the entry of necessary machinery to retrieve them from under tons of cement.

Islam Darwish, a young woman who lost her husband and two children in the bombing, expresses her fear that the remains of her family will be transported with the rubble to be disposed of in the sea or reused in waste recycling projects. She bitterly wonders if anything remains of their bodies that can be buried after such a long period of decomposition under the rubble.

In the city of Rafah, Shaher Abu Awda recounts the story of the extermination of his family of 14, who are still under the rubble of their home in the Swedish Village. Shaher describes what happened as a complex crime, where the house was bombed, then the entire neighborhood was bulldozed, and the rubble, including the remains, was transported to unknown destinations without providing an opportunity to retrieve them.

In the Beit Lahia project north of the Strip, the Abu Al-Nasr family is still waiting to retrieve the remains of 23 of its members from among 150 martyrs who died in a horrific massacre. Survivor Aya Abu Al-Nasr confirms that the missiles tore the bodies into pieces mixed with the rubble, making identification extremely difficult and complex.

Palestinian Civil Defense data indicates shocking numbers of missing persons under the rubble, with Gaza Governorate topping the list with 4,210 martyrs under the rubble of 589 homes. North Gaza follows with 2,341 martyrs, while the remaining numbers are distributed among the Central Governorate, Khan Yunis, and Rafah, reflecting the immense scale of destruction.

Sources in the Civil Defense reported that their teams faced extreme difficulties in a previous project to retrieve martyrs, as no trace was found of about half of the targeted individuals. This is due to the severe decomposition of the bodies and the impact of the deadly weapons used, which caused the bodies to disintegrate and mix with soil and debris.

Officials in the Civil Defense in Rafah Governorate revealed dangerous practices by the occupation, including the use of robots and automated means to disintegrate bodies before bulldozing sites. Reports circulated about the transfer of this rubble for use in construction work within the occupied territories or in military areas, in flagrant violation of all international norms.

For its part, the Government Media Office in Gaza stressed the existence of field data confirming the deliberate bulldozing of homes over the heads of victims and mixing their remains with the rubble. The office called for the necessity of a swift and independent international investigation to uncover the fate of thousands of missing persons and hold accountable those responsible for these crimes that affect human dignity.

The International Committee of the Red Cross explained that it is trying to facilitate the access of rescue teams through dialogue with the parties to the conflict, but the final decisions remain in the hands of the occupation authorities. The committee confirmed that search operations are extremely complex and require significant technical capabilities not currently available due to the tight siege on the Strip.

According to the Palestinian Ministry of Health, the number of martyrs still under the rubble is estimated at about 9,000 missing persons, most of whom have not yet been included in official records. Officials indicate that entire families have been erased from the civil registry, making accurate counting of victims almost impossible at present.

International law experts describe what the remains of the martyrs are subjected to as a 'full-fledged war crime' falling within the context of ongoing genocide. Preventing the retrieval of bodies and obstructing the work of humanitarian teams constitutes a grave violation of the Geneva Conventions, which mandate respect for the dead and facilitating their burial.

The continued presence of bodies under the rubble prevents the healing of the bleeding wounds of thousands of Palestinian families who live on the hope of recovering the remains of their loved ones. These families appeal to the international community to pressure for the entry of heavy equipment and fuel necessary for the work of the Civil Defense before it is too late and all traces are completely lost.

The issue of the missing in Gaza remains an open wound that summarizes the tragedy of a people subjected to extermination and mutilation, both alive and dead. With each passing day, the chances of finding the remains fade, turning the destroyed homes into unmarked mass graves, awaiting someone to do justice to their victims and reveal to the world the fate of their lost bodies.

Bulldozing rubble mixed with the remains of victims, transporting it, and reusing it represents a blatant affront to human dignity and a serious violation of international law.

Lebanese medical sources reported early Sunday that four citizens, including a woman, were martyred and three others were injured as a result of an airstrike carried out by Israeli occupation aircraft targeting the town of Maaroub in the southern sector. This raid comes in the context of an ongoing military escalation that affects Lebanese villages and towns daily.

The Lebanese Ministry of Health revealed in its latest statistics a tragic increase in the number of victims, as the toll of the extensive Israeli aggression since the beginning of last March reached about 2055 martyrs. Medical teams also recorded 6588 people injured with varying degrees of severity due to continuous air and artillery shelling.

On the ground, Hezbollah announced the implementation of a wide series of military operations, totaling 44 attacks, targeting gatherings, vehicles, and sites belonging to the occupation army. The party confirmed in its statements that these operations come in response to the continued aggression and to protect Lebanese territories and their residents from ground incursions.

Missile attacks included six major settlements in occupied northern Palestine, with shelling focusing on Shlomi, Yir'on, and Kiryat Shmona. Missile barrages also hit the settlements of Margaliot, Avivim, and Nahariya, triggering air defense systems and sirens.

In the context of confronting ground infiltration attempts, Hezbollah fighters targeted gatherings of occupation soldiers at eight border points in southern Lebanon. Clashes focused around the city of Bint Jbeil and the Liberation Triangle, in addition to Shamran Hill and the Aqaba area in the town of Ain Ebel and Khiam.

Hezbollah used suicide drones and guided missiles in its operations to strike occupation movements in the towns of Dibel, Rashaf, and Beit Leif. Field sources also reported targeting military gatherings in Al-Qawzah, Al-Bayadah, and Shema, confirming direct hits among the invading forces.

Regarding military bases, Hezbollah announced the shelling of four strategic bases, including Filyoun base south of Rosh Pina settlement and Jabal Neria base. Fighters also targeted Al-Mutla base and the newly established Blat site in southern Lebanon with precise missile strikes that disabled some equipment.

In a qualitative development, suicide drones targeted the command headquarters of the Al-Sahl Battalion in Beit Hillel barracks, in addition to Ya'ara, Shomera, and Kiryat Shmona barracks. Military statements mentioned that swarms of drones successfully reached their targets despite intensive Israeli interception attempts.

The shelling was not limited to the Galilee but extended to include military infrastructure in Karmiel settlement and Katzrin settlement located in the occupied Syrian Golan. Hezbollah also targeted Dafna settlement with missile volleys, confirming that its target bank is expanding to include all logistical support points for the Israeli army.

In terms of intelligence and leadership, the communications station in Al-Aliqa barracks in the occupied Golan was targeted using a sophisticated qualitative drone. Hezbollah also announced the shelling of the command headquarters of Division 146 in Ja'atoun settlement, and the targeting of a military vehicle carrying a leadership team in the border town of Al-Taybeh.

Israeli artillery positions were also within the targeting circle, as Hezbollah sources shelled artillery positions in the settlements of Goren, Dishon, and Yiftah. This shelling aims to reduce the intensity of fire used by the occupation to pave the way for its ground forces attempting to advance in the front villages.

In contrast, areas of northern Israel experienced a state of constant alert, with sirens sounding 18 times within a few hours in more than 20 towns. Warnings included wide areas in the Upper and Western Galilee and the Galilee Panhandle, amid reports of rockets falling in open and populated areas.

Our response will continue until the Israeli-American aggression against Lebanon and its people stops.

The director of Nasser Medical Complex, Atef Al-Hout, issued a final warning cry about the dire consequences of a complete collapse of all medical services provided to patients in the Gaza Strip. Al-Hout explained that the occupation authorities continue their intransigence by preventing the entry of oils and necessary supplies for operating electricity generators, which threatens to stop vital equipment in hospitals. He called on the international community to intervene immediately and pressure the occupation to secure the basic needs of the dilapidated health sector.

For its part, the Ministry of Health in Gaza revealed a tragic reality experienced by patients, as the sector records daily deaths of injured people and patients who were waiting for permission to travel to receive treatment abroad. The ministry confirmed in a statement that time has become a real threat to the lives of thousands, stressing that the health system is no longer able to withstand the severe blockade that deprives patients of their most basic medical rights.

Field reports indicate that the health system in Gaza is in a state of 'agony' as a result of years of direct targeting and destruction of sewage infrastructure, which has led to a widespread outbreak of epidemics and infectious diseases such as viral hepatitis. Patients with chronic diseases, especially those undergoing dialysis and heart and diabetes patients, suffer from an almost complete lack of medical services and life-saving medicines, which puts them in direct confrontation with the imminent risk of death.

On the ground, Israel continues to violate the terms of the truce agreement reached under American auspices several months ago, by launching airstrikes that have resulted in hundreds of martyrs and wounded. In parallel with the military escalation, the occupation authorities refuse to abide by commitments to open crossings and allow the entry of humanitarian and medical aid, which exacerbates the living and health crisis and undermines any opportunities for stabilizing the humanitarian situation in the besieged Strip.

The lives of patients cannot bear any more waiting, and time is running out amidst the continued medical blockade.

Lebanese Prime Minister Nawaf Salam affirmed that the Lebanese government prioritizes stopping the Israeli aggression and ensuring a complete withdrawal of occupation forces from Lebanese territories. Salam clarified in a speech addressed to the Lebanese people that diplomatic efforts are ongoing to end the war through available negotiation channels.

The Prime Minister indicated that Lebanese efforts are primarily based on the initiative presented by President Joseph Aoun, which aims to reach an agreement guaranteeing national sovereignty. These statements come at a sensitive time, preceding the start of an anticipated round of negotiations in Washington between representatives from Lebanon and Israel next Tuesday.

On the ground, sources reported that the past forty-eight hours witnessed a relative calm in the pace of airstrikes on the capital Beirut and its southern suburbs. However, this calm in the center was met with an unprecedented military escalation on the southern Lebanese fronts, where the occupation intensified its aerial and artillery strikes.

Sources recorded dozens of daily raids targeting the western, central, and eastern sectors of southern Lebanon, with intense focus on towns in the rear lines. The attacks targeted the city of Nabatieh and its surrounding villages, leading to widespread destruction of property and infrastructure and more casualties.

The toll of the ongoing Israeli aggression since early March has risen to approximately 2055 martyrs, while the number of injured has exceeded 6400. In recent hours, occupation forces committed bloody massacres in the towns of Maaroub, Qana, and Tuffahta, following successive raids targeting inhabited homes.

In the context of ground confrontations, the city of Bint Jbeil has become an arena for the fiercest battles between Hezbollah fighters and encroaching occupation forces. Israeli units are attempting to control the city due to its geographical importance and historical symbolism linked to resistance against occupation since 2000.

Field reports indicate that occupation forces advanced from rugged axes through the town of Ain Ebel, reaching a distance estimated at about 200 meters from the city's stadium. Despite this field advance, Israeli forces have not yet succeeded in imposing full control over residential neighborhoods or key landmarks.

For its part, Hezbollah continues to carry out intensive military operations against gatherings of occupation soldiers and their vehicles in the vicinity of Bint Jbeil and within some of its neighborhoods. These operations aim to prevent occupation forces from consolidating their positions or turning the city into a launching pad for deeper operations inside Lebanese territory.

Regarding rocket fire, Hezbollah launched successive volleys targeting settlements in the Western Galilee, Kiryat Shmona, Avivim, and Margaliot. The shelling also targeted the Meron air surveillance base and military sites in the occupied Syrian Golan, as a response to the massacres committed against civilians.

Monitoring the pace of sirens inside the occupied territories indicates that resistance operations are occurring at a rate of approximately one operation per hour. This continuous rocket fire reflects Hezbollah's ability to maintain its command and logistical system despite the intensity of Israeli airstrikes.

Observers believe that the current Israeli escalation aims to achieve major field gains before sitting at the negotiating table in the United States. The occupation army seeks to expand its control in the central sector to strengthen its negotiating position and impose a new reality on the border.

The depth of the Israeli incursion at some border points reached between 8 to 9 kilometers, where the occupation is trying to establish military strongholds. The battle of Bint Jbeil is considered the toughest test for both sides, as it represents a significant demographic and military weight in the border operations area.

Coinciding with these developments, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu paid an inspection visit to the forces encroaching in southern Lebanon. Lebanese sources considered this visit to carry escalatory messages and confirm the occupation's insistence on continuing the ground operation despite international diplomatic movements.

In conclusion, southern Lebanon is experiencing its bloodiest and most violent phase in weeks, amidst the absence of any real signs of immediate de-escalation. The field remains the primary driver of the anticipated negotiations, given Lebanon's insistence on the withdrawal of the occupation from all its occupied territories.

We will continue to work to stop this war and ensure the Israeli withdrawal from all our territories through negotiation and proposed initiatives.

Hebrew media sources revealed escalating concerns within military circles in Tel Aviv about paying heavy costs due to the prolonged war in Lebanon. The sources indicated that the current strategy could lead to the attrition of Israeli forces in the absence of a clear and swift resolution to the ongoing confrontation with Hezbollah.

Currently, the Israeli army is operating five full military divisions in South Lebanon, with their tasks divided between deep penetration and securing the border line. These movements aim to pressure Hezbollah and prevent it from regaining its offensive capabilities in areas near northern settlements, through intensive air raids and ground operations.

Division 91 forces, under the command of Yuval Gaz, are working to deepen military activity to expand what is called the security zone along the border strip. This division seeks to create a new reality on the ground that prevents Hezbollah fighters from approaching the separation fence, in an attempt to provide longer-term protection for border areas.

In a related context, Division 146, led by Benny Aharon, is responsible for strengthening the front defensive line within Lebanese territory. The tasks of this force focus on protecting northern settlers from ground infiltrations, with military sources announcing the destruction of more than a thousand armed infrastructures and the killing of dozens of elements in its operational sector.

As for Division 36, led by Yiftah Norkin, it conducts deep maneuvers aimed at striking Hezbollah's military formations in areas previously untouched by forces. The operations of this division are characterized by secrecy, as full data regarding the results of its field operations have not yet been disclosed, according to Hebrew reports.

For its part, Division 98, led by Guy Levy, completed its deployment along the lines facing anti-tank threats. The forces are working to clear the area of warehouses and tunnels, in an attempt to reduce Hezbollah's ability to target Israeli vehicles moving in open areas and near villages.

Israeli military estimates indicate the elimination of more than 1,400 militants since the start of operations, and the destruction of thousands of logistical facilities. Despite these figures, the challenge remains in Hezbollah's ability to maneuver and force Israeli forces to divide their war effort between several combat axes.

Military sources admitted that Hezbollah succeeded in challenging the Northern Command, headed by Rafi Milo, by forcing the army to maneuver in depth. The army faces difficulty in identifying Hezbollah's main effort, which relies on Shiite villages as a central infrastructure for managing its defensive and offensive operations against the invading forces.

Division 98 forces were stationed at a distance of 5 to 6 kilometers from the border, a distance aimed at reducing the risk of guided missiles. However, Hezbollah's possession of anti-tank missiles with a range of up to 10 kilometers keeps Israeli forces under constant targeting despite being stationed in cleared areas.

Reports indicate that Hezbollah deployed about 1,000 fighters from the elite 'Radwan Force' to South Lebanon to strengthen its defensive lines. This move further complicated the Israeli mission, as the confrontation turned into a war of attrition based on mutual exhaustion and systematic clearing of residential and agricultural blocks.

The current pattern of military action raises significant concern within the Israeli home front, as it replicates the experience of fighting in the Gaza Strip, which has not yet achieved a decisive outcome. Military analysts fear that this pattern could lead to a long-term entanglement in the Lebanese quagmire without achieving clear political or security objectives.

The Israeli army is currently focused on destroying the logistical capabilities that allow Hezbollah to survive and operate for long periods in the rugged mountainous region. Operations include the destruction of strategic tunnels and weapons caches hidden underground, which form the backbone of Hezbollah's defensive system in the south.

Observers believe that the absence of a 'main trick' or element of surprise in the Israeli army's movements has made the forces vulnerable to encirclement and ambushes. This was evident in several combat centers where forces were surprised by the level of resistance, prompting the military leadership to constantly re-evaluate its field plans.

Ultimately, the question remains in Israeli circles about the utility of continuing operations at the same pace without an exit strategy. With rockets continuing to be launched towards the north, pressure is increasing on the Israeli government to find a solution that ends the state of attrition that has begun to exhaust the military budget and the morale of the soldiers.

The Israeli army largely replicates operational patterns from the Gaza Strip, where fighting has not yet ended, raising concerns about long-term attrition.

Regional and international organizations are currently facing unprecedented challenges, finding themselves vulnerable to the fluctuations of American political moods. Although these institutions have historically revolved around major powers, they have not been spared from direct targeting that has affected their structure and functional role on the global stage.

Since President Donald Trump came to power, he has pursued an aggressive policy that has included countries, institutions, and individuals alike. Observers believe that this approach stems from Trump's conviction that these organizations no longer serve the vital interests of the United States, but rather have become a financial and political burden that requires change or abolition.

Trump's 'firing line' included pivotal institutions such as the United Nations and the World Health Organization, in addition to the Human Rights Council and UNESCO. The matter did not stop at verbal criticism, but extended to practical measures such as reducing financial contributions and delaying sensitive administrative appointments to disrupt organizational effectiveness.

The American administration took decisive steps by withdrawing from the World Health Organization and completely freezing its funding at the peak of global need for it. This step came in parallel with ending participation in the UN Human Rights Council, under the pretext of political biases against Washington and its ally Israel.

Regarding the Palestinian issue, the most prominent decision was to permanently cut funding to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees (UNRWA). This decision was not merely a financial measure, but represented an attempt to dismantle one of the most important international symbols of the historical rights of Palestinian refugees.

NATO was not spared from these pressures, as Trump repeatedly threatened to withdraw from it unless member states increased their military spending shares. He also demanded that the alliance take on roles beyond its traditional limits, such as participating in military operations to forcibly open the Strait of Hormuz to ensure energy flow.

These policies raise a fundamental question about the message Trump wishes to convey to the international community. Some analyze these moves as an attempt to build a new international system characterized by absolute 'Americanization,' where the terms of American hegemony are directly imposed, away from multilateral diplomacy.

Supporters of this approach believe that what Trump is doing is a 'rational repositioning' aimed at protecting the American taxpayer. The prevailing logic here is that the United States has borne enormous economic and military burdens for decades without reaping political fruits commensurate with the scale of its sacrifices.

In a striking statement on January 20, 2026, Trump publicly affirmed that the United Nations had not provided him with any significant benefit. He hinted at the possibility of replacing it with a 'World Peace Council,' a new entity he seeks to establish as an alternative to the traditional, dilapidated international system, as he described it.

The 'World Peace Council' proposal is linked to Trump's initiative to end the aggression on Gaza, where he demands countries join and contribute financially with huge sums amounting to one billion dollars. This proposal reflects a desire to privatize international work and make it conditional on financial capacity and political loyalty to the new American vision.

On the other hand, analysts believe that this policy could lead to counterproductive results that accelerate the decline of American influence globally. Weakening international organizations opens the door wide for rising international powers, such as China and Russia, to fill the vacuum and lead institutions with different programs and agendas.

The erosion of Washington's leadership role could negatively impact the lives of American society itself in the long run. Despite the enormous military power that the United States still possesses, internal divisions and the erosion of institutions are reminiscent of the periods of weakness that major empires historically experienced.

Expectations are growing for sharp divisions within international organizations, not only because of American behavior, but also as a result of varying reactions from other members. Some countries are already expressing their discontent through actions and behavior, while others remain silent and wait on 'gray ground' for what comes after the Trump era.

The upcoming challenge remains the international system's ability to withstand these violent shocks in the structure of international relations. The future will reveal whether America will reclaim its traditional role, or whether the world is truly heading towards a multipolar system in which Washington is not the sole player.

The United Nations has never done me any good; my council might replace it.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu confirmed, during a field visit to southern Lebanon, that Israeli forces had succeeded in neutralizing what he described as the 'invasion threat' posed by Hezbollah. Netanyahu appeared in a video recording wearing a bulletproof vest amidst heavy security, emphasizing that military operations would continue within the security zone to ensure that border threats do not return.

In the context of the escalating field operations, sources reported that the Israeli army carried out more than 200 airstrikes in recent hours, targeting various locations in southern Lebanon. This intensity of fire comes at a time when questions are mounting about future strategic objectives, and whether Tel Aviv seeks to impose a new military reality as an alternative to permanent diplomatic solutions.

Field assessments indicate that the Israeli military command is preparing to shift the focus of its operations from south of the Litani River to the area between the Litani and Awali Rivers. This shift aims to pursue missile launch platforms that Israel claims are now concentrated in those northern areas, necessitating an expansion of the presumed security belt.

For its part, Hebrew press reports revealed an Israeli intention to exert intense political pressure on the Lebanese negotiating delegation in Washington. These pressures center on the necessity of disarming Hezbollah in the 'central Lebanon' region, a term Israel uses to refer to the geographical areas extending behind the current front lines of confrontation.

On the diplomatic front, a new round of negotiations is expected to begin in the United States next Tuesday, involving officials from Lebanon, Israel, and the American side. Through these talks, Israel seeks to secure security gains that legitimize its presence or operations in areas it considers a source of continuous missile threat.

In contrast, the pace of Hezbollah's military response has not stopped, with field sources observing missile and drone attacks at a rate of approximately one operation per hour. Sirens have repeatedly sounded in the Nahariya and Galilee regions, and around Metula, extending to the occupied Syrian Golan, reflecting the party's insistence on continued attrition.

Israeli military censorship conceals the extent of human and material losses resulting from these missile barrages, and they are only disclosed in cases of confirmed casualties. The field situation remains open to all possibilities with the continuation of mutual 'messages of fire' between the two sides, awaiting the outcome of political movements in Washington.

The war continues within the security zone in Lebanon, and we have eliminated the invasion threat that Hezbollah was planning.

Hebrew press reports revealed new technical and intelligence details regarding the assassination operation of Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, which was carried out more than forty days ago. The reports clarified that the operation was the result of intensive intelligence cooperation between Israel and the United States, combining fieldwork with the latest digital espionage technologies.

According to what was published by the "Israel Hayom" newspaper, the Military Intelligence Directorate of the Israeli Army formed a high-level secret team to prepare for the operation. This team included members from elite technological units such as Unit 8200 and Unit 9900, in addition to experts from the research and operations departments to ensure precise execution.

The intelligence plan relied primarily on close and continuous monitoring of the mobile phones of Khamenei's inner circle. Technical teams also managed to penetrate internet-connected surveillance camera networks inside Iranian territory, allowing for extremely precise monitoring of the Leader's movements around the clock.

To analyze this massive amount of data, intelligence used a "secret artificial intelligence system" specifically developed for this mission. The system analyzed the Leader's daily movement patterns and predicted his future locations, enabling planners to develop multiple targeting scenarios.

Sources indicated that the planning team developed a "flexible execution mechanism" that allowed for striking multiple targets simultaneously and in various ways. The goal of this flexibility was to reduce error margins to zero and ensure that the desired targets would not escape, regardless of changing field conditions.

The decisive moment came on the morning of February twenty-eighth, specifically at 8:15 AM. Tracking devices detected Khamenei's presence inside a fortified compound in the capital, Tehran, accompanied by several senior security and military leaders of the Iranian regime.

The air force carried out a swift and concentrated strike targeting three locations simultaneously using high-precision guidance technologies. Reports stated that the attack involved launching 40 missiles in a record time of no more than 40 seconds, resulting in the death of 40 high-ranking officials who were at the site.

The newspaper quoted sources in military intelligence as saying that the system Khamenei had built over decades had suffered a sudden structural collapse. The sources added that the current Iranian leadership is suffering from severe communication confusion and difficulty in making fateful decisions that required direct approval from the Leader.

Following the operation, the region witnessed a widespread military escalation as Tehran responded by launching barrages of missiles and drones towards Israeli targets. Iranian attacks also targeted what it described as American interests in several Arab countries, amidst a state of instability that still hangs over the new leadership.

The system designed by Khamenei has collapsed, and the current leadership is in a state of deep confusion.

Medical sources in the Gaza Strip revealed today, Sunday, a new update to the bloody toll of the ongoing occupation aggression since October 7, 2023. According to official data, the number of martyrs has risen to 72,329, while medical records show 172,192 injuries, highlighting the unprecedented humanitarian catastrophe that has befallen the Strip.

Regarding the past twenty-four hours, sources reported the arrival of a new martyr's body at hospitals, in addition to the recovery of another body from under the rubble, while health centers received 8 injuries of varying severity. These figures come amid complex field conditions that limit the health system's ability to immediately monitor all victims.

As for the statistics recorded since the ceasefire came into effect on October 11, reports indicated the martyrdom of 750 people and the injury of 2,090 others during this period. Civil Defense teams also succeeded in recovering the bodies of 760 missing persons from various locations, while hundreds remain missing under the rubble of collapsed buildings and due to the destruction of infrastructure that hinders the access of rescue vehicles.

Medical teams continue to confirm that hundreds of victims remain under the rubble of destroyed buildings and on roadsides due to the inability of rescue teams to reach them.

By : Said Arikat

News Analysis

Washington, D.C- The latest round of negotiations in Cairo—bringing together Hamas, Egyptian mediators, and representatives of the so-called “Peace Council”—is being presented as a serious effort to advance the second phase of a fragile ceasefire in Gaza. In reality, it resembles a familiar diplomatic ritual: one in which the language of peace masks an agenda that entrenches Israeli dominance while extracting unilateral concessions from the Palestinian side. Beneath the procedural language and staged optimism lies a framework that is not only unbalanced, but structurally coercive.

At the center of the talks is a proposal associated with the Council’s high representative, Nickolay Mladenov, which conditions everything—humanitarian relief, reconstruction, and even Israeli withdrawal—on the prior disarmament of Palestinian factions. This is not a technical sequencing issue; it is a political demand presented as a prerequisite for progress. It effectively requires Hamas and other groups to surrender their only meaningful leverage before Israel is required to deliver anything tangible. In any credible negotiation, reciprocity is essential. Here, it is notably absent.

Hamas’s response, as conveyed by sources close to the talks, is comparatively measured given the scale of what is being demanded. The movement is not insisting on maximalist outcomes but on basic procedural guarantees: clear timelines for Israeli withdrawal from Gaza, where Israeli forces reportedly still control more than half the territory; the immediate deployment of a national administrative committee to oversee governance and reconstruction; and, crucially, the full implementation of the first phase of the ceasefire agreement before any transition to the second. These are not excessive demands—they are the minimum threshold for credibility.

What makes the current proposal particularly problematic is that it treats Israeli violations as secondary concerns rather than fundamental obstacles. Since the ceasefire took effect, Israel has reportedly continued lethal operations, including targeted killings and shelling, while severely restricting humanitarian access. Commitments to allow hundreds of aid trucks into Gaza daily have not been met. Medical evacuations remain tightly constrained. Civilians continue to die under what are supposed to be de-escalation conditions. Yet instead of enforcing compliance with these obligations, the plan shifts the burden onto the Palestinian side to meet new and far-reaching conditions.

This is not mediation; it is managed imbalance. It reflects a longstanding pattern in international diplomacy: Israeli non-compliance is normalized or overlooked, while Palestinian resistance is framed as the central obstacle to peace. Disarmament is treated as a prerequisite rather than a potential outcome of a just and enforceable agreement. The result is a negotiation framework that begins by stripping one side of its bargaining power and ends by asking it to rely on the good faith of a party that has repeatedly demonstrated otherwise.

The demand for disarmament, in this context, is not only unrealistic but fundamentally disingenuous. It ignores the profound asymmetry between a heavily armed state and a population living under occupation and blockade. To insist that Palestinian factions lay down their arms before there is any credible end to that occupation is to demand submission, not compromise. It institutionalizes vulnerability while offering only vague and non-binding assurances in return. Such an arrangement cannot plausibly be described as a path to sustainable peace.

Even more troubling is the sequencing embedded in the proposal: disarmament first, withdrawal later. This inversion raises an obvious and critical question—what guarantees exist that withdrawal will ever occur? The historical record offers little reassurance. Israel has repeatedly entered into agreements only to delay, reinterpret, or fail to implement their terms when it aligns with its strategic interests. Without enforceable timelines and robust international guarantees, promises of withdrawal remain hypothetical, while disarmament would be immediate and irreversible.

The role of the so-called Peace Council in advancing this framework also warrants scrutiny. By aligning so closely with Israeli priorities, it risks abandoning any claim to neutrality. Effective mediation requires not only balancing interests but actively addressing power disparities. Instead, this proposal amplifies them. It places the Palestinian side under sustained pressure to concede, while insulating Israel from meaningful accountability. That is not conflict resolution; it is the management of conflict on terms favorable to the stronger party.

The plan’s governance component—centered on the creation of a national committee to administer Gaza—raises further concerns. While presented as a technocratic solution, it sidesteps the underlying political realities. There is no clear timeline for transferring authority to the Palestinian Authority, no mechanism to ensure that governance structures are locally legitimate, and no acknowledgment that administrative arrangements cannot substitute for political rights. Reconstruction without sovereignty is, at best, a temporary measure rather than a durable solution.

Unsurprisingly, Palestinian factions appear united in their rejection of the plan in its current form. Hamas is reportedly coordinating closely with other groups, including Islamic Jihad and leftist factions, to present a common position. This convergence reflects not ideological alignment but a shared recognition of what is at stake. The proposal is widely seen not as a step toward peace, but as an attempt to reshape the balance of power under the cover of diplomacy.

If the Cairo talks are to yield meaningful results, a fundamental shift in approach is required. The starting point must be the enforcement of existing commitments: a complete halt to hostilities, full and sustained humanitarian access, and clearly defined, verifiable timelines for Israeli withdrawal. Only once these conditions are met can more complex and sensitive issues—such as the future of armed factions—be addressed in an environment where trust is possible and reciprocity is genuine.

Without a meaningful recalibration, the current process is likely to collapse, repeating the failures of numerous previous efforts. More troublingly, it risks intensifying public disillusionment while reinforcing a status quo marked by recurring violence, a deepening humanitarian crisis, and prolonged political paralysis. For Gaza’s civilian population, the consequences are neither abstract nor distant—they are immediate and severe. Their suffering is being exploited as a bargaining tool to extract concessions, rather than treated as an urgent moral imperative requiring decisive action.

There is a persistent illusion in diplomatic circles that process alone constitutes progress—that the mere continuation of talks signals movement in the right direction. But a process without fairness is not progress; it is performance. In Gaza today, that performance is wearing thin. A framework that demands disarmament before dignity, compliance before reciprocity, and trust without accountability is not a peace plan. It is a blueprint for capitulation—one that risks perpetuating the very conflict it claims to resolve.

US President Donald Trump issued a strongly worded warning to the Chinese leadership, asserting that Beijing would face serious repercussions and major problems if it were proven to have supplied Iran with weapons. These statements came after media and intelligence reports indicated that the Chinese side intended to enhance Tehran's defensive capabilities amid current regional tensions.

Informed sources stated that US intelligence agencies had detected serious indications of Beijing's readiness to deliver advanced air defense systems to Iran in the coming weeks. The sources clarified that these shipments might include shoulder-fired anti-aircraft missile systems, technologies that cause significant concern among military circles in Washington due to their ability to threaten air forces.

Intelligence estimates suggest that Beijing might resort to complex strategies to deliver these weapons, including using third countries as transit platforms to conceal the true source of the shipments and avoid direct sanctions. Washington is closely monitoring these movements, which it described as secret, considering any direct military support to Tehran a crossing of American red lines in the region.

In a related context, press reports revealed an undeclared Chinese role in supporting the Iranian military effort by allowing Chinese companies to export chemicals, fuel, and technical components used in military industries. Observers believe that these materials directly contribute to enhancing Iran's local military production, further complicating the security and political landscape.

Despite these accusations, US officials acknowledged that recently obtained intelligence information still lacks conclusive confirmation. Officials noted that there is no concrete evidence yet proving the use of any Chinese-made missiles against US or Israeli forces in the field, which places the issue within the framework of preemptive warnings.

For its part, the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs promptly and completely denied these allegations. Its spokesperson affirmed that his country adheres to a neutral stance and does not provide military support to any party in ongoing conflicts. The Chinese spokesperson described the circulating information as inaccurate and aimed at distorting Beijing's image, calling on the US administration to stop making accusations not based on facts.

These developments come at a time when US-Chinese relations are experiencing escalating tension over multiple economic and political issues. Trump's latest threat represents a new episode in the series of maximum pressure exerted by Washington to curb Iranian influence and an attempt to cut off military and logistical supply lines that might reach Tehran from major international powers.

China will face major problems if it exports weapons to Iran.

Washington – Said Arikat – 12/4/2026

In a striking escalation that portends wide-ranging regional and international repercussions, US President Donald Trump on Sunday announced a US naval blockade of the Strait of Hormuz, threatening to destroy “what remains of Iran,” following the collapse of talks hosted by the Pakistani capital, Islamabad, over the weekend without achieving any significant breakthrough.

In a series of posts on the "Truth Social" platform, Trump stated that the US military would soon begin operations to blockade ships entering or exiting the Strait, asserting that any vessel paying fees to Iran for safe passage would be intercepted. He also vowed that any targeting of US forces or civilian ships would be met with a "crushing" response, at a time when the US Navy continues mine-clearing operations in the vital waterway.

Trump considered Iran's actions to be "global blackmail," adding that world leaders, "especially the United States," would not succumb to such pressure. This escalation comes after the failure of a round of negotiations described as the highest level since 1979, which aimed to reopen the Strait of Hormuz and resume the flow of about one-fifth of global oil supplies through it.

For his part, US Vice President J.D. Vance, before leaving Islamabad, said that Tehran had rejected US conditions, emphasizing that Washington needed an "unequivocal commitment" not to seek nuclear weapons or develop capabilities that would allow for their rapid acquisition. A US official confirmed that the entire negotiating team had departed, including two close associates of the Israeli Prime Minister, Steve Witkoff, and President Trump's son-in-law, Jared Kushner, along with the technical teams.

The blockade announcement came one day after "US Central Command CENTCOM" confirmed the passage of two US destroyers through the Strait as part of a mine-clearing mission, the first operation of its kind since clashes erupted six weeks ago. Tehran considered the move a violation of the ceasefire and proceeded with a plan to impose fees on ships for safe passage.

Despite the harsh rhetoric, Vance did not clarify whether the United States and Israel would resume military strikes or expand their scope to include civilian infrastructure. In contrast, Trump tried to portray the talks as “productive,” considering that the points agreed upon were still better than the option of full-scale military escalation.

Trump's decision to impose a blockade on the Strait of Hormuz reflects a dangerous shift in the American approach, from attempting to manage a crisis to creating an open confrontation with incalculable risks. A naval blockade, even if presented as a tool for negotiating pressure, is considered an act of aggression under international law and could push Iran into unconventional responses in multiple theaters. This option also reveals confusion in US strategy, which appears torn between the desire for deterrence and avoiding a full-scale war that could have exorbitant political and economic costs domestically and internationally.

Notably, Washington is setting extreme conditions that are difficult for Tehran to accept without compensation, raising questions about the seriousness of the negotiating path from the outset. Insisting on an “unequivocal commitment” without offering guarantees or parallel incentives reflects a dictatorial rather than a negotiating approach. This behavior reinforces the conviction among US adversaries that the goal is not to reach an agreement, but to impose political surrender. In this climate, the chances of returning to the negotiating table in the coming days seem slim, unless there is a tangible adjustment in the ceiling of American demands.

The region is likely to witness a calculated escalation in the form of mutual "fiery messages" without an immediate slide into full-scale war in the next few days. Iran may resort to indirect targeting through regional allies or cyber operations, while Washington will intensify its military presence in the Gulf to establish a new deterrence equation. However, any miscalculation, or an accidental incident in the Strait, could ignite a wider confrontation that would be difficult to contain, especially in the absence of effective communication channels between the two parties.

Economically, the Strait of Hormuz will remain the primary focus of concern, as any actual disruption of oil traffic would sharply raise prices, putting the Trump administration under increasing domestic pressure. This factor may push Washington to balance military escalation with tactical de-escalation steps, such as opening back channels through regional mediators. Nevertheless, the continuation of the current approach based on maximum pressure without a clear political horizon may prolong the crisis and turn it into an open attrition for all parties.

Security and political assessments in Tel Aviv indicate the necessity of preparing for a new round of fighting with Iran, following what was described as the relative failure of the Pakistan negotiations. Despite the destruction of vital Iranian facilities over the past forty days, internal Israeli readings suggest that these strikes did not eliminate the core strategic power of the regime, but rather, in some aspects, led to greater rapprochement among Tehran's proxies in the region.

Retired Israeli Ambassador Bahij Mansour considered the current state of calm to be merely a 'warning sign' and not a strategic gain. Mansour explained in an analysis published by the Hebrew press that Israel and the United States achieved clear military superiority in the field, but failed to translate this superiority into tangible political gains, noting that this gap will define the features of the future conflict and its final outcomes.

Despite the intensity of the attacks that targeted the Iranian interior, leading to the assassination of prominent leaders and the disruption of Revolutionary Guard activities, reports confirm that the Iranian nuclear project remains far from collapse. Enriched uranium, which represents the cornerstone of Tehran's nuclear ambitions, remains fully under the regime's control, meaning that the main source of the threat has not been definitively neutralized despite the fierce fighting.

Sharp criticisms are escalating in Washington's political circles regarding the Israeli strategy, with American officials believing that Tel Aviv has dragged the United States into a large-scale conflict without a clear exit plan. Some described this confrontation as a 'war of deception' based on exaggerations in assessing the Iranian regime's capabilities, in the absence of real international support from NATO and with European powers remaining on the sidelines.

Regionally, sources reported that Israel and the United States found themselves in near-total isolation, as Gulf states preferred not to intervene for fear of Iranian retaliation. In contrast, the roles of Pakistan, Turkey, and Egypt emerged as powers capable of influencing Tehran to reach a temporary ceasefire, but the ambiguity of the terms of this agreement gives Iran valuable time to reorganize its ranks and repair its damaged military capabilities.

Regarding supporting fronts, analysts believe that the Israeli and American armies demonstrated significant intelligence and air superiority by penetrating the Iranian interior and striking missile arrays. However, the erosion of Hezbollah's and the Houthis' capabilities did not prevent them from continuing to operate, which compels Israel to combine continuous military pressure with international diplomatic action to avert risks from its borders in the next round.

The ceasefire with Iran is not an achievement but a warning sign, and the gap between military power and political weakness raises concerns for the future.

Thousands of Israelis gathered in Habima Square in the heart of Tel Aviv on Saturday evening in a large protest demanding the government put an end to what they described as 'eternal wars'. Participants raised slogans calling for a halt to military operations on various fronts, asserting through their chants that escalating suffering in Lebanon would not grant Israeli society the desired security, according to press sources.

This demonstration comes a week after similar protests that saw violent interventions by Israeli police, who used force to disperse demonstrators and arrested at least 17 people under the pretext of security concerns, especially as those protests coincided with missile tensions from regional parties.

Among the participants in the demonstration, the voice of Yifat Calderon, a relative of one of the prisoners previously released from the Gaza Strip, stood out. She affirmed that her motive for participating was the desire to end the open conflicts in Gaza, Lebanon, and with Iran. Calderon explained that military confrontations have not achieved tangible positive results, emphasizing that the solution lies in diplomatic paths and political agreements instead of living in an endless cycle of war.

The reality is the same as before, and perhaps worse; we need to translate everything into agreements. We cannot continue to live in a constant war.

The far-right Israeli National Security Minister, Itamar Ben Gvir, stormed the courtyards of the blessed Al-Aqsa Mosque in occupied Jerusalem this Sunday morning, under tight protection from occupation forces and special forces. This provocative move comes amidst an intensive security deployment by the occupation police, who secured the route for settlers' incursions, sparking a widespread wave of Palestinian anger that considered the incident a deliberate desecration of holy sites.

Field sources reported that Ben Gvir performed Talmudic prayers and participated in chanting rituals at the Dome of the Rock prayer hall and the Western Arcade area, in a blatant challenge to the historical status quo. This incursion is Ben Gvir's sixteenth since assuming the National Security portfolio, and his third since the beginning of this year 2026, reflecting a determination to change the religious reality in the mosque.

For his part, Ben Gvir stated from within the mosque's courtyards: 'Today we feel that we are the owners of the place, and we still have much to do and improve here,' in a clear reference to the occupation government's efforts to impose full sovereignty over Al-Aqsa. These statements coincided with groups of settlers performing provocative rituals aimed at consecrating the temporal and spatial division between Muslims and Jews.

In an official reaction, the Palestinian Presidency described the incursion as a 'blatant violation' of the legal and historical status of Al-Aqsa Mosque, warning of the repercussions of this dangerous escalation on security and stability in the region. The Presidency affirmed that Al-Aqsa Mosque, with its entire area of 144 dunams, is an exclusive right of Muslims alone, and the occupation has no sovereignty over any part of the city of Jerusalem.

The Palestinian Authority called on the international community to take a firm stance that obliges the occupation authorities to stop their unilateral measures in occupied Jerusalem. It indicated that these practices fall within a systematic policy to Judaize the holy city and change its Arab and Islamic features, calling on international parties to assume their legal and moral responsibilities towards protecting holy sites.

In turn, the Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas) called on the masses of the Palestinian people to travel and stand firm in Al-Aqsa Mosque to thwart the occupation's Judaization schemes. The movement said in a statement that the repeated incursions by Ben Gvir reflect full support from the occupation government for extremist settler groups seeking to demolish Al-Aqsa and build the alleged Temple in its place.

Hamas stressed that these aggressions will not change the true identity of the mosque, but will increase the determination of Palestinians to defend their holy sites by all available means. It also called on the Arab and Islamic nations to take serious action and pressure the occupation to force it to stop desecrating the holy Al-Aqsa Sanctuary, affirming that Jerusalem will remain the axis of conflict and the qibla of resistance.

On the ground, occupation forces launched a wide arrest campaign that included 18 Palestinians from various areas in the West Bank and Jerusalem, among them Raed Zaghir, head of the cleaning department at Al-Aqsa Mosque. Medical teams also recorded 7 Palestinians injured by occupation bullets during clashes that erupted in the towns of Al-Ram, Al-Dhahiriya, and Nablus, coinciding with the tension in the occupied capital.

In the context of restricting Jerusalemites, the occupation authorities forced citizen Mahmoud Al-Tawil to self-demolish his home in Silwan town south of Al-Aqsa Mosque, under threat of exorbitant fines. This policy comes within the occupation's continuous attempts to empty the city of its original inhabitants in favor of settlement expansion, which has accelerated recently.

For its part, the Jordanian Ministry of Foreign Affairs condemned the incursion, describing it as a 'condemnable provocative act,' affirming the Kingdom's absolute rejection of attempts to change the status quo in the holy Al-Aqsa Sanctuary. The Jordanian statement stressed that the Jerusalem Awqaf and Al-Aqsa Mosque Affairs Department is the sole authority with exclusive jurisdiction over managing the affairs of the sanctuary and regulating entry to it.

Statistics indicate an escalation in the pace of Israeli violence in the West Bank and Jerusalem since October 2023, with 1148 Palestinians martyred and over 11,000 others injured. Arrests also reached a record number, exceeding 22,000 cases, indicating an iron security grip that the occupation is trying to impose in parallel with repeated incursions into holy sites.

This escalation comes at a time when the region is still recovering from the war launched by the United States and Israel against Iran last February, which lasted 40 days. Observers believe that the occupation is trying to exploit the current regional circumstances to accelerate the pace of Judaizing Jerusalem and impose new realities on the ground that will be difficult to reverse in the future.

Since 2003, the occupation police have continued to facilitate settler incursions into Al-Aqsa despite strong opposition from the Islamic Endowments Department and the international community. However, the pace of these violations has taken a dangerous upward trend since the far-right took power in Israel, with ministers openly participating in storming the mosque and performing rituals there.

In conclusion, Al-Aqsa Mosque remains an open arena of confrontation between the will of the steadfast Palestinians and the occupation's plans aimed at full control over it. Popular activities in Jerusalem confirm that defending Al-Aqsa is a national and religious duty that cannot be relinquished, no matter the sacrifices or the increased intensity of Israeli repression in the holy city.

Today we feel that we are the owners of the place, and we still have much to do and improve here.

The New York Times painted a grim picture of the outcomes of the military confrontation led by President Donald Trump against Iran, considering that it weakened American global power and caused a series of strategic setbacks. The editorial explained that the decision made last February was reckless, as it lacked congressional cover and allied support, and was based on contradictory justifications that failed to provide a clear vision for the future of the region.

The newspaper indicated that the weeks following the attack revealed an absence of precise military planning, as Trump acted based on his personal whims, ignoring intelligence warnings. Despite predictions by regional allies that the attacks would spark an internal uprising in Tehran, reality proved these estimates false; instead, it increased the cohesion of the Iranian regime in the face of external pressures.

The first and most serious setback is Iran's newfound control over the global economy through the closure of the Strait of Hormuz, the passage through which one-fifth of the world's energy supplies flow. While Tehran's leaders previously feared the consequences of closing the strait, the war emboldened them to disrupt navigation, giving them diplomatic and economic leverage they did not have before the confrontation.

Media sources reported that the Iranian strategy in the strait proved effective at low cost, as it relied on threats from drones and small missiles to intimidate international tankers. In contrast, Washington found itself unable to reopen the waterway without engaging in a massive and prolonged ground military operation, an option that the current administration does not seem to have the ability or desire to implement.

On the military front, the war revealed a severe depletion of American strategic weapons stockpiles, with estimates indicating that the Pentagon consumed more than 25% of its 'Tomahawk' missiles in this confrontation alone. This severe shortage prompted military leadership to withdraw missile defense systems from vital areas such as South Korea, weakening the American presence on other global fronts.

The field confrontations also showed a worrying technological gap, as the United States used billions of dollars worth of smart munitions to destroy traditional targets, while Tehran succeeded in paralyzing navigation using cheap technologies. This disparity in the cost of war raised serious questions about the readiness of the American army to confront the methods of modern asymmetric warfare in which regional powers excel.

The third setback was in the arena of international alliances, where major powers such as Japan, Canada, and most Western European countries refused to engage in the American adventure. This collective rejection reflects the erosion of trust in Washington as a reliable ally, prompting these countries to seek independent security and political arrangements away from the traditional American umbrella.

In the Middle East, the scene appears more complex, as Gulf states feel that the ceasefire suddenly announced by Trump represents an abandonment of their national security. Although Iranian threats may push some capitals to rapprochement with Washington, doubts about the wisdom of the current American leadership have come to dominate decision-making circles in the region.

The newspaper touched upon the erosion of the United States' 'moral authority,' especially after Trump's threats to wipe out Iranian civilization and target civilians. These statements, which the newspaper described as amounting to war crimes, contradict the democratic values and human rights that Washington has long claimed to defend and lead the world through.

The editorial considered that the approach of Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, who called for showing no mercy to enemies, represents an adoption of brutal methods rejected by international laws since World War II. This shift in official American discourse weakens Washington's ability to criticize authoritarian regimes in Russia and China, and strips it of its competitive advantage as a beacon of freedom.

The failure to secure enriched uranium or prevent Iran from rebuilding its nuclear program represents an additional failure in the declared war objectives. Instead of curbing Tehran's nuclear ambitions, military chaos led to giving the Iranians additional justifications to accelerate the pace of their activities and challenge international oversight in the absence of a coherent American strategy.

The 'New York Times' believes that the only solution to this dilemma requires building a broad international coalition to reopen the Strait of Hormuz and ensure freedom of navigation, which requires quiet diplomacy. However, the nature of the current administration, which prefers unilateral and confrontational action, makes building such a coalition almost impossible in the foreseeable future, leaving American interests hostage to escalation.

The past six weeks have proven that relying on 'intuition' in managing major international conflicts leads to catastrophic results for strategic influence. While Washington sought to demonstrate its strength, it ended up suffering from a shortage of ammunition and a crack in alliances, while Tehran emerged with diplomatic influence it had not dreamed of before the crisis erupted.

In conclusion, the newspaper affirms that this war was not just a tactical error, but an earthquake that shook the foundations of the international system led by America for decades. Restoring lost prestige will require years of serious diplomatic work and rebuilding trust with allies, which does not seem possible under current policies that prioritize threat over wisdom.

Trump's indifference left the United States on the brink of a humiliating strategic defeat and undermined the foundations of America's global leadership.

Media sources have revealed intensive diplomatic efforts currently underway to pave the way for the launch of direct and official negotiations between the occupation state and Lebanon in the American capital, Washington. These talks are scheduled to begin next Tuesday, as the concerned parties seek to move beyond the traditional ceasefire formula towards concluding a broader framework agreement that includes complex political and security issues.

This step follows high-level contacts, including a phone call between the ambassador of the occupation state to the United States, Yehiel Leiter, and Lebanon's ambassador in Washington, Nada Hamadeh Maawad. These negotiations are based on the terms of the ceasefire agreement reached in November 2024, with international directives pushing towards achieving lasting stability and gradual normalization of relations between the two sides.

Diplomatic sources reported that the existing border disputes between the two parties are not classified as fundamental obstacles that cannot be resolved. Instead, the current focus is on curbing the influence of armed forces that have hindered Lebanese state sovereignty. The sources indicated a convergence of interests between Beirut and Tel Aviv regarding strengthening the Lebanese state's authority over all its territories and ensuring security on both sides of the border.

In a related context, an active regional role emerged for both the United Arab Emirates and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia in pushing for these direct talks. Political circles expect both countries to provide significant political and economic support for the negotiation process, ensuring the success of the Lebanese initiative launched by President Joseph Aoun, which received immediate blessing from the American administration.

For its part, the Lebanese Presidency office confirmed the accuracy of the news regarding these talks in Washington, emphasizing that efforts in the first phase are focused on solidifying the pillars of the ceasefire. The office clarified that the upcoming meeting will represent a serious test of the parties' commitment to moving Lebanon to a new phase of regional stability, away from continuous military escalation.

The US Department of State is participating with a specialized team to follow up on the mediation between the two sides, with technical and administrative staff assigned to oversee the upcoming meetings. Observers believe that this diplomatic move represents a strategic shift in the Lebanese-Israeli conflict, especially with the entry of Arab and international parties as economic and political guarantors for the success of the anticipated agreement.

The upcoming negotiations in Washington will constitute a real test for the path of regional relations and the possibility of transitioning to a new phase.

A new Emirati aid plane arrived in the city of Al Arish, loaded with 100 tons of urgent relief aid, in a scene that embodies the continuation of the UAE's humanitarian efforts to support brothers in the Gaza Strip, confirming its firm commitment to stand by the Palestinian people and alleviate the burden of the escalating humanitarian crisis.

The shipment, which was dispatched as part of the "Hamid Air Bridge," included quantities of essential foodstuffs to secure the necessary needs of affected families, in light of the difficult humanitarian conditions witnessed in the Strip.

The Emirati humanitarian aid team in the city of Al Arish was at the forefront of receiving the shipment upon its arrival, where they immediately began transferring and storing it in the Emirati Humanitarian Aid Logistics Center, in preparation for its entry into the Gaza Strip according to approved mechanisms, ensuring its rapid and efficient delivery to those in need.

Meanwhile, "Gallant Knight 3" continues to carry out its humanitarian missions since its launch, through an integrated system of air, land, and sea support routes, to secure food, relief, and medical aid for brothers in the Gaza Strip, in a vivid embodiment of the UAE's established humanitarian approach and its firm commitment to extending a helping hand and supporting brotherly peoples in times of crisis.

The word 'defeat' today seems closer to a realistic description of what the United States is facing amidst the ongoing war, as signs of losing international prestige have clearly begun to emerge with the conflict entering its second month. Official statements from the White House reveal a state of political predicament, as observers believe that extensive American involvement was not a strategic necessity for national interests as much as it was a response to internal pressures.

The Zionist lobby and Zionist Christian currents play a pivotal role in guiding the compass of the current American administration, using financial and media pressure tools and political blackmail. The events after October 7 revealed the penetration of these forces into decision-making joints, which pushed Washington to adopt narratives that facts proved false, placing the American nation before a deep internal review of its identity and global role.

Historically, the United States showed reservations towards Jewish immigration until the end of World War II, but major shifts in the balance of power in 1945 enabled Jewish groups to strengthen their positions. This rise was not a coincidence, but rather a result of a precise understanding of international variables, which reminds us of what the Russian writer Dostoevsky wrote in his famous article 'The Jewish Question' about the hidden endeavors to influence societies.

On the other side of the Atlantic, the European position, especially in France and Spain, shows a fundamental divergence from the American vision towards Israel. Historical Europe views the entity as a geographical barrier or a means to dispose of the Jewish question away from the continent, while Washington goes far in adopting the Zionist project as an organic part of its global strategy, which has created a gap in interests between allies.

Political readings indicate that many European countries secretly wish for the United States to emerge 'broken' from this confrontation to rebalance power within the old continent. This ambition is not limited to Europe alone but extends to rising great powers such as China and Russia, who are closely monitoring the scene and seizing opportunities to reduce America's sole global influence.

On the ground, the downing of American aircraft raised questions about the entry of advanced air defense technologies into the conflict arena, which may indicate undeclared technical support from international powers. These qualitative developments in Iranian military capabilities, and their resilience in the face of threats, have imposed a new reality that has pushed international parties to seek negotiated paths and a temporary ceasefire to avoid sliding into an all-out confrontation.

The American propaganda machine tries to inflate limited military operations, such as rescuing pilots, to cover up the failure to achieve major strategic goals during the war. However, global public awareness has become more capable of exposing these media ploys, as rhetorical festivals are no longer able to hide the reality of field setbacks and the absence of tangible achievements on the ground.

The Arab world, and its peoples in particular, are watching this American decline with much anticipation, recalling the pains of the invasion of Iraq in 2003 and the setbacks that preceded it. Resilience in the face of American arrogance reopens the files of Arab national security that were shaken, especially after the humiliating way former American leaders dealt with the region's countries and their wealth.

Events have proven that the ability to control vital files such as energy, and to stand firm against military threats, can break the barrier of fear for other countries. The policy of 'no' that has begun to resonate in international political circles reflects a global exasperation with the 'demonic arrogance' practiced by Washington based solely on its material power, without regard for human values or international law.

The official Arab system finds itself today compelled to discuss the concept of national security away from the American umbrella, which has proven its complete bias. Fears that the spark of conflict will extend to other countries in the region necessitate the building of independent defensive and political strategies, relying on self-reliance and protecting national capabilities from continuous external blackmail.

The great paradox today lies in the continuous widening of the gap between the awareness of peoples and the practices of politicians, which portends a major historical event that may change the face of the region. This growing awareness is the true fruit of the popular steadfastness in Gaza and Palestine, which has reordered global priorities and revealed the reality of the powers that claim to protect democracy while practicing the most heinous forms of oppression.

Russia and China, as competing poles, fully realize that the erosion of American prestige in the Middle East necessarily means accelerating the birth of a multipolar world order. Despite caution in official statements, geopolitical movements indicate implicit support for anything that would drain American capabilities and engage them in long-term regional conflicts that weaken their global grip.

In conclusion, the 'arrogance of power' that has characterized American foreign policy for decades today seems to be digging the pit into which this hegemony will fall. History teaches us that empires that rely on military oppression and disregard the rights of peoples always end in decline, and what we see today may be the actual beginning of the end of the unique American era.

The waiting for the 'historical circumstance' that will change the balance is no longer just wishes, but has become a reality shaped by the steadfastness of anti-hegemonic forces and the erosion of traditional alliances. The events of this war will remain a turning point in the history of international relations, as history will record how the arrogance of power turned into a factor of weakness that ultimately led to the retreat of the unipolar power before the will of the peoples.

The 'arrogance of power' practiced by the United States may turn into a deep pit into which its global hegemony will fall.

Israeli diplomatic relations are undergoing a phase of accelerating deterioration, with disputes moving from closed rooms to the public in an unprecedented manner. This shift reflects increasing international pressure resulting from ongoing military operations and the impact of war images on global public opinion and political decisions in major capitals.

In Turkey, the crisis reached its peak with Ankara's announcement of preparing an official indictment targeting 35 Israeli officials, led by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. This legal step comes against the backdrop of the previous Israeli attack on the 'Freedom Flotilla' which was attempting to break the siege on the Gaza Strip, reopening thorny judicial files.

Turkish escalation did not stop at the legal path but extended to include a sharp war of words in which Ankara described Netanyahu as the 'Hitler of the era'. The Israeli government, through its ministers, responded with a direct attack on President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, deepening the diplomatic rift between the two parties and reducing prospects for de-escalation in the foreseeable future.

On the European front, the Israeli Foreign Ministry summoned a high-ranking Spanish diplomat to deliver a formal reprimand to Madrid. This action followed a local event in Spain that included the detonation of an effigy representing Netanyahu, which Tel Aviv considered direct incitement and an expression of what it described as 'antisemitism'.

For its part, the Spanish government rejected these accusations outright, affirming that its stance stems from a commitment to the principles of freedom of expression and combating hate speech. Official sources in Madrid clarified that such events had previously included symbols of other world leaders without causing such diplomatic sensitivity.

In an additional escalatory step, Netanyahu decided to exclude Spanish representatives from the coordination center for the Gaza Strip, accusing Madrid of taking 'hostile' positions. This decision reflects an Israeli desire to punish countries that adopt critical stances on its policies in the occupied Palestinian territories by reducing their field roles.

As for East Asia, South Korea entered the line of diplomatic crises after President Lee Jae-myung re-posted a video documenting violations by Israeli soldiers in the West Bank. Israel accused the Korean presidency of spreading 'misinformation', in an attempt to contain the Palestinian narrative which has begun to find widespread resonance in Seoul.

South Korean authorities responded by affirming that their foreign policy positions are primarily based on protecting human rights and rejecting all forms of violence and violations. These successive crises show that Israel is facing an existential challenge to its international image, as its official narrative clashes with field documentation adopted by countries previously classified as friends or quiet partners.

Israeli diplomatic disputes are no longer managed behind closed doors but have taken on a public character through official statements and digital platforms.

International press reports have highlighted the existential challenges facing the development model in the Arab Gulf states, following the military escalation led by US President Donald Trump against Iran. Analyst Steven Cook, in an article published by 'Foreign Policy' magazine, pointed out that military operations carried out without sufficient consideration of their consequences have placed the region's stability and emerging economies in immediate danger.

Cook considered that Gulf cities, which were once classified as side interests for researchers in genealogy and tribes, have transformed over the past decade into global centers of gravity, rivalling historical capitals such as Cairo and Damascus. He explained that Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Qatar have made tremendous efforts to rebuild their societies and economies, creating a unique development model based primarily on attracting investments and global talent.

However, this model, which aims to transform Dubai, Abu Dhabi, Doha, and Riyadh into centers for advanced technology and logistics services, is now threatened by direct confrontation with Tehran. Analytical sources believe that the recent war has raised serious questions about these countries' ability to protect their urban and economic achievements in light of the imbalance in regional deterrence.

According to the analytical reading, current diplomatic maneuvers may lead to Iranians gaining unprecedented influence in the Strait of Hormuz, a vital waterway for global energy supplies. This influence will enhance Tehran's ability to threaten its neighbors with missiles and drones, thereby weakening the fundamental pillar of Gulf development: sustainable regional security.

Despite the internal political stability enjoyed by the Gulf states under their current leaderships, reliance on US military bases is no longer sufficient to curb tensions. Events following the Gaza war in October 2023 showed that Gulf states tried to distance themselves from regional conflicts to continue their development paths, but later found themselves in the eye of the storm.

Sources indicate that Gulf states continued to pump billions of dollars into mega-projects and attract major technology companies even at the height of the Israeli conflict in Gaza and Lebanon. The Gulf bet was that these conflicts would not hinder economic transformation plans, which seemed largely successful until the direct confrontation between Washington and Tehran erupted.

In June 2025, with the start of reciprocal attacks, Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar was hit by Iranian strikes, and despite the limited material damage, the political message was clear. Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Qatar realized that Iran's capabilities and intentions exceeded the US administration's estimates, prompting regional leaders to clarify their rejection of involvement in any offensive plans.

However, this neutral stance did not prevent the war from spreading to the heart of the Gulf in recent weeks, where energy infrastructure and the technology sector in the UAE were subjected to intense attacks. Reports indicated that the Iranian Revolutionary Guard targeted data centers in Bahrain and oil facilities in Kuwait, reaching the vital Ras Laffan facility in Qatar.

Iranians launched thousands of missiles and drones targeting Saudi oil refineries and pipelines, causing a shock among international investors. These systematic attacks were not merely a military response but appeared to be a strategic plan to threaten the economic arteries of the GCC states and force them to make political concessions.

Regarding ceasefire efforts, Cook believes that the Iranian peace plan being negotiated by Washington bodes ill for the region's countries. Iranian demands for control over the Strait of Hormuz and linking safe passage to coordination with its armed forces practically mean imposing a 'khawat' system or financial fees that might even be paid in digital currencies.

Observers believe that Trump's openness to considering these Iranian demands represents a dangerous retreat from commitments to protect international freedom of navigation. If this reality takes hold, Gulf states will find themselves forced to rely on Tehran's 'goodwill' or pay huge sums to a country that was bombing their cities and facilities just weeks earlier.

The damage to the stereotypical image of the Gulf as an oasis of security and business represents the greatest loss in this confrontation, as investors now fear the fragility of stability in the face of suicide drones. This new reality compels the leaders of Riyadh, Abu Dhabi, and Doha to reconsider their national priorities and allocate huge budgets to strengthen air defenses and protect cities.

Gulf leaders may again resort to a 'hedging' policy by strengthening relations with Beijing, seeking a lost balance amid American confusion in the region. The move towards China for advanced weapons or political guarantees has become a strong option to counter the long-term repercussions of American recklessness regarding the Iranian issue.

In conclusion, it seems that recovery from the effects of this round of conflict will take a long time and will not merely be a matter of repairing damaged oil facilities. The real challenge lies in restoring international confidence in the Gulf development model and proving its ability to withstand an regional environment that has become more hostile and complex than ever before.

The Gulf development model, based on political stability and regional security, now faces existential questions after technology and energy cities have become targets for Iranian missiles.

A few days after the announcement of a temporary truce between Iran and the United States, all eyes were on the recent talks between the two parties, which ended in failure. This failure brought tensions back to the surface and fueled speculation about the future of relations between the two powers, but it also revealed a potential new scenario: the possibility that the current truce could become permanent, and that direct hostilities would cease, which is the best scenario for the United States and the worst for Iran.

The current US President, Donald Trump, who declared war on Iran on February 28, 2026, seems determined not to engage in a direct comprehensive conflict, but at the same time, he will not completely close the door to selective hostile actions. This approach allows him to use measured responses against any Iranian action he deems a threat, especially concerning the vital Strait of Hormuz, the most sensitive strategic pressure point in the region.

What confirms Trump's approach to managing the conflict is how he handled the "12-day war," where the US President adopted a strategy of stalemate and selective control: he ceased hostilities without any formal agreements with Iran, maintaining psychological and military pressure in a calculated manner, and demonstrated Washington's ability to control the conflict according to its interests, without sliding into a comprehensive war. This approach reflects Trump's strategic method: leaving the door open for selective threats, demonstrating power without being bound by agreements that might limit freedom of action, and exploiting Iranian psychological and political tension to maintain continuous pressure. The option of withdrawing from negotiations and threatening not to negotiate now constitutes the strongest threatening leverage against Iran, and perhaps the most effective option among all American pressure tactics.

From Washington's perspective, a permanent truce means relative stability and reduced military and economic losses, while maintaining US strategic influence in the region without sliding into a comprehensive war. It also allows Americans to focus on other domestic and international issues, away from the cycle of the ongoing Iranian conflict for decades.

For Iran, a permanent truce represents a real challenge, as it is forced to comply with the limits of this truce to avoid selective American retaliation, but at the same time, it faces internal pressures to maintain its sovereignty and regional interests. This scenario leaves Iran in a state of uncertainty and presents it with a continuous strategic dilemma: every step it takes could face selective American retaliation, while any retreat or concession might be interpreted internally as weakness, increasing political and social pressures within the country.

In this context, Iranian intransigence in demands is not merely political stubbornness, but a calculated strategy to ensure the internal cohesion of the regime and prevent the United States and Israel from achieving strategic goals or gaining any sense of victory. The negotiations themselves are governed by this symbolic conflict over the "victory card," where each party seeks to assert its strength and achieve a moral gain, even under the truce, which makes any agreement fragile and dependent on the delicate balances between the two parties.

Trump's strategy relies on smart containment and flexible deterrence, where the field is left open for all future possibilities. The truce, despite being permanent, is not true peace, but a state of calculated stalemate that allows the United States to control the course of events, while Iran remains facing a continuous threat at every strategic turn. This stalemate keeps the animosity alive, but ensures that a comprehensive conflict does not erupt for now, while maintaining the possibility of using selective pressures to impose American influence.

Ultimately, the political future of the region remains suspended between permanent truces and diplomatic failure, with Trump keeping the option open for selective military action according to Iran's actions, especially concerning the Strait of Hormuz, while Iran struggles to maintain its interests without sliding into a comprehensive confrontation. The permanent truce, in this form, reflects a significant strategic gain for America and a continuous dilemma for Iran, leaving the field open for all possibilities, and confirming that the animosity between the two parties will remain present even in apparent peace, leaving Iran in a state of anticipation and continuous uncertainty, where intransigence in demands ensures the preservation of the regime's cohesion and repels any sense of moral victory for America or Israel, while talks are governed by a constant struggle over the symbolic "victory card" between the two parties.

The town of Tayasir, east of Tubas city, is experiencing a state of turmoil following the execution of young Alaa Subeih by an Israeli soldier on leave, once again highlighting the intertwined roles of the occupation army and settlers. This incident comes in the context of escalating attacks targeting the Palestinian presence in the Northern Jordan Valley, where the occupation continues to detain the martyr's body and refuses to hand it over to his family.\n\nThe Al-Safah area in Tayasir is a living example of the daily suffering endured by farmers, who face continuous harassment and direct physical assaults. Farmer Anan Daraghmeh, who transformed 120 dunams into a productive orchard providing livelihoods for dozens of families, recently suffered a violent attack that resulted in broken bones in his hand and the burning of his property and vehicles by settler groups.\n\n The stark irony is that these attacks occur within areas classified as (A) according to the Oslo Accords, which are supposed to be under full Palestinian civil and security control. This transgression proves that the settlement project does not recognize political divisions and aims to undermine any future Palestinian sovereignty over vital agricultural lands.\n\n The crimes were not limited to physical intimidation but extended to burning inhabited homes, as happened to the family of citizen Ali Al-Faqir, who were displaced after their home turned to ashes. This family of 16 is now homeless, and this is the second time they have been displaced after being previously expelled from the Al-Maleh area under flimsy military pretexts.\n\nHani Abu Ali, head of the Tayasir Village Council, indicates that settlement outposts are now suffocating the town's population expansion, with some being no more than 200 meters from citizens' homes. This deliberate proximity places hundreds of dunams of agricultural greenhouses under constant threat and prevents farmers from safely accessing their lands to harvest their crops.\n\n The violations extend beyond land to the theft of water and electricity resources, as settlers forcibly connect their own lines to Palestinian farmers' networks. This behavior imposes enormous economic and psychological burdens on the landowners, who watch their wealth plundered to support illegal settlement outposts established on the ruins of their historical rights.\n\n On the legal front, the Village Council is making strenuous efforts through communication with official bodies and Palestinian liaison to put an end to these transgressions and remove new outposts. Despite repeated promises to evacuate settlers, the reality on the ground indicates continued attempts to impose new facts through setting up tents and seizing springs.\n\n Experts in settlement affairs believe that what is happening in Tayasir falls within the "pastoral settlement" strategy, which aims to control vast areas with the fewest number of settlers. This policy relies on daily intimidation to create an environment that expels the indigenous population, ultimately leading to silent forced displacement away from international attention.\n\n The Jordan Valley, which constitutes about 30% of the West Bank's area, is considered the major food basket and strategic extension of the desired Palestinian state. Therefore, the occupation strives with all its might to transform it into closed military zones or nature reserves, to cut off any Palestinian geographical connection with the Jordanian borders.\n\n Official reports issued by the Wall and Settlement Resistance Commission indicate that 2025 witnessed an unprecedented escalation, with more than 23,000 attacks recorded in various governorates. These figures reflect a systematic policy aimed at emptying the land, and have already led to the complete displacement of 13 Bedouin communities since the beginning of this year.\n\n Despite all these pressures, the residents of Tayasir and the Jordan Valley show legendary steadfastness in clinging to their lands, demanding the strengthening of infrastructure and the construction of agricultural roads as tools of resistance and resilience. Providing basic services in remote areas is the most important weapon in confronting the attempts of uprooting and displacement practiced by the various arms of the occupation.\n\n The battle in Tayasir is not just a dispute over village borders, but an existential battle that touches the core of the entire Palestinian national project. Targeting farmers in their livelihoods and burning their children's books and school bags aims to break the national will, which the residents meet with determination to remain and rebuild.\n\n Local sources confirm that the occupation army now provides full cover for settlers, and even participates with them in carrying out attacks, especially after the events of October 2023. This shift has made every settler a presumed soldier, and every Palestinian farmer a legitimate target in the eyes of the occupation system that is racing against time to effectively annex the Jordan Valley.\n\n In conclusion, international and institutional action remains an urgent necessity to protect what remains of the geographical and demographic unity of the Jordan Valley. Silence on what is happening in Tayasir and the Al-Safah area gives the green light to the occupation to continue its policy of ethnic cleansing that targets the pillars of food security and Palestinian sovereignty.\n\n We reclaimed this land from nothing, as it was unsuitable for cultivation, and we will not leave it no matter the sacrifices.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu finds himself in a complex position, striving to market the results of recent military operations as historic achievements, yet clashing with the absence of the decisive 'victory image' he accustomed his public to. Despite his desire to leverage rapprochement with the American administration for internal political gains, the reality on the ground dictates a different, ambiguous, and uncertain pace.

Political readings indicate that Netanyahu aspired to capture commemorative photos reflecting absolute strategic superiority, such as controlling nuclear facilities or completely neutralizing Iranian missile capabilities. However, the absence of these scenes has made it difficult for the Likud party to fully regain its momentum in opinion polls, with recent data showing a slight decline in the number of projected seats compared to previous periods.

In contrast, Netanyahu's popular base appears surprisingly solid, as statistics indicate that the vast majority of government coalition supporters still trust his management of security crises. This internal satisfaction gives the Prime Minister room for maneuver despite sharp criticism from international and local parties regarding the war's outcomes, which have not achieved all their stated goals.

On the far-right, a striking silence emerges from ministers like Itamar Ben-Gvir, who previously threatened to dismantle the government at any military setback. This absolute silence regarding ceasefire agreements or the failure to achieve 'absolute victory' raises questions about the internal understandings that ensure the coalition remains cohesive despite strategic failures.

In the Israeli street, a state of confusion prevails regarding the identity of the victor in these repeated rounds, with media sources reporting that nearly half of those surveyed believe it is still too early to judge the results. These figures reflect a significant gap between official government rhetoric and the feelings of settlers in the north who continue to suffer from the consequences of displacement and instability.

The Israeli opposition, led by Yair Lapid, tried to exploit this void by directing scathing criticism, describing the current results as strategically the worst in decades. However, observers believe that the opposition is still unable to present a convincing alternative or mobilize the street in a way that leads to real political change, which keeps Netanyahu in a position of power despite the erosion of his image.

Other opposition leaders, such as Benny Gantz, show more cautious and calm stances, perhaps awaiting an opportunity to join an emergency government or form new alliances if the situation escalates. This divergence in the opposition's performance disperses efforts to pressure the government and gives Netanyahu additional time to arrange his internal affairs away from the pressures of early elections.

The issue of the 'conscription law' stands out as one of the political landmines that could ignite the internal situation at any moment, as the opposition seeks to focus its attack on this sensitive file. Analysts believe that focusing on civil and social issues may be more fruitful for the opposition than criticizing military results, which many agree are complex and difficult to resolve.

From a military perspective, it cannot be denied that Israel has inflicted severe damage on its adversaries' armament capabilities, but the continued existence of missile and nuclear threats makes any talk of 'final victory' questionable. This reality puts Netanyahu in constant confrontation with public questions about the utility of continuing operations without reaching a decisive outcome that changes the geopolitical reality.

Given these facts, it seems that Netanyahu has no incentive to bring forward the election date, as long as the opposition does not have a clear 'image of failure' through which it can overthrow him. He is banking on the time factor and his ability to manage contradictions within his coalition, benefiting from the state of uncertainty that dominates the entire region.

Residents of the northern and southern regions represent the weakest link in this political conflict, as their businesses collapse and their daily lives are directly affected without a clear time horizon for a solution. These represent the 'heart' that some political leaders spoke of as an urgent need for Israeli leadership in the next phase, away from narrow partisan calculations.

The absence of direct negotiations between major powers and regional parties further complicates the scene, making it difficult to predict an imminent end to this state of 'no war, no peace.' In this vacuum, Netanyahu continues to practice his favorite political hobby of staying in power by managing crises instead of solving them, relying on the disunity of his opponents.

In conclusion, the 'victory image' remains the missing currency in current Israeli politics, an image Netanyahu needs to restore his popularity, and the opposition needs to prove his failure. Between these two, Israeli society remains hostage to political decisions governed by calculations of personal and coalition survival, at a time when security and economic challenges are increasing.

The next phase will witness strenuous attempts by all parties to reshape the narrative about what happened in the war, as each party will seek to impose its vision on the Israeli voter. Issues such as conscription and the economic situation of reserve soldiers will play a crucial role in determining the features of the upcoming political map, away from the roar of explosions and images of missiles.

The problem lies in Netanyahu's lack of a victory image; if he had something to wave, he would celebrate the ceasefire with charts and fireworks.