The pace of political movements within the Israeli arena is accelerating as the 26th Knesset elections, scheduled for next October, draw near. The features of the conflict within the opposition appear more complex and exciting, as various forces seek to organize their ranks and determine the identity of those who will qualify for the final stages of the electoral race.

Analytical sources reported that the Israeli opposition is experiencing a difficult labor, where victories intertwine with defeats and severe disappointments. With about half a year remaining until the elections, the outlines of the forces that have succeeded in advancing, and those that have fallen behind, threatening to completely exit the political map, have begun to become clear.

The opposition 'Change Bloc' is currently divided into two main wings: the right and the center-left, each with its own calculations and balances. Three strong names stand out in the right wing, competing for leadership: Naftali Bennett, Avigdor Lieberman, and Gideon Sa'ar, amidst failed attempts to unite some of these poles.

The current stage witnessed Avigdor Lieberman displacing his rival Gideon Sa'ar from the path to the top, especially after the latter's popularity declined in opinion polls. This decline pushed Sa'ar and his 'New Hope' party to split and return to the Likud party, in a move described as an attempt at political survival after barely passing the electoral threshold.

In contrast, Naftali Bennett managed to strengthen his position in opinion polls, surpassing Lieberman in the 'semifinal' of the opposition right-wing camp. Data shows that a coalition combining Bennett and Lieberman could double the number of seats, despite Lieberman's insistence that he is the best candidate for the next premiership.

Observers believe that Lieberman's association with the opposition does not stem from an ideological difference with the ruling right, but rather is the result of a sharp personal tension with Benjamin Netanyahu. Lieberman still adopts extremist right-wing policies, and in some matters, he even surpasses the current coalition in extremism, especially in his support for the judicial overhaul project.

As for the center-left wing, the scene is no less heated, with former partners Benny Gantz and Gadi Eizenkot confronting each other. The competition focuses on the votes of the State Camp, the party that Gantz founded and led for a long time before the balance of power within it began to shift surprisingly.

Opinion polls had given Gantz about 38 seats following the October 7 attack, but this momentum gradually began to fade over time. With his position declining, Eizenkot demanded to take over the party's leadership, which Gantz refused, ultimately leading to Eizenkot's resignation and the start of an independent political path.

During the harsh war months, Gantz's approval rating recorded a significant decline from which he has not been able to recover until now, according to informed sources. In contrast, Gadi Eizenkot's stock rose sharply in opinion polls, enabling him to surpass traditional opposition leaders such as Yair Lapid and Yair Golan.

Eizenkot currently appears as the de facto leader of the center-left current, ready to enter the final competition against Naftali Bennett for the leadership of the Change Bloc. This sudden rise of Eizenkot in the polls has disrupted traditional calculations and placed him in a strong rival position against Bennett's ambitions to return to the premiership.

Analyzes confirm that Eizenkot has an additional advantage, which is the widespread popular movement supporting him in recent opinion polls. However, Bennett still maintains an advanced position, making the competition between them largely dependent on the mistakes either of them might make in the coming months.

The scene requires all candidates in the Change Bloc to persevere until the end and acknowledge the legitimacy of whoever takes first place to ensure the bloc's unity. However, Yair Lapid is still singing a different tune, warning against trusting his rivals and demanding to be the sole option for leading the opposition.

Despite Lapid's continuous attempts to establish his legitimacy, the gaps between him and Eizenkot in terms of suitability for the premiership have begun to narrow significantly. This fierce competition reflects the state of division and the search for a strong alternative that can confront Netanyahu's continued dominance of the Israeli political scene.

Ultimately, the next six months will remain crucial in determining the shape of the final alliances that will contest the Knesset elections. Opposition leaders will have to balance their personal ambitions with the strategic goal of bringing about real change in the hierarchy of Israeli power.

The Israeli opposition is witnessing many surprises and political intrigues that could even risk displacing traditional forces from the political map.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu launched a sharp attack on the Israeli Supreme Court, following its decision to allow protest demonstrations rejecting the continuation of the war against Iran. Netanyahu described this measure as 'unbelievable', considering that the judiciary is providing cover for political movements at a sensitive time for the Hebrew state.

Netanyahu's statements came via the 'X' platform the day after protests in Tel Aviv, where Israeli police intervened to forcibly disperse gatherings and arrested at least 17 participants. Press sources reported that clashes erupted in Habima Square, leading to a state of chaos that required urgent intervention by medical teams.

The Israeli Prime Minister used this incident to draw a comparison between freedom of demonstration and freedom of worship, noting that authorities impose restrictions on Jewish prayers at the Western Wall during the Passover holiday. Netanyahu stressed that while freedom of demonstration is guaranteed, it should not overshadow religious rights, which are no less important in the Israeli perspective.

Netanyahu emphasized in his speech that security powers in emergency situations must remain exclusively in the hands of the military establishment, specifically the army's Home Front Command. He clarified that this body is the only one authorized to assess the situation and determine the necessary security arrangements to protect the public, away from judicial interventions that may hinder security operations.

On the ground, medical sources revealed that one of the demonstrators suffered a severe heart attack during the dispersal of the protest in Tel Aviv, where Magen David Adom teams performed cardiopulmonary resuscitation on him at the scene. The injured person was transferred to the hospital for treatment, where his condition was later described as stable despite the seriousness of the incident, which coincided with the stampede of protesters.

According to field estimates, about 300 Israelis participated in the Tel Aviv demonstration, while about 150 others in the northern city of Haifa expressed their rejection of current military policies. These numbers reflect a division in Israeli society, although opinion polls initially indicated widespread support for military operations against Tehran.

Data issued by the Institute for National Security Studies at Tel Aviv University indicates that the approval rate for the war reached 80% in its early days, but this rate began to decline significantly as the conflict entered its second month. This decline comes amid the continued exchange of rocket barrages and drones between Israel and Iran since the outbreak of direct confrontation last February.

Unbelievable, while Jews are prevented from praying at the Western Wall during the holiday, the Supreme Court allowed a left-wing demonstration in Tel Aviv.

By: Said Arikat

April 6, 2026

News Analysis

Washington, D.C- In a dramatic episode that captures both the sophistication and contradictions of contemporary warfare, U.S. special operations forces—working in close coordination with the Central Intelligence Agency—executed a high-risk mission to rescue an American airman downed deep inside Iranian territory. The operation has been widely celebrated in Washington as a remarkable feat of precision, coordination, and courage. Yet beyond the operational triumph lies a more unsettling reality: the mission reveals not only the reach of American military power, but also its strategic limitations and ethical ambiguities in an era defined by protracted and increasingly opaque conflicts.

The incident began with the downing of a U.S. F-15E fighter jet over rugged mountainous terrain during an active combat sortie over Iran. While one crew member was quickly recovered, the weapon systems officer was left stranded—injured, isolated, and surrounded by hostile forces, including Iranian units and local armed groups conducting an intensive search. What followed was not merely a rescue effort but a race against time with profound geopolitical stakes. The prospect of an American serviceman falling into Iranian custody raised the specter of intelligence compromise, propaganda exploitation, and rapid escalation between two adversaries already locked in a volatile confrontation.

To cast this mission as unprecedented, however, would be historically misleading. The United States has conducted similarly daring—and arguably more perilous—rescues under even more constrained conditions. On June 8, 1995, U.S. forces extracted F-16 pilot Scott O’Grady from hostile territory in Bosnia, six days after his aircraft was shot down. Surviving with minimal supplies while evading Bosnian Serb forces, O’Grady’s rescue required a complex Marine Corps operation conducted under constant threat of enemy air defenses. That episode, like the current one, demonstrated not only technical capability but also institutional resolve, reminding us that such feats are part of a longer tradition rather than a wholly new threshold of military prowess.

Central to the recent mission’s success was the seamless integration of military and intelligence capabilities. The Central Intelligence Agency’s role extended far beyond surveillance; it orchestrated a sophisticated deception campaign within Iran, spreading false narratives that the downed airman had already been extracted. This tactic diverted search efforts and created a narrow operational window. While effective, such reliance on disinformation underscores a broader transformation in warfare, where controlling perception can be as decisive as controlling territory. It also raises enduring ethical questions about the normalization of deception as a primary instrument of statecraft.

Technological superiority played a decisive role as well. Advanced surveillance systems, real-time data analysis, and precision sensing enabled U.S. forces to locate the stranded airman in what one official described as a “needle in a haystack” scenario. Yet this capability highlights a striking paradox: the same military apparatus that can pinpoint an individual in near-impossible terrain continues to struggle with articulating a coherent strategy to end the broader conflict in which such incidents occur. Tactical brilliance coexists with strategic drift.

The final phase of the operation—authorized directly by President Donald Trump—involved the most perilous maneuver. Rescue helicopters penetrated Iranian airspace at low altitude to evade detection, coming under ground fire that injured several personnel. Despite these risks, the team successfully secured the airman and executed a rapid extraction. As a discrete military action, the mission achieved its objective with impressive efficiency. But its significance cannot be assessed in isolation from the wider strategic environment.

Indeed, the rescue provided a symbolic boost to a U.S. administration navigating the pressures of an ongoing and undefined conflict. Recovering a single serviceman carries immense moral and political weight, reinforcing the military’s commitment to leaving no one behind. However, such victories risk sustaining a narrative of dominance that obscures deeper structural challenges. They can create the illusion of progress in a conflict where the underlying dynamics remain unresolved.

The operation also reflects a broader transformation in warfare itself. The battlefield now extends into the informational domain, where narratives, misinformation, and psychological operations shape outcomes alongside kinetic force. The deception campaign exemplifies this shift, illustrating how success increasingly depends on the manipulation of perception. Yet this evolution carries risks: as adversaries adapt, the informational domain may become an arena of escalating competition, amplifying uncertainty and increasing the likelihood of miscalculation.

Equally significant is the precedent set by the mission’s geographic scope. The downing of an American aircraft and the subsequent rescue operation inside Iran mark a notable escalation in direct engagement. Although the incident ended without catastrophic losses, it underscores the fragility of the current equilibrium. Each such intrusion risks triggering retaliatory actions that could spiral beyond control in an already volatile region.

Yet if the operation reflects the precision of American military power, President Donald Trump’s rhetoric reveals a starkly different dimension—one marked not by discipline, but by excess. In a post on Truth Social, the president warned that if Iran did not reopen the Strait of Hormuz by a fixed deadline, the United States would “totally destroy” the country. The language was crude, maximalist, and strikingly indifferent to the norms of responsible statecraft.

That indifference is made more troubling by a basic strategic fact: Iran is not a nuclear-armed state. This is not a case of mutual nuclear deterrence between equals, but a sweeping threat directed at a non-nuclear country. The imbalance sharpens the sense that the rhetoric is less about deterrence than about coercion untethered from proportionality, projecting dominance at the expense of credibility.

Such language carries real strategic risk. By framing policy in the form of ultimatums, the president narrows the space for de-escalation while increasing the likelihood of reciprocal escalation. It encourages defiance rather than compromise, particularly in a region where sovereignty and dignity are deeply intertwined with political decision-making. In this sense, the rhetoric is not merely undisciplined—it is counterproductive.

Moreover, tone matters in international politics. When the leader of the United States adopts language that appears impulsive or openly punitive, it risks eroding allied confidence while hardening adversarial resolve. It introduces a dangerous form of ambiguity—one that obscures intent rather than clarifies it, increasing the risk of miscalculation.

This dissonance between operational discipline and rhetorical volatility encapsulates a central paradox of American power. On the battlefield, the United States demonstrates unparalleled capability to act decisively. In the political arena, however, that precision is often undermined by messaging that amplifies risk rather than containing it.

In the final analysis, the rescue stands as both a testament to American military prowess and a cautionary tale about its limits. It is a story of audacity and competence, but also of ambiguity and unresolved tension. The enduring question is not whether the United States can execute such missions, but whether it can align its tactical excellence with a coherent and credible strategy—one grounded less in threats of destruction than in the difficult work of preventing it.

Palestinian neighborhoods in occupied East Jerusalem face a growing existential threat due to an arsenal of old laws and documents used by settler groups to seize properties. The Judicial and Administrative Arrangements Law of 1970, known as 'Yemeni Jewish Property,' stands out as a key tool in this systematic process aimed at undermining the Palestinian presence in the Holy City.

The roots of this crisis date back to the late 19th century, when Jewish donors established what is known as the 'Benvenisti' endowment to purchase lands in the Silwan area to house Jews who came from Yemen. A residential nucleus known as the 'Yemeni Village' was formed at that time, but the British authorities evacuated its residents in 1938 due to security tensions, and the land has remained registered under the endowment's name ever since.

Following the occupation of East Jerusalem in 1967, Palestinian families began to settle in neighborhoods such as Batn al-Hawa and Sheikh Jarrah, relying on official ownership contracts and purchase certificates from local owners or with permits from the Jordanian administration. The residents were unaware that these properties were located within the boundaries of lands historically registered under Jewish endowments, which made them vulnerable to complex legal persecutions later on.

The issuance of the 1970 law created a stark double standard in the occupation's judicial system, as it allowed Jews to claim properties they lost before 1948 in East Jerusalem. In contrast, the same law deprives Palestinians of any similar right to reclaim their properties and homes from which they were displaced in the western part of the city, thus entrenching a policy of racial discrimination.

The 'Ateret Cohanim' settler association is the actual driver of these lawsuits, especially after it obtained guardianship rights over the 'Benvenisti' endowment in 2001. Since then, the association has exploited historical documents to file hundreds of eviction cases against Palestinian families, claiming that their presence is illegal and that the rights belong to the settlers.

The period between late 2025 and early 2026 witnessed a dangerous turning point, as the Israeli Supreme Court rejected appeals filed by Palestinian families against their eviction decisions. This judicial rejection gave the green light to settlers to carry out widespread forced seizures, supported by police forces that secure the evictions.

In addition to the judicial path, settler associations follow convoluted methods to strengthen their control, including using shell companies and intermediaries to register properties indirectly. These entities also exert financial and psychological pressure on families by offering tempting offers to leave or burdening them with court expenses and repeated legal letters.

These systematic measures have transformed the law from a regulatory framework into a political and demographic tool aimed primarily at expanding settlements in the heart of Arab neighborhoods. Instead of providing protection to residents who have lived in their homes for decades, the judicial system has become a platform to justify forced displacement and change the historical character of Jerusalem.

Ultimately, the 1970 law represents the cornerstone of the strategy to change the demographic reality of East Jerusalem by exploiting old endowment properties. Entire neighborhoods are currently being reshaped in favor of settlers, in clear violation of all international conventions that prohibit the occupying power from changing the features of the occupied land or displacing its residents.

The law has transformed from a tool for reclaiming alleged historical ownership into a political platform aimed at changing Jerusalem's demographic identity.

Hebrew press sources reported that Iran has managed to unprecedentedly strengthen its grip on oil exports in the Arabian Gulf region, a first in decades. Reports clarified that Tehran exploited its advanced military capabilities to impose a new reality, enabling it to achieve massive economic gains since the outbreak of the recent confrontation.

Maariv newspaper stated that these financial gains allowed Tehran to accelerate the rebuilding of its strategic industries that were previously damaged. These operations include the rapid development of missile systems and nuclear programs, which has given it the political audacity to claim sovereignty over the international Strait of Hormuz.

Data indicates that Iran doubled its oil revenues during the first month of the war compared to any previous periods in recent years. This increase reflects the nature of the economic campaign managed by Tehran, which appears to transcend traditional military solutions that international powers might resort to.

Sources confirmed that the US administration has begun to realize the difficulty of confronting this Iranian strategy or imposing control over the situation on the ground. Tehran had prepared for such scenarios for many years, developing precise plans to paralyze oil exports from the Gulf, which supplies 15% of global consumption.

Iranian capabilities extend to missiles and drones with a range of up to 2000 kilometers, giving it the ability to disrupt navigation in the Arabian Sea and the Gulf of Oman. Observers believe that hitting just one ship would be enough to completely halt navigation due to insurance companies ceasing coverage for transiting vessels.

The report cited the example of the Houthis in Yemen, who managed to disrupt international navigation despite possessing significantly fewer military capabilities than Iran. The newspaper considered that control over international energy corridors is a strategic weapon that currently surpasses the impact of possessing nuclear weapons.

Historically, the report compared the current situation to the Turkish closure of the Dardanelles Strait during World War I, which prevented supplies from reaching Russia. This British failure at the time to control the waterways led to the resignation of prominent military and political leaders due to heavy human losses.

Internationally, the International Energy Agency announced that the world is facing an oil supply disruption not seen since the 1973 embargo. This comes as exports from major countries such as Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Kuwait, and the UAE through the Gulf have ceased due to the current blockade.

Estimates indicate that approximately 800 ships are currently trapped in the Arabian Gulf, with the United States lacking sufficient military capability to lift this blockade. The global rise in oil prices has effectively lifted sanctions on Iran, allowing it to sell its production more freely.

China accounts for about 90% of Iranian oil exports, while supplies from other Gulf countries to global markets have ceased. Tehran has begun to impose new trade conditions, including reducing discounts granted to China and imposing protection fees on other countries signing bilateral agreements.

On the ground, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard fully controls export operations from Kharg Island, where it enforces a strict passage system. Transiting vessels are required to obtain special passwords and security escort from Revolutionary Guard boats to ensure their passage through the Strait of Hormuz.

Reports documented the loading of five giant oil tankers in one day with a total cargo of 7.7 million barrels, generating huge daily revenues. Sources predicted that annual revenues would exceed one trillion dollars, giving Tehran immense financial capacity to fund its military operations and heavy industries.

In a notable shift, US President Donald Trump backed down from his previous threats to attack Iranian oil fields, expressing willingness to cooperate on the Strait. Analysts believe that this approach could change the balance of power in the region and place neighboring countries in a critical geopolitical situation in the face of escalating Iranian influence.

The report concluded that the Strait of Hormuz has transformed from an open international passage into a zone of influence where Tehran exercises de facto policies. The biggest challenge for Western military planners remains finding a practical solution that ensures energy flow without sliding into an all-out confrontation with uncertain outcomes.

Control over energy exports from the Arabian Gulf is a stronger winning card than nuclear weapons in the current conflict.

The Jerusalem Governorate confirmed in an official statement issued on Sunday evening that occupied Jerusalem witnessed a dangerous and unprecedented escalation during the ongoing Jewish Passover holiday. Official sources clarified that seven attempts by settler groups to bring live 'Passover sacrifices' into the courtyards of the blessed Al-Aqsa Mosque were documented, noting that this number is the highest recorded since the occupation of the city in 1967.

According to the report issued by the Governorate, groups of settlers managed to reach the outskirts of the Old City with sacrifices in two separate attempts, as part of a frantic endeavor to impose new Judaization rituals within the Al-Aqsa Sanctuary. Palestinian authorities warned that these movements represent the peak of employing religious rituals as a colonial tool aimed at entrenching the narrative of the 'alleged Temple' and changing the status quo in the Mosque.

The Governorate indicated that extremist organizations adopting the ideology of 'building the Temple' have begun using advanced technological techniques, including artificial intelligence, to manage intensive propaganda campaigns aimed at mobilizing extremists. These campaigns aim to incite settlers to forcibly impose the sacrifice ritual inside Al-Aqsa, exploiting the full protection provided by the occupation forces for these provocative movements that target the feelings of Muslims.

In a related context, the occupation authorities continue to impose a strict siege on the holy sites in the occupied city, with the Al-Aqsa Mosque and the Church of the Holy Sepulchre remaining closed for the 37th consecutive day. The occupation authorities claim to impose a 'state of emergency' to prevent Palestinian worshipers from reaching their holy sites, which has led to the emptiness of the Al-Aqsa Mosque courtyards of worshipers for the fifth consecutive Friday, a scene reflecting the extent of the practiced constriction.

In the face of this bitter reality, popular and Jerusalemite calls have escalated for the necessity of mobilization and steadfastness towards the military checkpoints surrounding the Old City to break the imposed security cordon. Jerusalemite activists stressed the importance of popular pressure to reopen Islamic and Christian holy sites and reject the systematic closure policy aimed at emptying the city of its original inhabitants and facilitating settler incursions.

The Jerusalem Governorate called on the international community and human rights organizations to take urgent and effective action to stop the imposition of new Judaization realities in the holy city. It affirmed in its statement that ensuring the protection of the Islamic and Arab identity of the holy sites is an international responsibility, warning that silence on these violations gives the occupation a green light to continue its policies that violate international laws and conventions.

Finally, the Governorate concluded its warning by emphasizing that the continued closure of Al-Aqsa, coinciding with allowing settlers to desecrate it with sacrifices and pagan rituals, is a blatant aggression that pushes the region towards a comprehensive explosion. It stressed that this religious and political 'thuggery' requires decisive intervention to end the Israeli encroachment on holy sites and prevent the conflict from turning into a religious war whose repercussions cannot be controlled.

Slaughtering sacrifices inside Al-Aqsa represents a moral prelude to the material establishment of the alleged Temple over the entire area of the blessed Mosque.

Security and political assessments within Israel have revealed a radical shift in the regional vision towards the Lebanese file, as current readings indicate that the continued inability of the Lebanese state to curb Hezbollah's influence opens the door to unprecedented understandings with Syria. These trends come amid a sharp decline in American and Western trust in official institutions in Beirut, pushing for the search for alternatives capable of imposing a new security reality on the ground.

Hebrew press reports stated that the absence of an effective Lebanese partner, both politically and militarily, has strengthened the conviction among decision-making circles in Tel Aviv of the necessity to find alternative regional paths. Sources explained that American disappointment with Lebanon has reached deep levels, with a growing belief that the Lebanese government has failed to meet the minimum of its security and political obligations towards the international community.

Israeli readings indicate that the Lebanese army is now seen as a force incapable of confrontation, and some assessments go further by accusing it of avoiding direct conflict with Hezbollah. These sources confirm serious concerns about the infiltration of pro-Hezbollah elements into the ranks of the military establishment, making reliance on it in any future security arrangements impractical.

In light of this reality, a conclusion is crystallizing within Israeli circles that ending the threat on the northern front requires a radical treatment of Hezbollah's military structure. Assessments emphasize the need to work towards the complete disarmament of southern Lebanon and to ensure the absence of any armed presence of Hezbollah in border areas that pose a direct threat to Israeli settlements in the Galilee.

In this context, a sensitive vision emerges, suggesting that the only forces capable of effectively confronting Hezbollah are Israel and Syria in its new phase. This approach does not mean building a traditional alliance, but rather a strategic convergence of interests that views the current Syrian leadership as a natural adversary to Hezbollah's influence, making it a potential partner in managing the complex Lebanese file.

The proposed scenario for discussion includes a division of security roles, where the Israeli army takes operational control in southern Lebanon to prevent any border threats, while Syrian forces conduct operations in northern and inner Lebanon against Hezbollah strongholds. This proposal is seen as an alternative option resulting from the failure of all previous diplomatic and political paths that attempted to contain the situation.

Informed sources reported that these understandings may include sensitive border and sovereignty issues, including the Mount Hermon file, within the framework of a broader settlement aimed at reshaping the security environment in the region. Despite the boldness of this proposal, sources confirm that it does not aim to overthrow the Lebanese regime as much as it focuses on definitively neutralizing Hezbollah's military arsenal.

Available information confirms the existence of multi-level dialogue channels between Israel and Syria, taking place away from the spotlight and potentially with American mediation in some aspects. Although these contacts have not yet reached the level of announced official negotiations, they reflect a serious search for practical solutions that go beyond traditional formulas that have proven to be failures over the past years.

Observers believe that this Israeli approach represents an attempt to impose a new reality in the absence of a decisive Western role that provides direct military support to the Lebanese army to confront Hezbollah. According to the Israeli vision, the emergence of serious international action might change these calculations, but current indicators do not suggest an international will for direct intervention in the internal Lebanese conflict.

As for the American position, assessments indicate a state of hesitation, as Washington prefers to avoid this complex path but at the same time no longer relies on Beirut's capabilities. It is believed that American frustration with unfulfilled Lebanese promises may push the United States to implicitly accept these regional understandings if they prove effective in undermining Hezbollah's influence.

Israeli sources emphasize that the ultimate goal is not to control Lebanese territories, but to ensure that they are not used as a platform for launching missile attacks or infiltration operations. Tel Aviv considers that any arrangement that does not guarantee Hezbollah's permanent removal from the borders is a temporary arrangement that will not lead to long-term stability in the northern region.

Ultimately, this scenario remains subject to field developments and the extent to which regional parties respond to these rapid changes. With the escalation continuing, all options remain open to the Israeli decision-maker, who appears ready to break traditional rules in order to achieve his strategic security goals regarding the Lebanese front.

From an Israeli perspective, the only two parties capable of confronting Hezbollah are Israel and the new Syria led by Ahmed al-Sharaa.

Recent journalistic analyses have revealed the escalating influence of the Evangelical Christian movement in shaping the direction of American policy, where religion is no longer merely a cultural backdrop but a primary driver of military and political decisions. An investigative report indicated that President Donald Trump's administration is witnessing an unprecedented overlap between religious beliefs related to 'end times' and foreign strategies, especially concerning the conflict with Iran and absolute support for the Israeli occupation.

The name of Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth stands out as one of the most prominent figures embodying this trend, as he belongs to the 'Reformed Evangelical Church Partnership' denomination. Hegseth adopts a discourse that integrates militarism and doctrine, portraying armed operations as part of a 'spiritual war' aimed at protecting what he describes as the Christian nation and conquering its enemies, which was clearly evident in his public prayers within the Pentagon where he called for 'overwhelming violence' against adversaries.

Analytical readings suggest that Hegseth does not recognize the authority of international law or human rights conventions in times of war, considering biblical law as the sole and binding reference. This approach poses legal and ethical challenges for the American military establishment, as extremist religious interpretations are prioritized over constitutional and international obligations governing armed conflicts.

In a related context, President Trump appeared in a speech addressed to the nation justifying military escalation against Iran, using claims about Iran's nuclear program that intelligence sources described as inaccurate. This discourse seems aimed at solidifying the war narrative among the evangelical electoral base, which views confronting Iran as a religious necessity before it is a political or security one.

Organizations such as 'Christians United for Israel' (CUFI), founded by Pastor John Hagee, play a pivotal role in mobilizing support for right-wing policies. Hagee, who has widespread influence over millions of evangelicals, promotes the idea that supporting the Israeli occupation is a biblical duty that paves the way for the Second Coming of Christ, which explains the continuous pressure to launch preemptive wars in the region.

Unlike traditional Christian Zionism, which focuses on 'the Rapture' and tribulations, Hegseth's movement belongs to a more aggressive vision that seeks to establish 'God's kingdom' on Earth through military force. This imperial vision sees American expansion as a divine tool, making diplomacy a secondary option compared to the language of bullets and overwhelming military operations that know no mercy.

Internally, the 'Heritage Foundation' stands out as an intellectual arm of this movement through 'Project 2025,' which seeks to reshape American society according to a 'natural family' perspective. This agenda includes strict restrictions on abortion rights, fighting minority rights, and promoting white Christian identity as a fundamental pillar of the state, thereby deepening societal division within the United States.

Regarding immigration, white evangelicals appear as the fiercest supporters of deportation and border repression policies, stemming from a perception that racial diversity threatens the 'Christian nation.' These individuals believe that restoring America necessarily means returning to an old social structure that marginalizes civil rights gained by minorities over the past decades.

On the other hand, cracks have begun to appear within the 'MAGA' base due to overwhelming Israeli influence, with figures like Candace Owens leading a movement that questions the utility of foreign wars for Israel. This internal conflict reflects a divergence between right-wing Catholics and evangelicals regarding foreign policy priorities and the extent to which national American interests should be sacrificed for religious prophecies.

On the opposing front, progressive and pro-Palestinian groups are trying to exploit these contradictions within the Republican Party, planning to spend millions of dollars in swing districts. These moves aim to highlight the financial and human costs of wars pushed by the religious right and to attract voters who reject unjustified military intervention.

Sources indicate that Senator Bernie Sanders and other progressive figures support candidates who openly oppose war with Iran, making the upcoming elections a real test of the impact of foreign policy issues on American voters. The conflict here is between a leftist vision advocating for peace and international justice, and a right-wing religious vision pushing for open military confrontations.

The infrastructure of the Christian Right is not just a fleeting phenomenon; it is a complex network comprising law schools, media institutions, and social media platforms that work in harmony to spread its ideology. This system aims to prepare a new generation of judges, lawyers, and politicians who believe in integrating the Bible into the civil and military laws of the state.

Observers believe that traditional media failed to appreciate the seriousness of this movement, treating Trump's relationship with evangelicals as a temporary alliance of convenience rather than a deep ideological integration. This failure to understand led to a lack of public oversight over policies that could lead to international disasters due to mystical motives not based on tangible political reality.

In conclusion, the overlap between the 'sacred' and the political in Washington continues to portend a period of global instability, where strategic decisions become tools to fulfill religious prophecies. As these figures continue to dominate the scene, the question remains about the ability of American democratic institutions to curb this trend and prevent the country from sliding into religious wars under a political guise.

Hegseth believes he is fighting a spiritual and actual war to conquer the enemies of a Christian nation, and he sees biblical law as the only binding reference for him.

Johnny Gannon, a former CIA agent, affirmed that efforts to change the regime in Tehran face deep structural complexities, warning against being drawn into the idea that military force alone is sufficient to create sustainable political transformation. Gannon explained in an analytical article that there is a significant gap between achieving battlefield victories and reshaping the political culture of a country the size of Iran.

The former intelligence official, who spent more than two decades in covert operations, pointed out that Washington and its allies must avoid falling into the trap of political illusions. He considered that the ability to destroy targets from the air does not necessarily mean the ability to rebuild human and political structures from closed meeting rooms in the American capital.

In his reading of the Iranian internal situation, Gannon noted that the institutions of power, represented by the Revolutionary Guard and the army, remain largely cohesive, as their economic and existential interests are linked to the survival of the current regime. He believes that the tools of repression and control are still effective enough to thwart any immediate attempts at radical change from within.

The article touched upon the Gulf stance, explaining that the United States' partners, foremost among them the UAE, fear the repercussions of a 'wounded' Iranian regime that might resort to suicidal options. A long war could disrupt navigation in the Strait of Hormuz and threaten the security of investments in vital economic centers such as Dubai and Abu Dhabi.

Gannon warned that any ill-considered escalation could push Tehran towards using 'asymmetric response,' through proxies or cross-border covert operations. This scenario would place the region before an exorbitant cost that goes beyond mere direct military operations, threatening regional stability for many years.

Regarding the opposition, the author believes that the Iranian diaspora suffers from sharp divisions that prevent it from presenting a unified and acceptable alternative internally. He also pointed out that the 'Mujahedin-e Khalq' organization lacks the popular base and credibility necessary to lead a transitional phase within Iranian territory.

As for Reza Pahlavi, the son of the former Shah, Gannon explained that despite his widespread fame in Western circles, he lacks loyalty within Iranian security and military institutions. Without this loyalty, any talk of an actual transfer of power remains mere wishful thinking that finds no resonance on the ground.

The article emphasized the necessity for the United States to adhere to ethical standards to reduce risks to Iranian civilians, calling for a transparent investigation into the bombing incident of the 'Minab' school. He stressed that acknowledging error and apologizing if American responsibility is proven is essential to preserve what remains of goodwill among the Iranian people.

Gannon reviewed historical lessons, recalling the coups led by Washington in Iran in 1953 and in Guatemala in 1954, asserting that they proved the limits of covert action. While these operations can remove a specific leader, they rarely succeed in building political legitimacy or a stable system that enjoys popular acceptance.

The intelligence analyst warned that exceeding the stated goals of the current US administration could drag the region into a comprehensive regional war. He considered that the attempt to 'engineer' the Middle East through hard power has proven its repeated failure due to a misunderstanding of the complex nature of the balance of power in the region.

In conclusion of his analysis, Gannon called for adopting a strategy of 'strategic patience,' which relies on gradually weakening the regime's capabilities while reducing the pace of direct bombing. He believes that this path requires close coordination with regional allies who will be on the front lines to face any future consequences.

The article concluded that history teaches us that demolishing regimes is much easier than building their alternatives, and that change in Iran may eventually happen, but it must come from within. He stressed that the wisest course is to maintain smart pressures without sliding into military adventures with uncertain outcomes.

The challenge for Washington is how to capitalize on gains without falling into the illusion that pressure alone can lead to regime change.

Washington – Said Arikat – 5/4/2026

News Analysis

In a striking military development that reflects the nature and complexities of modern warfare, US special forces, in close coordination with the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), successfully carried out a high-risk rescue operation for an American pilot whose plane crashed inside Iranian territory, as reported by "The Washington Post." However, this success, presented as an exceptional achievement, opens the door to a deeper critical reading, extending beyond the operational dimension to what it reflects in terms of strategic and ethical dilemmas in conflict management.

The incident began with the downing of a US F-15E fighter jet in a rugged mountainous area while it was carrying out blatant aggression in Iran, leading to the ejection of its crew. While the first pilot was quickly rescued, the weapon systems officer found himself alone, injured, and surrounded by a hostile environment, at a time when Iranian forces and local groups were combing the area in search of him. At that moment, according to experts, the issue became a race against time, not only to save an individual's life but to avoid serious political and intelligence repercussions if he were captured.

In this context, the coordination between the US military and the CIA emerged as a crucial element in managing the operation. However, this coordination was not limited to intelligence gathering but also included the use of strategic deception tools, by spreading misleading narratives within Iran claiming that the pilot had already been evacuated. This tactic contributed to diverting search efforts and gave US forces a time window to act. Yet, this approach raises questions about the limits of using deception in conflicts, especially when it becomes a central tool in managing operations, reflecting an increasing shift towards "narrative warfare" where truth itself becomes part of the battle.

In parallel, the operation relied on advanced intelligence capabilities, including surveillance, sensing technologies, and data analysis, which enabled the pilot's location to be pinpointed in a narrow mountain gorge. One official described this mission as akin to finding a "needle in a haystack," a description that summarizes the magnitude of the challenge. However, this technical superiority highlights a striking paradox: while Washington can locate an individual in complex terrain in record time, it still lacks a clear strategy to end a conflict whose scope is expanding and whose cost is escalating.

According to the newspaper, President Donald Trump issued orders to execute the "extraction" operation after confirmation, initiating the most dangerous phase. Rescue helicopters entered Iranian airspace at low altitudes, attempting to evade detection, but came under ground fire, injuring several soldiers. Despite this, forces managed to reach and secure the pilot before executing a rapid evacuation, in a scene reflecting a high level of operational efficiency and field daring.

However, this tactical success cannot be separated from its broader context. On the one hand, it provided the US administration with a moral victory amidst an ongoing war, and on the other hand, it highlighted the fragility of the strategic situation. The recovery of a single soldier, no matter how important, does not address the roots of the conflict but may be used to reinforce a narrative of military superiority, thereby justifying continued involvement in an open conflict without a clear horizon for resolution.

The operation also reveals a qualitative shift in the nature of warfare, where confrontation is no longer confined to the traditional battlefield but has extended into the information space. The disinformation campaign led by the CIA played a pivotal role in the mission's success, reflecting the growing importance of psychological operations in contemporary conflicts. However, this shift opens the door to an escalating intelligence race, which may push adversaries to develop more complex counter-methods, increasing the likelihood of escalation and making crisis containment more difficult.

Furthermore, the downing of an American aircraft inside Iranian territory, and the subsequent deep rescue operation, indicates an unprecedented level of direct confrontation between the two sides. Although the operation ended without serious losses, it raises questions about the limits of escalation and the possibilities of retaliation in a highly tense regional environment. Every such penetration could be viewed as a precedent, opening the door to reciprocal reactions that are difficult to control.

The rescue operation of the American pilot reflects a complex mix of military success and strategic confusion. It demonstrates the United States' ability to conduct precise operations in hostile environments, but at the same time reveals the limits of this capability when it comes to managing long-term conflicts. While the operation is celebrated as a heroic achievement, a critical reading places it in a broader context, where tactical successes proliferate without translating into sustainable political solutions.

Thus, the operation, with all its daring and complexity, appears to be an example of the paradox of American power in modern warfare: a superior ability to decide in the moment, versus a continuous inability to decide the course. Between these two extremes, the big questions remain unanswered, while the war continues to produce more facts that are difficult to contain or predict their outcomes.

In conclusion, President Donald Trump's discourse emerges as an additional factor complicating the picture, as it is still largely characterized by confusion and disarray, as reflected in his contradictory statements regarding the war and its objectives. While he celebrates and exaggerates military successes, he returns to affirm his desire to avoid wars or reduce foreign involvement, creating a clear gap between rhetoric and practice. This discrepancy not only weakens the clarity of US strategy but also confuses allies and gives adversaries conflicting signals, which may exacerbate miscalculation and increase the likelihood of uncalculated escalation in a highly fragile environment.

Former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert launched an unprecedented attack on Israeli policies in the occupied West Bank, describing what is happening as murder, ethnic cleansing, and crimes against humanity. Olmert affirmed in media statements that these systematic practices against Palestinians will not go unpunished internationally, indicating that the occupying state is on the verge of a harsh legal confrontation before international judicial bodies.

Olmert explicitly warned that those who commit these acts and those responsible for providing political and military cover for them will soon find themselves behind bars at the International Criminal Court in The Hague. He considered that the continuation of violations in the West Bank represents a moral and legal decline that threatens the future of the entity and places it in suffocating international isolation, especially in light of the increasing reports documenting these transgressions.

In a direct and sharp message, Olmert addressed both Israeli Chief of Staff Eyal Zamir and Police Commissioner Danny Levy, demanding their immediate intervention to stop what he described as a catastrophe. He stressed that the silence of military and security leaders on the crimes of settlers and field units will make them partners in the criminal responsibility that international courts will consider later.

These statements come amid an escalation of Israeli attacks in West Bank cities and villages since October 2023, which included field killings, widespread demolition of homes, and forced displacement of residents. This wave of violence has resulted in the martyrdom of 1,340 Palestinians and the injury of about 11,750 others, in addition to arrest campaigns that affected nearly 22,000 Palestinian citizens.

On the international legal front, political circles are awaiting the repercussions of the arrest warrants issued by the International Criminal Court in November 2024 against Benjamin Netanyahu and Yoav Gallant. The Israeli leadership faces accusations of committing war crimes and crimes against humanity, charges that were reinforced after the court's appeals chamber rejected the Israeli appeals submitted to stop the investigations.

In a related context, the effects of the genocide war in the Gaza Strip continue to cast a shadow over the scene, despite the ceasefire agreement that came into effect in October 2025. That war left enormous destruction affecting 90% of the civilian infrastructure, with a heavy toll of victims exceeding 72,000 martyrs, amid UN estimates that reconstruction requires a huge budget of up to 70 billion dollars.

Olmert's position reflects a state of deep internal division within the Israeli political and security elite regarding the feasibility of extremist policies in the West Bank. These warnings coincide with increasing international fears of the current government's intention to proceed with plans to officially annex the West Bank, which could lead to a complete explosion of the situation in the region.

Save the country from this catastrophe.. You will come to The Hague.

In the heart of the Arab and Palestinian streets, politics appears to be a mirror of identity, geography, and ongoing conflict, more than a field for rational analysis and logical criticism. Politics is not merely programs, projects, or laws; for many, it represents a criterion of loyalty and belonging, and sometimes a criterion of ethics and conscience. From this, it becomes clear that emotion often precedes reason, and that critical rational analysis remains in the shadows, almost marginal in the face of a wave of popular emotions. This phenomenon is not superficial but deeply rooted in a long context of continuous conflicts, especially in Palestine and Lebanon, where politics intertwines with identity, religion, and history in a way that makes every political stance emotionally charged. When the Palestinian issue is presented in the media, the viewer is not just a recipient of information but participates in an emotional experience accumulated over decades: the pain of losing land, the scene of destruction, the cries of children, images that speak of violation and injustice. This emotional interaction, humanly natural, transforms in the street into a criterion for judging politics and leaders, and it overrides rational analysis, which requires objective detachment from momentary emotion.

In the Palestinian context specifically, there are elements that increase the dominance of emotion in political discourse. First, the prolonged conflict and the depth of ongoing violations, which create a continuous state of anger and collective psychological pressure. Second, the lack of trust in official institutions and institutional analysis, which makes people more reliant on direct emotional narratives, whether from the media, social networks, or even daily popular discourse. Third, the confusion between ethics and politics, where a person's stance on a particular issue becomes an ethical criterion before it is a political one. Any complex criticism of plans or policies is sometimes understood as betrayal or a weakness in loyalty to the cause. Modern media, especially social media, plays a dual role. Emotional content spreads faster, creates a wave of support or anger, and makes rational discourse seem slow and unattractive. Emotional images and videos, impactful speeches, and even sarcastic memes become more powerful tools in shaping public opinion than long articles and objective analyses.

But does this mean that Arab or Palestinian society is incapable of rational analysis? Certainly not. There are circles and fields where rationality and critical analysis clearly appear: academic institutions, closed discussions, some specialized newspapers and magazines, and intellectual forums. The problem is not the absence of the ability for critical thinking, but rather the environment that makes emotional discourse the loudest and most influential voice in the political sphere. In the dominance of emotion, it is not limited to the superiority of passion over analysis, but it reaches the point of criminalizing reason. Any attempt to understand reality rationally or offer calm criticism is sometimes understood as betrayal, subservience, or weakness in loyalty to the cause. Here, the political mind becomes suppressed and hidden, observing from afar, waiting for an opportune moment, fearing collision with the popular chorus or the emotionally charged public discourse. In such an environment, political debate turns into a theatrical display of emotion, while rational analysis becomes a luxury or indulgence not appreciated by the street, and perhaps even condemned by itself. Reason is in a constant state of leakage: it speaks in small circles, in closed conversations, or on a few platforms, while emotional discourse dominates public squares and every media or social outlet.

The result, unfortunately, is not neutral. The dominance of emotion over rationality in politics makes popular decisions susceptible to temporary feelings, and makes it difficult to build consensus on long-term policies. Political debate becomes a stage for the accumulation of emotions and slogans, rather than a space for analyzing options, comparing outcomes, or formulating implementable solutions. And in the ongoing conflict, this cycle continues: conflict feeds emotion, emotion influences politics, and politics in turn reproduces conflict.

True criticism does not mean belittling this emotion. It reflects society's sensitivity to fundamental issues and its belief in justice and rights. But at the same time, it indicates an urgent need to strengthen critical political culture, create spaces for calm discussion, and teach tools for objective analysis. In the absence of this culture, emotion remains the dominant factor in shaping politics, the street, and popular decision-making, and politics becomes a field for the accumulation of emotions, not an arena for rational logical analysis.

In the end, the Arab and Palestinian streets remain governed by their emotions, but it is an emotion with a dual weight: on one hand, it mobilizes society and makes real issues tangible, and on the other hand, it restricts critical reason and transforms political debate into an arena for shouting and bickering instead of analysis and planning. This fragile balance between emotion and reason is not just a phenomenon, but an existential challenge for politics itself. If the recurring cycles of emotion, emotional mobilization, and direct rejection of any critical voice continue, society faces the risk of entrenching the politics of the emotional moment at the expense of long-term rational decision-making. However, if some thinkers, leaders, and media professionals succeed in creating spaces for open discussion and presenting rational analysis in a way that the masses understand, the equation may gradually change, and the political mind may be able to emerge from its hiding place and participate in shaping decisions, without being condemned or accused of betrayal. Thus, the bigger question remains open: Will politics in this part of the world remain only a mirror of emotion, or will reason find its way into public debate, balancing the legitimate feeling of anger with the ability for rational planning? The Arab and Palestinian political future depends on the answer, and on society's ability to transform emotion from a dominant force into a partner in the process of political thinking, especially in a time when war, history, identity, and rights intertwine in a single, unyielding fabric.

Gaza - "Al-Quds" Dot Com - (WAFA) - The Ministry of Social Development in the Gaza Strip revealed shocking figures, as the number of children who lost one or both parents rose to 64,616 children. This number represents a huge leap from the 17,000 orphans registered before the start of the war waged by the Israeli occupation on the Gaza Strip in October 2023.The ministry indicates that "these children live in unprecedented humanitarian conditions, facing challenges that go beyond parental loss, including forced displacement, loss of shelter, disruption of health and educational services, and a severe shortage of food and medicine."In one of the scattered tents on the sands of Al-Mawasi, south of the Gaza Strip, seven-year-old child Ola Abu Jameh starts her day by drawing a house she once had and innocently murmuring: "My train, my train, take me home."That house no longer exists in eastern Khan Yunis; Israeli shelling leveled it to the ground, along with everyone in it: the father, mother, and two siblings. Today, the child lives with her sick grandmother.She is not alone in this fate; she is one of more than 64,000 Palestinian children who have lost one or both parents since the start of the war on Gaza three years ago, as Gaza's children face a completely different reality: a reality of loss, displacement, illness, and slow death.In one of the scattered tents on the sands of Al-Mawasi, south of the Gaza Strip, seven-year-old child Ola Abu Jameh starts her day by drawing a house she once had and innocently murmuring: "My train, my train, take me home."That house no longer exists in eastern Khan Yunis; Israeli shelling leveled it to the ground, along with everyone in it: the father, mother, and two siblings. Today, the child lives with her sick grandmother.She is not alone in this fate; she is one of more than 64,000 Palestinian children who have lost one or both parents since the start of the war on Gaza three years ago, as Gaza's children face a completely different reality: a reality of loss, displacement, illness, and slow death.Child Aya Al-Najjar, who lost her father in the bombing of their home in Khan Yunis city, south of the Gaza Strip, recounts in a childish voice heavy with bitterness: "We had a home, we lived there and were happy, we laughed and played. Suddenly, when the war came, our house was bombed and my father was martyred, everything changed."She adds with a bitterness befitting a ten-year-old: "Children around the world live safely with their parents. My father was martyred, and I wish to live in peace with my mother and siblings, to have a home, and to feel safe."The numbers are even harsher when we look at the scale of human losses. By February 2026, the Ministry of Health in Gaza announced the martyrdom of 21,289 children since the start of the war, in addition to more than 44,500 injured.Among the martyrs, there are 274 newborns and 876 infants under one year old, according to data from the Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics.When we asked 12-year-old Celine Saeed about her dreams, she didn't talk about playing or traveling, but about a school desk. "The best thing is to sit in class and see the teacher and the blackboard, and hold a pen again."Celine is one of the lucky ones. She enrolled in one of the schools, which are tent classrooms in displacement centers in the southern Gaza Strip. These schools barely cover a small part of the needs of more than 700,000 children deprived of formal education due to the occupation's war on the Gaza Strip.UNICEF estimates that about 90% of schools in Gaza have been damaged or completely destroyed during the Israeli aggression on Gaza.In a rare humanitarian scene, 11 premature babies returned to the Gaza Strip in March 2026, after spending more than two years away from their families, following their evacuation from Al-Shifa Hospital in November 2023 during its storming by the Israeli army.These children, who were born in harsh conditions and whose incubators had their electricity cut off by the occupation, were transferred to Egypt to receive medical care, without their families knowing their fate for many months.One of these children is "Sham" (two years old), whom her mother, Rawand Al-Wadiya, embraced for the first time since her birth. The mother says: "It's an indescribable feeling the moment I saw my daughter. I had been waiting for her for a long time. My tears did not stop, as if a part of my heart had returned after a long absence."Even infants were not spared the effects of the war. Health data showed that one in five newborns needs intensive care due to low birth weight, resulting from maternal malnutrition, chronic stress, and poor health care during pregnancy.As for 12-year-old Adam Shaqaliya, he experienced repeated displacement: "We were displaced from the north to Khan Yunis, then we returned to the north, and after that, we were displaced to the south again. Every time we reach a place, an evacuation order comes from the occupation. We pack our belongings and leave. There is no stability, and no place where we feel safe."It is worth noting that more than 1.9 million people in the Gaza Strip have been displaced, most of them multiple times, under intense Israeli shelling of their homes and cities and evacuation orders issued by the occupation to head to areas west of the Strip, forcing them to live in dilapidated tents and overcrowded schools, suffering from severe hunger, a shortage of clean water, and the spread of diseases such as hepatitis and skin diseases. They have been cut off from the most basic necessities of life: electricity, medicine, and dignity, and many have lost their children due to cold, shelling, or malnutrition, while their suffering worsens day by day due to poor living conditions.Elementary school student Reem Moussa summarizes the suffering of an entire generation by saying: "Instead of standing in the morning queue at school, I now stand in the soup kitchen queue to get food. I wish I could be like children around the world. I learn, I play, I have toys. And I don't wait every day for food or water."In addition, medical figures alone are not enough to describe the psychological state of Gaza's children. A report by the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) describes what is happening as a "deep mental health emergency."According to the fund's data, 96% of children in Gaza feel that death is imminent, while about 61% of adolescents and youth suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder, 38% suffer from depression, and 41% suffer from anxiety.Mohammed Zaaroub, a displaced child in Al-Mawasi, Khan Yunis, says with great sadness: "I was seven years old when our house turned into a pile of stones when occupation planes bombed it. I lost my father, mother, and younger sister under the rubble, and I only found my torn doll among the dust. Every night I dream that they are returning, then I wake up to the sound of planes and bullets. I no longer fear death, but I fear forgetting their faces."The Ministry of Social Development called for "urgent intervention from local and international institutions, with a focus on monthly orphan care, rebuilding destroyed childhood facilities, and providing intensive psychological support programs."However, with the occupation's continued closure of crossings and restriction of aid entry, these calls remain captive to reality. Gaza's children do not only need a day to be remembered, but a future to live in where they feel safe.Behind every child in Gaza is a story. A story of a postponed dream, a lost home, and a departed father. But despite all this, these children still hold onto their kites, raising their arms to the sky, insisting on life.It is worth noting that on April 5, 1995, during the first Palestinian Child Conference, the late President Yasser Arafat announced the State of Palestine's commitment to the International Convention on the Rights of the Child, making this date immortalized in the memory of generations as Palestinian Child's Day.This anniversary comes this year while the Israeli occupation machine continues its killing and war on the Gaza Strip since October 2023.

Lebanese President Joseph Aoun affirmed that the negotiation process aimed at stopping Israeli aggression does not represent surrender or a concession of national rights, indicating that the state is moving diplomatically with international powers to stop what he described as Israeli madness. Aoun explained in a speech on the occasion of Easter that there are parties seeking to drag the country into the abyss of war and sedition, emphasizing the necessity of national awareness at this delicate stage.\n\nThe Lebanese President considered civil peace a red line, warning that any attempt to stir up sectarian strife directly serves the interests of the Israeli occupation. He pointed out that freedom of expression must be disciplined under the ceiling of national security, describing some current behaviors as social savagery that threatens the stability of Lebanese society, which is weary of repeated wars.\n\nAoun strongly defended the role of the military establishment in protecting the country, expressing regret for the attacks targeting the Lebanese army by some parties. He affirmed that the army carries out its national duties away from political agendas, stressing that without the sacrifices of the military personnel, citizens would not have been able to stay in their homes under the current security conditions.\n\nOn the ground, Hezbollah announced the execution of a qualitative operation targeting an Israeli military warship off the Lebanese coast, the first time it has announced targeting naval vessels since the current escalation began. The party explained in an official statement that the operation was carried out using a naval cruise missile, targeting the warship 68 nautical miles away while it was preparing to carry out attacks on Lebanese territory.\n\nIn the context of the aerial escalation, Israeli aircraft launched intense raids targeting the town of Kfarhatta in southern Lebanon, resulting in one martyr, several injured, and widespread property damage. The town had been subjected to a series of intense night attacks following forced evacuation orders issued by the occupation army, leading to the martyrdom of a displaced family who had sought refuge in the town to escape the shelling.\n\nIsraeli raids also targeted the town of Siddiqin in the Tyre district, where medical and local sources reported three martyrs and several injured as a result of direct targeting of residential areas. This coincided with another raid targeting the town of Zrarieh, as part of a wide aerial campaign that included various areas of southern Lebanon and the southern suburbs of Beirut.\n\nRegarding ground operations, occupation forces carried out systematic demolition and bombing operations of homes in several border villages, including Naqoura, Debel, Alma al-Shaab, Qawzah, Bayada, and Shamaa. Field sources stated that the occupation burned and destroyed commercial shops, and used bulldozers and heavy machinery to demolish a hotel near the UNIFIL headquarters in Naqoura.\n\nIn a significant development, the Israeli army threatened to target the Masnaa border crossing between Lebanon and Syria, claiming it was used to transport combat means and weapons. This threat led to the evacuation of the General Security headquarters at the crossing and a complete halt to its operations, further tightening the noose on movement and vital supplies to Lebanon.\n\nThese developments come at a time when the occupation army has issued new evacuation warnings to residents of seven neighborhoods in the southern suburbs of Beirut, signaling a new wave of intense shelling on the area. The Lebanese capital is experiencing a state of anticipation and anxiety with the continued intensive overflight of warplanes and drones over various Lebanese regions.\n\nField reports indicate that the "scorched earth" policy pursued by the occupation in border villages aims to create a buffer zone devoid of residents and urban landmarks. Ambulance and civil defense teams continue their attempts to reach the targeted areas to retrieve victims, despite the significant difficulties resulting from continuous shelling and targeting of main roads.\n\nInternationally, warnings continue about the region sliding into a comprehensive war, with Washington calling on its citizens to leave Lebanon immediately as military operations escalate. In contrast, the Lebanese government insists on adhering to diplomatic paths and Resolution 1701 as a framework for a solution, despite continuous Israeli intransigence and the expansion of targeting to include civilians and infrastructure.\n\nNegotiating with Israel is not surrender or concession, and civil peace in Lebanon is a red line that cannot be crossed.

What Donald Trump said was not merely a slip of the tongue; rather, it was a frank expression of a political mindset that views allies as extensions of influence, not as partners. His statements regarding Mohammed bin Salman carried an unprecedented tone of condescension, as if the relationship between the United States and Saudi Arabia could be reduced to a "commander and commanded" equation. However, what followed was not a traditional reaction, but a calculated silence, reflecting not neutrality so much as a quiet transition to another level of political action, where interests are managed away from emotion, and balances are reconfigured without fanfare. In this context, the energy file stands out as the clearest entry point for understanding this shift; the East-West pipeline extending to Yanbu is no longer merely an economic project, but has become a sovereign tool that enhances decision-making independence, with a capacity of approximately seven million barrels per day, a capacity that often approaches the Kingdom's total oil exports. Thus, the centrality of the Strait of Hormuz, through which about a fifth of global oil trade passes, recedes from being a critical pressure point to merely one option among many, a clear indication that power is no longer just in production, but in the ability to control its routes and overcome geopolitical bottlenecks. However, this transformation is not limited to oil, but extends to reshaping the network of regional relations in a more flexible and balanced way; the Saudi role intersects with Turkey, Pakistan, and Egypt within a formula that does not amount to a traditional alliance as much as it reflects a multi-level "engineering of interests," combining a population weight exceeding four hundred million people, diverse military capabilities, and control over vital passages such as the Suez Canal. In this framework, the goal does not appear to be replacing one ally with another, but expanding the circle of options so that no country remains hostage to a single axis or a single umbrella. In the south, Bab al-Mandab remains a pivotal element in the security and energy equation, as millions of barrels pass through it daily, along with a significant percentage of global trade, making any stability there a necessity that transcends narrow political calculations. Hence, any de-escalation in Yemen, including indirect understandings with the Houthis, falls within a risk management approach, not conflict resolution, especially given Iran's presence as an influential player in the region's balances, whether through direct or indirect tools. Within this complex scene, the features of a deeper transformation in the nature of the relationship with the United States become clear, as it no longer represents the sole guarantor of regional security, but has become part of a broader network of relationships, within a gradual transition from unilateral dependence to rebalancing. It is precisely here that the paradox manifests itself; while American discourse tended towards condescension, the facts on the ground indicated the formation of a more pluralistic world, less subject to the hegemony of a single pole. Accordingly, the Saudi response was not a political statement, but a comprehensive practical path: reducing reliance on the Strait of Hormuz, enhancing alternatives via Yanbu, expanding the network of regional partnerships, and working to de-escalate tension hotspots affecting global trade routes. In this sense, the insult transforms into a transient event in a broader context that redefines the very concept of power, so that it is not measured by immediate reactions, but by the ability to transform pressures into opportunities, and provocation into strategic repositioning. In a world bustling with statements, the most effective nations seem to be those that prefer to say less... and do more; history is not written by what is said in moments of emotion, but by what quietly changes on the ground. And only here can one understand how silence, when deliberate, reflects not weakness, but a strength capable of reshaping balances without raising its voice.

The American-Israeli evil alliance managed to: 1- Destroy Iran's capabilities and infrastructure. 2- Drag Arabs, against their will, to be a party to the war and confrontation against Iran. The joint attack on Iran was not desired or favored by the Gulf Arab countries and Jordan, and they had no interest in it. Many of these countries have expressed this politically and practically on more than one occasion. The Israeli colony worked to ignite the war against Iran and expand it to include, according to its interests, an Arab-Iranian clash, by forcing Arabs to be in the conflicting trench with Tehran. Narrow-mindedness on the part of the extremist decision-makers in the Iranian capital led them to respond to the American-Israeli deception and trap. They lost sight of priorities, their focus weakened, and their compass of goals went astray, by targeting sites within Arab countries with Iranian shelling and harming the security and sovereignty of the Arab Gulf countries and Jordan. The solidarity visit of His Majesty the Head of State to the UAE on Monday (16/2/2026) aimed to express an understanding of the common interests between the two countries, giving them the attention they deserve, their rejection of any attacks on either party, and their emphasis on the option of seeking ways to de-escalate the prevailing tension in the Arab East region. The Arab countries, as stated in the Jordanian-Emirati statement: "were not a party to the war (on Iran), nor did they start it, but rather tried to contain the crisis and prevent the region from sliding into conflict," as we have no interest in it, and no party benefits from it except the Israeli colony, which sought this war for the sake of: First: Ending, weakening, and distracting Arab and international attention from the massacres, killings, ethnic cleansing, and genocide committed by the Israeli colony's forces against the Palestinian people in the Gaza Strip. Second: Completing the steps of Israeli hegemony and control over the Arab East after the overthrow of the regimes of Saddam Hussein and Bashar al-Assad, and the assassination and killing of Hezbollah and Hamas leaders. Third: Punishing Iran for standing with the Palestinian struggle and against the Israeli colony, and for being the party that still constitutes a leverage and rejection from a position of strength and capability against Israeli occupation, expansion, and colonialism. Iran fell into the trap and committed a political folly and a poor choice of military action by attacking the Arab Gulf countries. By doing so, it fell into the Israeli trap, by pushing Arab countries to indirectly choose to be in the Israeli trench against Iran, through exposing Arab countries to Iranian shelling and Arab confrontation of Iranian attacks, to protect their sovereignty, citizens, and attacked institutions. Iranian apology first and cessation of aggression and encroachment on Arab countries second, and adherence to what Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian said, that the Gulf countries are brothers and Iran has no interest in attacking them or clashing with them, and that it must realize that it has no interest in losing the Arabs, and that they should not stand with it. The relations based on good neighborliness and the intertwining of common interests between us necessitate a reconsideration, they must make a fundamental change in their political and security behavior.

The speech delivered by President Trump last Wednesday morning, a "talk to the nation," saw the White House attempt to organize a campaign to explain and clarify what President Donald Trump said in his "talk to the nation." They sought to portray it as a responsible speech that explained the current situation to the public and provided important information to counter the campaign that included members of parliament, public figures, and media personnel. This campaign described the speech as ridiculous, trivial, empty, and a boring repetition of what he had previously said in dozens of statements and tweets. No one volunteered for a mission described as "suicidal" given the declining confidence in Trump's approach to managing a war he claims he won and ended, removing Iran from the map. He then says that Iran must open the Strait of Hormuz and that he is ready for a ceasefire with them. Then he says that he is not concerned with opening the Strait of Hormuz and that those concerned with it should open it themselves. Without embarrassment, as a head of state, he talks about his intention to commit war crimes by destroying civilian facilities that international law prohibits targeting during war. Chuck Schumer, the leader of the Democratic minority in the US Congress, described the speech as pathetic and the most scattered, declining, and trivial speech in the history of American presidents. He did not clearly define the goals of the war, nor the vision and mechanisms for how to exit it. Meanwhile, Democratic Congressman Chris Cullen described the speech as the most dangerous for America and the world. Democratic Congressman Chris Murphy said about this speech that the American president is detached from reality, with no clear plan, just unbalanced talk lacking seriousness. In his speech, US President Donald Trump said three contradictory things in his "talk to the nation." First, he delivered a speech paving the way for announcing the end of the war: "We executed what we planned, we destroyed, we ended the threat" — language to close a file and build an image of complete victory that allows for an exit without internal political cost. Second, he issued a threat that opens the door to escalation: "If Hormuz is not opened, we will open the gates of hell," language to continue and escalate the war. Third, he denied involvement: "We don't care about Hormuz and have no connection to it," language of detachment that allows for backing down from escalation if necessary. This is not verbal chaos, but three possible paths presented simultaneously. The first indication is that the speech does not stem from a completed decision, but from the absence of a decision. Because combining "we have accomplished and it's over" with "we will open the gates of hell" and "we have no connection to Hormuz" means that the White House has not made up its mind between exiting or escalating, and that the president keeps all doors open until the last moment. Therefore, contradiction becomes a tool. Trump also said that the path is not closed, but suspended until a deadline ending on Monday. Here, the deadline becomes the essence of the strategy: not a date for resolution, but a testing ground. What is being tested until Sunday evening? First, the ability of mediators to achieve a breakthrough. Will the mediation process succeed in producing a concrete step to de-escalate tension, exchange binding messages, or a negotiating framework that justifies settling for a victory speech and withdrawal? If a limited but buildable breakthrough is achieved, the option of "unilateral victory" becomes possible: declaring the end of the mission while keeping deterrence lines open. Second, the image of victory and strength domestically. Trump needs to test whether the media narrative (destruction figures, decisive strikes) is enough to convince the public that he has achieved the goal. If this image stabilizes, he can politically close the front without further escalation. But if the image appears shaky, it will require a dose of escalation to re-establish the impression. Third, the public's ability to bear the cost of prices. Including Hormuz in the speech is not a detail; it is a direct test of the American domestic (and allies') tolerance for rising energy prices in exchange for a sense of strength. If prices rise quickly and are accompanied by economic anxiety, the margin for escalation narrows. If the impact remains limited or tolerable, it expands. Fourth, the oil price's reaction to the escalation hypothesis. This is the most sensitive indicator. The threat to open the "gates of hell" is implicitly linked to the possibility of supply disruptions. If the market shows sharp jumps with every sign of escalation, then the barrel imposes a political ceiling on military decisions. If the reaction remains controlled, escalation becomes a less costly option. Three possibilities crystallize by the end of the deadline: exiting with a victory speech: solidifying the "mission accomplished" narrative and moving to a measured de-escalation, while keeping the threat as a deterrent tool. This option requires a mediating breakthrough, a convincing image of victory, and a relatively stable market, or going to escalation by activating the "gates of hell" language if mediators fail and the image of victory appears insufficient, assuming that the market cost is tolerable. Here, the threat turns into action. And the possibility of extending the deadline on Sunday eve: which is most consistent with the structure of the speech. Through a new extension that allows for continued testing: pressure without commitment, promises without resolution, and managing time instead of making a decision. It is clear from the series of dismissals taking place in the American administration, which included the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Attorney General, and other military and security leaders, that we are facing a moment of restructuring in the American decision-making apparatus, and it apparently includes leaders opposed to the continuation of the war on Iran. These dismissals and resignations at this time are closer to clearing the leadership path before a potential escalatory leap. As for a ground invasion, if it occurs, its goal will not be a final resolution but rather a redefinition of the rules of the game by force and imposing a new ceiling for negotiation under fire, although this option is unlikely due to its exorbitant military and economic costs and its major repercussions on oil and gas prices, financial markets, stock exchange prices, and the global economy.

In these days, we are living through Holy Week, as the world's attention turns to Jerusalem, where the Way of the Cross and the Church of the Holy Sepulchre are, and where prayers are offered for peace, justice, and tranquility, and where the Holy Land has tasted the might of Herod's tyranny. In this spiritual atmosphere, we find it appropriate to recall and introduce new generations to the Patriarch of the Holy City for Latins, the late Patriarch Luigi Barlassina, who played a pivotal role on both the spiritual and social levels, as well as in the intellectual and political spheres, during the first half of the twentieth century. At that stage, projects of expulsion and replacement in Palestine were at their peak, and he was among the first to sound the alarm bells, warning of the repercussions of these schemes. Luigi Barlassina was the Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem during one of the most difficult periods in the history of the Holy Land, from his election in 1920 until his death in 1947 due to a heart attack. His years were characterized by continuous defense of the land and its people, while ensuring that the Holy See was kept informed of the events and challenges facing the Church and Palestinian society, and meticulously documenting everything that was happening daily. Luigi Barlassina was born on April 30, 1872, in Turin, Italy, and lost his father at an early age. His mother raised him in an atmosphere of piety and devotion, with a special emphasis on great reverence for the Virgin Mary, a devotion that characterized him throughout his life. He was ordained a priest on December 22, 1894, and was appointed auxiliary bishop of the Patriarch of Jerusalem in 1918, then patriarchal vicar general and apostolic administrator, before being elected Patriarch in 1920, becoming the main voice of the Latin Church in Jerusalem for 27 years. The Patriarch was known for his generous and humble personality, refusing official titles such as "His Beatitude" or "Monsignor," preferring to be called "Abouna" (Our Father), because he wanted to be a true father to souls. From the beginning of his service, he showed great interest in youth and education, establishing groups and initiatives that combined religious and physical education. He also focused on preaching and developing schools and churches, leaving a clear impact on the local community. He was the one who founded the first ecclesiastical university college in West Jerusalem, which is known today as Terra Santa College or Cardinal Ferrari College. On the spiritual level, Patriarch Barlassina was faithful to the tradition of worship. He gave the title "Our Lady of Palestine" to the Virgin Mary and established a shrine in the Râfat monastery, adorned with a statue and inscriptions of the Angel's greeting in 280 languages, so that these symbols would remain a testament to his deep love for the Holy Land and its people. He also restored the seminary in Beit Jala after it was damaged in World War I, securing Catholic education for young people, and following up on students' affairs even after the renovation was completed, composing ecclesiastical and liturgical books for them, and visiting them regularly. He also contributed to promoting religious celebrations, most notably the reorganization of the Palm Sunday procession in 1933, after it had been banned for more than 700 years, on the occasion of the Holy Year, where worshippers set off from the Mount of Olives carrying palm fronds to the courtyard of St. Anne's Church, in a scene that affirmed Jerusalem's spiritual and historical centrality. The Patriarch dedicated long hours to writing and correspondence in several languages, documenting political, social, economic, and religious events, leaving a valuable legacy that reflects his wisdom, insight, and deep loyalty to the Holy Land and its people. In this context, he sent several messages to Christian parishioners in particular, warning of the disintegration of the social fabric due to what he described as a newly introduced moral decline, and what might result from it in terms of moving away from the traditions and culture of society. Since 1917, with the announcement of the Balfour Declaration and the beginning of the British Mandate, the Patriarch noticed what was being plotted in Palestine, and his positions were firm, clear, and unwavering. He bravely defended the Palestinian people and their land, which earned him great enmity and attempts to remove him from his position. He fiercely defended the preservation of the historical status quo, as there were serious attempts by the British Mandate to violate the "Status Quo." There are several letters in the archives of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, written by the Patriarch to the presidency, warning of these attempts. Many documents in the archives of the Secretariat of the Holy See have documented these facts, including an unsigned letter addressing the issue of the Patriarch's removal from Jerusalem, which influential capitals and groups sought. Despite all these campaigns, the Patriarch did not stop performing his mission. He wrote daily to the Holy See, informing them of events in Palestine, warning of the dangers threatening the Holy Land and ecclesiastical interests, and demanding effective intervention to prevent the deterioration of conditions and protect the Holy Land from attempts to seize it from its indigenous inhabitants, and expressing his great concern for the Christian presence in historical Palestine. He also monitored the increasing support for the Jewish Agency, pointing out that it was at the expense of the inhabitants of the Holy Land, and at the same time he firmly confronted any attempts to sow discord or conflict between Muslims and Christians. In one of his letters to Cardinal Pietro Gasparri, Secretary of State of the Vatican, according to protocol number 158/22 mentioned above, he stressed the importance of urgent intervention to protect the rights of the inhabitants and preserve the unity of religious communities in Palestine. In an honorable stance witnessed by history, Patriarch Barlassina, in the last moments, proceeded to purchase the lands of the Tayasir and Tubas areas, at the request of Haj Amin al-Husseini at the time, to prevent the leakage of the area's lands. Patriarch Barlassina truly loved the Holy Land and its people, and bravely defended the Church and its honor, achieving a rare balance between personal humility and firmness in positions, so that his name remains etched in history as a symbol of loyalty, justice, and the defense of truth and the oppressed. Anyone who reviews the archives of the Latin Patriarchate in Jerusalem or the historical archives of the Secretariat of State in the Vatican – Section for Relations with States and International Organizations – will discover the honorable positions of the Patriarch and fully realize the centrality of the Latin Patriarchate of Jerusalem and its pivotal role in the Holy Land, a role that the Patriarchate continues to adopt to this day. * Ambassador of Palestine to the Holy See

What we are witnessing today in the West Bank is a clear extension of a systematic settler-colonial system, seeking to reshape the reality on the ground in a way that threatens the very existence of Palestinians. The escalation of settler violence, home demolitions, settlement expansion, and land confiscation are tools within an integrated project aimed at emptying the land of its indigenous inhabitants. The reality is that the West Bank is being overrun by settlements, Gaza is under siege and deprivation, and Jerusalem is in complete isolation. Every Palestinian is targeted with execution, arrest, criminalization, or deprivation of the most basic rights, amidst a media blackout on the demographic and geographic realities that undermine any real possibility of Palestinian self-determination.

Trump and Netanyahu succeeded in their open warfare by diverting attention and reordering priorities. The international reaction to what the occupying power is doing remains below the level of the challenge. Political condemnations and limited sanctions have not risen to the level of the grave violations witnessed on the ground. We are facing an integrated system of breaches, including land confiscation, the arrest of thousands of Palestinians, widespread violations against prisoners, home demolitions, and deprivation of basic rights, in clear violation of international humanitarian law and international human rights law.

The issue of prisoners stands out as one of the most expressive aspects of the scale of these violations, amidst continued administrative detention without trial, deteriorating detention conditions, denial of visits, in addition to the introduction of dangerous legislation such as execution laws. Despite these violations being documented in multiple human rights reports, they are often met with limited reactions, reflecting a clear gap between international legal texts and their implementation mechanisms.

In reality, the problem does not lie in the absence of legal or political tools, but in the absence of the will to activate them. The international community possesses multiple means of pressure, but it has not used them effectively enough to bring about real change. This laxity perpetuates a reality of impunity and allows these policies to continue with little cost.

This scene is directly linked to the political climate within Israel, where settlement and violence now enjoy clear political cover, within an increasingly present and influential extremist right-wing discourse, which increases the likelihood of the West Bank sliding towards further escalation. The accumulation of factors - from settler violence, to repeated incursions, land confiscation, and settlement expansion, in addition to the suffering of prisoners and the absence of a political horizon - creates an environment prone to ignition at any moment.

At the same time, the impact of regional and international contexts cannot be overlooked. With the world preoccupied with other crises and wars, including regional escalations, the degree of focus on what is happening in the Palestinian territories, especially in Gaza, where violations and humanitarian suffering continue, diminishes. This dispersion of international attention creates a space that allows for the entrenchment of settlements as a fait accompli, and weakens opportunities for accountability.

Ultimately, the fundamental question remains: how long can this reality be managed without addressing its roots? Previous experiences have proven that the absence of justice does not produce stability, and that postponing solutions does not eliminate crises, but rather postpones their explosion. Palestinian rights today are not on the margins of the scene, but at its core. Unless the current equation changes - by restoring respect for international law, activating accountability tools, and supporting a serious political path - we are moving closer to a stage where it will be difficult to contain the repercussions, not only locally, but regionally and internationally.

What is happening is an extension of a regional conflict that is moving from shadow wars to more dangerous confrontations. Israel is trying to expand the circle of conflict to escape its internal crises, and to reorder the priorities of the international community in a way that diverts attention from the reality of the occupation and violations in Gaza and the West Bank. While international powers deal with the escalation with a logic of management rather than solution, double standards deepen and the reality of impunity becomes entrenched. The greatest danger is the marginalization of the Palestinian issue, at a time when regional escalation is being used to entrench settlements and impose new realities on the ground. Nevertheless, the truth remains clear: regional security cannot be achieved without ending the occupation.

I am not writing this article to scare anyone, nor to belittle technology and its importance; for technology has been and continues to be a cornerstone of human development, an important tool for serving humanity and its advancement, enhancing the knowledge economy, and expanding human horizons to achieve complete human prosperity in economic, social, scientific, and other important areas.

However, the noble purpose for which technology was created in our lives was not the only path humanity took, unfortunately. Instead, some decided to employ the outputs and tools of technology to move from construction to destruction, and from a platform for salvation to a tool for devastation, serving the ambitions and financial aspirations of those in power.

Between this and that, the problem has never been with technology, but rather with the mind that transfers it from areas of good to squares of evil, in a way that has reinforced circles of destruction with the development of various technologies, as if the lords of evil are lurking for the growth of technical capabilities to implement their diabolical ambitions. With the development of artificial intelligence, successive generations of communications, mobile phones, internet technologies, autonomous systems, and advanced computing, diabolical possibilities are no longer theoretical, but have become a reality whose escalation humanity witnesses day by day.

Let's look, for example, at drones, a technology that began for civilian and humanitarian purposes, aiming to transport humans to places they could never reach to achieve the desired developmental progress in agriculture, relief, environmental quality, natural phenomena, the film industry, and many others – however, the desired human goals soon transformed in some contexts into tools for remote killing, where traditional soldiers disappear, replaced by a technical operator behind a fortified screen, possessing some technical expertise and sufficient knowledge to manage the algorithmic scene and control decisions, without the slightest consideration for the human dimension. With such an approach, killing becomes closer to a "technical decision" devoid of emotions, feelings, and values.

With such development, the concept of "algorithmic weapons" is escalating through artificial intelligence, capable of analyzing big data, identifying targets, and even predicting individual behavior and their routine association with targeted squares, ultimately achieving the desired goals of the developers of such weapons.

The important thing for the operators of death weapons is to be free from any legal deterrents, so they can act outside the framework of law and ethics, and away from monitoring and suppression tools, enabling them to execute their objectives precisely by achieving a precise blend between the worlds of mathematics, physics, chemistry, and others, and creating and harnessing a computerized combination far removed from any human context.

Such an approach is reinforced by the development witnessed in the digital space, which has led humanity towards enhancing cyberattacks that have exceeded the boundaries of digital crime and website breaches, becoming capable of controlling financial systems, banks, facilities, infrastructure, radars, military and medical equipment, hospitals, electricity grids, water systems, and an endless list of targeting areas.

Imagine, then, the ability to steal bank accounts and control nuclear power plants, and intercept ballistic missiles. Imagine if power, water, and alternative energy stations stopped, or even health systems were destroyed with hospitals subjected to digital attacks, or if electricity was cut off from entire countries, or even traffic signals and autonomous control systems for water treatment plants broke down, and an endless list of possibilities and targets.

Also, today, in short, the fear of poor control over technologically supported biological and germ warfare weapons cannot be ignored, through the employment of genetic engineering, to carry out dangerous missions capable of expanding human destruction, and modifying viruses or bacteria and injecting them into humans in a way that multiplies the threat.

All these examples are not intended to malign technology or instill fear of it, but rather to pose a crucial question: Has humanity's ethics developed as much as its scientific capabilities? And is it possible to impose the necessary legal and judicial oversight frameworks? Or is the powerful in this world the one who decides and acts as they please? And will humanity continue to chase the urgent need for innovations without reinforcing its endeavor with an ethical and legal system that cares about results and leads to the birth of a clear regulatory environment whose rhythm is controlled by signing an international code of conduct that keeps technology away from death and destruction?

Our human responsibility is enormous, starting from scientists and intersecting with decision-makers, passing through developers, and reaching the poor citizen.

Humanity must not allow technology to act as an independent entity, but rather a clear reflection of values and choices related to the human right to prosperity, not in the manufacturing of death, so as to avoid any ethical slips that may be difficult to contain later.

Finally, humanity must strive to direct technology to serve humanity, not to turn into a platform against it! The beginning is within us, not with machines. To be continued!

[email protected]

Former Israeli Prime Minister and Minister of Defense, Ehud Barak, launched a scathing attack on the current war management, asserting that joint military operations with the United States against Iran and Hezbollah have failed to achieve their core objectives. Barak explained that this failure is primarily due to the absence of a clear strategic plan and an absolute reliance on military force alone, without considering complex political realities.

In statements to Hebrew media, Barak indicated that expectations of the Iranian regime's collapse through aerial bombardment or the complete destruction of its nuclear project are mere 'wishful thinking' not based on solid reality. He considered that attempts to incite peoples to rebellion from abroad often lead to counterproductive results, as they grant those regimes additional legitimacy to confront what they describe as external aggression.

Barak criticized what he called the 'illusions' that prevailed in decision-making circles, especially regarding reliance on internal parties or minorities such as the Kurds to bring about change in Iran. He believed that these narrow calculations prevented any real breakthrough, despite the painful blows dealt to the Iranian regime recently.

Regarding the field situation, Barak supported military assessments indicating that Israel and the United States are in a stalemate in confronting Tehran, confirming the Iranian regime's resilience despite more than a month passing since the outbreak of direct confrontation. He expressed skepticism about the existence of a viable plan to seize enriched uranium or permanently secure navigation in the Strait of Hormuz.

The former official warned against the danger of being drawn into threats to destroy infrastructure within Iran, considering that such a step would have catastrophic repercussions for the entire region. He explained that the biggest loser would not only be Israel, but also the Gulf states, which would become direct targets for precise Iranian missiles targeting water and energy facilities.

Regarding the northern front, Barak described the idea of 'security belts' in Lebanon, Syria, and Gaza as military 'nonsense' that does not achieve sustainable security. He stressed that forward defense must be coupled with a political path, which is lacking in the current approach led by Benjamin Netanyahu, whom he accused of thwarting all available opportunities for regional dialogue.

Barak emphasized that militarily dismantling Hezbollah is an unrealistic goal unless Lebanon is fully occupied, which does not seem feasible or logical under current circumstances. He called for the necessity of taking diplomatic proposals seriously instead of changing military objectives weekly without achieving tangible results on the ground.

Barak accused current Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of trying to turn Israel into a new 'Sparta' that lives only by the sword, warning that this approach would lead to the state's isolation and its failure to manage its regional affairs. He called on Israelis to work to overthrow the current regime before the end of the war to save what can be saved.

On the other hand, extremist right-wing voices emerged demanding the escalation of military operations to the maximum extent, with National Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir affirming his rejection of the army's positions calling for calm or withdrawal. Ben Gvir demanded the continuation of the war until the achievement of what he described as 'total victory' against Hamas and Hezbollah, no matter how long the conflict lasts.

Ben Gvir considered that the only solution lies in using 'intensive fire,' assassinating leaders, and imposing strict security belts, noting that the Israeli people have enough patience to achieve these goals. He also expressed his opposition to any ceasefire agreement at present, whether in Gaza or on the northern front.

In a related context, heads of settlements in the north called for intensifying strikes against Lebanese infrastructure as a means to subdue Hezbollah and force it to retreat. These individuals considered that any retreat in military objectives represents a 'slap' to the settlers who were displaced from their homes due to continuous shelling from southern Lebanon.

These debates come at a time when internal criticism is increasing in Israel against what observers describe as the 'arrogant language' of the political leadership. Analysts believe that promises of swift victories have evaporated in the face of continuous intensive rocket barrages launched from Lebanon and Iran towards Israeli territory.

Reports from informed sources indicate that the gap is widening between the military level, which understands the limits of power, and the political level, which insists on slogans of 'absolute victory.' This disparity puts Israel before difficult choices amid increasing international pressure to reach a formula that ends regional escalation.

In conclusion, the Israeli scene remains divided between a current that sees diplomacy and military realism as the only way out, and another current led by the far-right that sees the continuation of the war as existence and destiny. Between these two, military operations continue to claim more lives and destroy infrastructure without a clear horizon for a solution.

Fascist authoritarian regimes do not fall by bombs from outside, and relying on force alone without a political horizon is an illusion that leads to failure.

The American administration announced early Sunday that its special forces had successfully recovered a pilot who was trapped behind enemy lines deep within Iranian territory. This operation came after his F-15 fighter jet was shot down during ongoing military operations, now in their sixth week, ending a major political and military crisis facing the White House.

US President Donald Trump confirmed via the 'Truth Social' platform that the military had carried out one of the boldest and most dangerous search and rescue operations in the country's military history. Trump clarified that the officer, a highly respected colonel, was injured during the incident but is now in stable condition and receiving the necessary medical care for a full recovery.

For her part, White House spokeswoman Karoline Leavitt issued an official statement confirming that the operation was completely successful in the past few hours. Sources indicated that the pilot is the second member of the aircraft crew that Tehran announced it had shot down last Friday, with his first colleague having been rescued earlier from the incident.

Media reports revealed that the surviving officer, responsible for weapon systems, parachuted into a rugged mountainous area far from the primary crash site. The officer was able to communicate with his colleague via radio, enabling American operations rooms to accurately pinpoint his location and begin a race against time to reach him before Iranian forces.

Informed sources reported that US special forces 'commandos' launched a swift ground operation under heavy air cover to secure the officer's location. The area witnessed fierce battles between American forces and Iranian units attempting to reach the captive pilot, before American helicopters were able to evacuate him and withdraw towards Central Command bases.

In exciting intelligence details, sources mentioned that the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) managed a widespread disinformation campaign concurrently with the field operation. The campaign aimed to spread false information within Iranian security agencies suggesting that the pilot had already been found and was being transported across land borders, to divert Iranian search efforts.

Despite his injuries, the American colonel managed to hide and evade Iranian patrols in the mountains for more than twenty-four hours. Military officials described his ability to endure and walk distances despite his wounds as a crucial factor in the success of reaching him before he was captured.

In contrast, Iranian sources confirmed that the air defenses of the Revolutionary Guard were highly active during the operation hours in the Isfahan region. Tehran claimed it had successfully countered widespread aerial infiltration attempts, using new defense systems recently put into service to confront advanced American aircraft.

Iran's 'Khatam al-Anbiya' military headquarters announced a heavy toll of losses among the US Air Force during Friday and Saturday's confrontations. Iranian sources claimed the downing of an advanced F-35 fighter jet, in addition to three strategic MQ-9 and Hermes drones.

Iranian claims also included the destruction of two Black Hawk helicopters and an A-10 close air support fighter, as well as the interception of winged cruise missiles. These statements come within the framework of an intense media war accompanying the field military operations between the two sides in the region.

This operation marks a turning point in the current confrontation, demonstrating the ability of US special forces to operate in hostile and complex environments. With US forces returning to their bases, tension remains at its peak with continued mutual airstrikes and threats of expanding the conflict.

The US military carried out one of the boldest search and rescue operations in US history to rescue one of our distinguished officers.

Iranian Foreign Minister, Abbas Araghchi, issued strong warnings regarding the nuclear risks facing the region, emphasizing that any potential radioactive leak at the Bushehr nuclear power plant would extend its deadly effect to the capitals of the Arab Gulf states. Araghchi explained that the plant's geographical location makes any environmental disaster an existential threat to Iran's neighbors before its impact reaches the capital Tehran, stressing the seriousness of repeated military targeting of the facility.

The head of Iranian diplomacy criticized what he described as 'double standards' by the international community and its complete silence regarding attacks on Iranian nuclear and petrochemical facilities. Araghchi questioned, in a post on the 'X' platform, the absence of the Western outrage previously shown over clashes near the Zaporizhzhia plant in Ukraine, considering that overlooking the bombing of Bushehr represents a green light for continued escalation.

The Iranian minister revealed that American and Israeli forces have targeted the Bushehr plant four times since the outbreak of direct confrontations last February, noting that these operations go beyond military objectives to affect vital infrastructure. He affirmed that targeting the petrochemical sector clearly shows the desire to destroy the country's economic and environmental capabilities without regard for regional consequences.

On the ground, media sources reported that the latest attack on Saturday resulted in the death of a member of the plant's security protection team, which raises the level of tension at the sensitive nuclear site. These developments come amid the ongoing war waged by Israel and the United States on Iranian territory since February 28, which has left thousands of casualties, both dead and wounded.

Regarding international reactions, Russia began a large-scale evacuation of its employees from the plant, with 198 workers from 'Rosatom' company heading towards the Armenian border. Alexey Likhachev, the general director of the Russian company, described this move as the largest evacuation since the start of the conflict, while Moscow described the attack as an 'evil act' that requires an immediate cessation of hostilities.

For his part, the Director-General of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Rafael Grossi, confirmed that a building inside the Bushehr plant site had indeed been affected by shockwaves and shrapnel from the recent shelling. Despite his confirmation that no increase in radiation levels has been detected so far, international concern is growing about the possibility of damage to the reactors in future strikes, which could lead to an unprecedented disaster.

The region is experiencing a state of security and political alert, as Tehran continues its response by launching missiles and drones towards Israeli targets and American interests in the region. In contrast, Arab countries express their condemnation of attacks on civilian targets on their territories, amid fears of the conflict escalating into a comprehensive regional war that gets out of control and destroys the vital environment in the Gulf basin.

Radioactive fallout will not end life in Tehran, but in the capitals of the Gulf Cooperation Council.

Washington – Said Arikat – 5/4/2026\n\nNews Analysis\n\nThe Middle East has witnessed profound transformations in the patterns and methods of warfare, with the emergence of a new military doctrine led by the United States and Israel, based on transferring the Gaza war model to other arenas such as Iran and Lebanon. This shift is not limited to military tools but extends to redefining the boundaries of what is morally and legally acceptable in armed conflicts, threatening to undermine the system of international humanitarian law established after World War II.\n\nThe war on Gaza represented a pivotal moment, not only because of the scale of destruction and human losses but also because it revealed a deliberate trend to normalize combat patterns based on widespread targeting of civilian areas, destruction of vital infrastructure, and the use of excessive force without adequate consideration for the principles of proportionality and distinction. With this model transferring to Iran and Lebanon, what was previously seen as a shocking exception now appears to be presented as a repeatable rule.\n\nIn Iran, data indicates an intense and unprecedented bombing campaign, targeting residential neighborhoods and service facilities, including health and educational facilities, and energy and water infrastructure. This pattern reflects an increasing reliance on heavy firepower and the use of modern technologies such as artificial intelligence in targeting, raising serious questions about the accuracy of these strikes and the limits of accountability. Moreover, targeting vital facilities, including nuclear sites, carries catastrophic risks that extend beyond the direct conflict.\n\nIn Lebanon, the same scenario is repeated, through widespread displacement of populations, systematic destruction of homes and infrastructure, in addition to targeting health workers and media personnel. These practices, which were considered grave violations of international law, are now being carried out within a political and military discourse that justifies them on security grounds, sometimes relying on controversial historical comparisons, such as the bombing of cities during World War II.\n\nThis transformation reflects, in essence, a redefinition of the concept of war itself, where the gap between military and civilian targets is narrowed, and the scope of “legitimate targets” is expanded to include essential elements of community life. The discourse accompanying these operations also indicates a noticeable decline in public commitment to ethical rules, replaced by harsher language that legitimizes violence and gives it an existential character.\n\nHowever, the most dangerous aspect of this path is its long-term repercussions. Weakening the rules of international law not only affects the victims of current wars but also opens the door for other parties to adopt the same approach, leading to a spiral of mutual escalation, where violations become justifications for counter-violations. In this context, retaliatory strikes targeting civilian structures appear to be an indicator of a rapid slide towards this scenario.\n\nWhat is happening today cannot be separated from broader transformations in the international system, where the effectiveness of multilateral institutions is declining, and unilateral tendencies are increasing, weakening mechanisms of control and accountability. In light of this reality, the danger of “generalizing the Gaza model” is not just a possibility but an existing path that is reshaping the rules of engagement in contemporary wars.\n\nIn this context, there is a clear erosion of the traditional concept of deterrence, where military force is no longer used merely to contain adversaries but to reshape demographic and political environments through widespread destruction. This shift reflects a conviction among some decision-makers that rapid decisive action requires a high human cost, which contradicts the principles humanity has sought to establish since the mid-20th century. The continuation of this approach could lead to the normalization of excessive violence as a political tool, threatening international stability in the long term.\n\nAlso noteworthy is the growing role of technology, especially artificial intelligence, in managing military operations. Despite claims of accuracy and efficiency, excessive reliance on these tools may contribute to expanding the scope of errors or reducing sensitivity to human losses, due to the distance from direct human judgment. This raises complex ethical and legal issues related to responsibility and accountability and calls for a serious international discussion about the controls on the use of these technologies in armed conflicts.\n\nGeneralizing this model of warfare not only threatens the targeted countries but also impacts global security as a whole, including the countries leading it. Undermining international rules creates a more chaotic environment where all parties become vulnerable to similar violations. Hence, restoring respect for international humanitarian law and strengthening accountability mechanisms is no longer just an ethical issue but a strategic necessity to maintain a degree of stability in an increasingly fragile international system.

US President Donald Trump issued a stern warning to the Iranian leadership, reminding them that the countdown has begun for the expiration of the deadline he previously set for concluding an agreement to end the conflict that has been ongoing for more than a month. Trump affirmed in a post on his 'Truth Social' platform that Tehran has only 48 hours to avoid what he described as 'hell' that will descend upon it if it does not respond to American demands.

These threats come in the context of the ten-day deadline given by the White House to Iran to reopen the Strait of Hormuz, which is the vital artery for global energy supplies. The closure imposed by Tehran since the outbreak of military confrontations has caused widespread disruptions in international markets, prompting Washington to take tougher stances on Iranian movements in the waterways.

The US President set a final deadline ending at 8:00 PM next Monday, Washington time, corresponding to April 6th. The US administration vowed that a military response would directly target energy infrastructure, including Iranian power plants, if the strait remains closed or if a political agreement is not reached.

On the ground, high-level defense sources in Tel Aviv revealed high-level coordination with the American side regarding upcoming military steps. The sources explained that the Israeli army has developed operational plans to target energy facilities deep inside Iran, awaiting an official green light from Washington to carry out these strikes, which were described as imminent.

Observers believe that the Israeli statements are organically linked to the ultimatum issued by Trump, indicating the possibility of a joint or US-backed military operation. Political circles are awaiting the seriousness of implementing these threats, especially with the approach of the zero hour set by the US President in his latest post, which sparked widespread controversy.

Amid this escalation, the region is experiencing a state of anticipation mixed with caution about the situation sliding into a comprehensive confrontation whose repercussions could affect all countries in the region. Washington insists that opening the Strait of Hormuz is a non-negotiable condition to ensure the stability of the global economy and prevent the exacerbation of the energy crisis that has been looming since the closure of the shipping lane.

For its part, Tehran has not issued an immediate official response to the latest threats, but previous reports indicated its adherence to its positions in light of continued military and economic pressures. All eyes are now on the next few hours to see whether diplomatic efforts will succeed in defusing the crisis or if the region will witness a new round of violent military escalation.

Trump's harsh tone reflects a desire to quickly resolve the Iranian issue, using direct threats via social media platforms to pressure decision-makers in Tehran. With only two days remaining until the deadline, the likelihood of air or missile attacks targeting Iran's economic lifeline increases, which could shift the balance of power in the ongoing conflict.

Time is running out, 48 hours left before hell descends upon them!

Brigadier General Alireza Elhami, commander of Iran's Joint Air Defense Headquarters, announced that the armed forces now possess the necessary technologies to detect and target fifth-generation fighters and the most advanced drones. During an inspection tour of military sites belonging to the army and the Revolutionary Guard, he explained that these capabilities rely entirely on innovations and modern equipment manufactured domestically to counter hostile aerial threats.

The Iranian military commander revealed the results of recent defensive operations, indicating his forces' success in shattering what he described as the 'propaganda prestige' of adversaries by destroying a number of advanced fighters. Elhami confirmed that air defenses shot down more than 160 advanced drones, including 'MQ-9', 'Hermes', and 'Lucas' models, in addition to other models belonging to the United States and the Israeli occupation.

Elhami stressed that targeting fourth and fifth-generation fighters and inflicting severe damage on them was the result of adopting entirely new field tactics. He added that these operations were carried out with high precision and in preemptive timings that prevented any hostile attacks, reflecting the qualitative development in the detection and interception systems of both the Revolutionary Guard and the Iranian Army.

In a related context, media sources reported confirmed aerial losses in the region, with the United States officially acknowledging the downing of an 'F-15E Strike Eagle' fighter in southwestern Iran. Reports from Washington indicated that search and rescue operations succeeded in recovering one crew member, while the fate of the second pilot remains unknown at the moment.

These field developments highlight the escalating military tension in the region and the technological race between Iranian air defense systems and American aerial technologies. Recent Iranian statements emphasize a self-reliance strategy in developing cruise missiles and interception systems to counter any potential violations of the country's airspace.

Hunting fifth-generation fighters and advanced drones has become possible using modern, locally manufactured methods and equipment.

The world commemorates the International Day for Mine Awareness on April 4th each year, while the residents of the Gaza Strip live a tragic reality where their cities and camps have turned into open minefields. Explosive objects are no longer confined to military areas but now lie in wait for children and displaced persons among the rubble of homes and in abandoned playgrounds, leaving permanent physical injuries and psychological scars that do not heal.

Fifteen-year-old Muhammad Abu Maala embodies a chapter of this suffering after losing his right hand and sustaining a severe leg tear when he tampered with a strange object he found near his home in the Nuseirat camp. This incident, which occurred months ago, transformed the life of the academically excelling boy into complete isolation, as he now faces continuous physical pain and an urgent need for complex surgeries to install prosthetic joints.

In a similar incident in Deir al-Balah city, Nour al-Jayyar and four children from his relatives sustained varying injuries after a suspicious object, which looked like a plastic piece, exploded. Shrapnel led to the amputation of parts of Nour's fingers and injured his siblings and relatives in various parts of their bodies, necessitating their enrollment in intensive psychological support programs to cope with the violent traumas they experienced.

Official estimates issued by the Government Media Office in Gaza indicate the presence of more than 20,000 pieces of unexploded ordnance scattered throughout the Strip. This high number reflects the scale of the threat in a small geographical area not exceeding 365 square kilometers, making Gaza one of the most contaminated areas with explosives in the world relative to its population.

For its part, the Ministry of Health recorded the martyrdom of seven citizens, including five children, and the injury of about 50 others due to the explosion of war remnants during the past period. Medical sources confirm that the actual numbers may be much higher, given that many injured receive treatment in field hospitals without accurate documentation of the direct cause of injury.

Sources in the Rapid Response Unit reported that the volume of war remnants is enormous and dangerous, while specialized teams lack the minimum capabilities needed to deal with them. The sources explained that the occupation targeted warehouses and equipment designated for transporting and storing ammunition, which led to a decline in the technical teams' capabilities to less than 10% of what they were before the war.

Specialized technicians in explosive ordnance disposal face existential risks, with 17 technicians out of 65 martyred since the beginning of the aggression. These teams currently work without adequate protective equipment or advanced detection devices, making every intervention to neutralize a suspicious object a suicidal mission fraught with great dangers.

Civil Defense in Gaza, in turn, warned that the Strip has become like a large minefield, with unexploded rockets and mines scattered under the rubble of destroyed buildings. Civil Defense sources confirmed that teams are forced to work in unsafe environments while recovering victims, which could lead to sudden explosions when heavy machinery collides with invisible remnants.

The danger is not limited to residential areas but extends to agricultural lands where farmers discover explosive objects while plowing. These remnants hinder the return to normal life and prevent farmers from utilizing their lands for fear of explosions that could occur at any moment, adding a new economic burden on the shoulders of the besieged population.

Children are the most vulnerable group due to their natural curiosity, as some war remnants appear in tempting shapes resembling food cans or soft drink bottles. Reconnaissance aircraft also dropped small containers that children tampered with, thinking they were toys, leading to humanitarian disasters and multiple amputations.

The International Committee of the Red Cross, in cooperation with the Palestinian Red Crescent, is implementing intensive awareness programs to reduce these incidents. These campaigns target shelters and displaced persons' gatherings, where parents and children are taught how to identify suspicious objects, the necessity of staying away from them, and reporting them immediately to the competent authorities.

Despite awareness efforts, there remains an urgent need to introduce advanced equipment and specialized international mine clearance teams to clear residential areas. The continued presence of these munitions means that the war has not ended for the residents of Gaza, as latent death under the soil continues to threaten anyone who tries to rebuild their home or return to their normal life.

The suffering of the injured is exacerbated by the collapse of the health system and the difficulty of traveling abroad for treatment or fitting prosthetics. Many children who have lost limbs face an unknown future due to the lack of wheelchairs and specialized medical equipment that would help them adapt to their new disabilities.

The international community is called upon to act urgently to pressure for the introduction of necessary equipment to neutralize this imminent danger and provide support to mine victims. Without a comprehensive and large-scale clearance operation, Gaza will remain a scene of deferred death, claiming innocent lives even after cannons and planes cease their bombardment.

The Gaza Strip currently resembles a minefield, and the most dangerous challenge facing civil defense teams is dealing with these munitions inside targeted buildings.

The family of Jerusalem martyr Wadih Alian is experiencing a severe shock after two years of bitter waiting, following their discovery that the occupation authorities had transferred their child's body from detention refrigerators to what is known as 'cemeteries of numbers'. This shocking revelation came through an official response from the Israeli Public Prosecution to a petition submitted by the legal center for the protection of the rights of the Arab minority, 'Adalah', shattering the family's hopes of burying their son in a manner befitting his betrayed childhood.\n\nLegal documents showed that the burial took place on October 29, 2025, based on a decision made a week before implementation without notifying the family or the legal team following the case. The family considered this procedure to be an escalation of psychological torment and a deliberate deprivation of the right to a final farewell and to close the circle of grief that began since Wadih's cold-blooded execution.\n\nChild Wadih Alian, 14 years old, was martyred on February 5, 2024, by occupation forces' bullets near the entrance to the town of Al-Eizariya, east of occupied Jerusalem. The occupation authorities claimed at the time that he was attempting a stabbing operation, a pretext used by the occupation to justify field killings and the detention of bodies for long periods.\n\nShadi Alian, the martyr's father, expressed his astonishment at the Public Prosecution's response, which he described as unexpected, especially since the family had hoped for the release of the body as part of recent exchange deals. The father affirmed that depriving the family of burying their child according to Islamic Sharia represents a blatant violation of the most basic human and religious rights guaranteed by international laws.\n\nAlian stressed that the family will not stop demanding the return of Wadih's body, no matter how long the detention in the cemeteries of numbers lasts, emphasizing that the goal is to achieve justice by burying him in the known family cemeteries. He described the waiting state as a bitter wish, where the dream of the Palestinian father is merely to receive the body of his beloved child to bury him with dignity.\n\nIn an interview with media sources, the father recalled the features of his child who dreamed of becoming a professional football player, noting that Wadih had a strong personality and a distinguished presence among his schoolmates. He added that Wadih's spontaneous smile still fills the corners of the house, despite the heavy absence imposed by the occupation on the family since the moment of his martyrdom.\n\nFor her part, lawyer Suhad Bishara from 'Adalah' center explained that the Public Prosecution's response confirmed the burial of the body in cemeteries designated for detainees, despite continuous correspondence demanding clarifications about his fate. Bishara indicated that the center has initiated new legal procedures to demand the release of the body from the cemeteries of numbers and to schedule an urgent hearing before the Supreme Court.\n\nBishara affirmed that what child Wadih experienced is not an exceptional case, but rather falls within a general policy adopted by the occupation army to bury the bodies of detained martyrs without informing their families. She considered this behavior a clear violation of established procedures and the rights of families to make legal decisions before any unilateral burial operation is carried out.\n\nIn a related context, Hussein Shuja'iya, coordinator of the National Campaign for the Recovery of Martyrs' Bodies, considered the transfer of martyrs from refrigerators to cemeteries of numbers to be a deterrent tool and collective punishment practiced against Palestinians. He described this policy as a 'sadistic' practice aimed at controlling the Palestinian individual even after death, and using bodies as bargaining chips in political negotiations.\n\nThe latest data from the National Campaign indicates that the number of documented detained bodies has reached 785, including 78 children under the age of eighteen. The list also includes 98 martyrs from the prisoner movement and 10 female martyrs, reflecting the magnitude of the tragedy experienced by hundreds of Palestinian families deprived of burying their children.\n\nJerusalem stands out in particular in this file, where the occupation authorities detain 52 bodies of Jerusalemite martyrs, the oldest of whom is martyr Jasser Shtat, detained since 1968. Children Khaled Al-Za'anin and Wadih Alian, both fourteen years old, are the youngest Jerusalemite martyrs whose bodies the authorities refuse to hand over to their families.\n\nThese Israeli practices explicitly violate the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, specifically the two articles related to the detention of bodies. Article 130 stipulates the necessity of burying the deceased with respect and according to the rites of their religion, and that their graves must be maintained in a way that allows them to be identified at all times.\n\nInternational laws also oblige the detaining state to provide lists showing the locations of graves and details of the identities of the deceased as soon as hostilities cease or conditions improve. However, the occupation continues to disregard these norms by using 'cemeteries of numbers' which lack the minimum standards of human dignity and hide the identities of martyrs behind silent metal numbers.\n\nWadih Alian's story remains a testament to the ongoing suffering experienced by Jerusalemites, where the occupation pursues them in their lives and deaths, attempting to obliterate their identity and break their will by detaining bodies. The family continues its legal and humanitarian battle, driven by a simple hope that their child will find a peaceful place under the soil of his city that he loved and dreamed of a future that was not completed.\n\n"We have the right to bid farewell to our child and kiss him goodbye, and for him to have a known grave that we can visit when we miss him, not to be buried in unknown cemeteries of numbers.

Well-informed sources from within the White House revealed that US President Donald Trump is currently considering an extensive cabinet reshuffle, including sovereign portfolios, amid growing frustration over the political and economic repercussions of the ongoing war on Iran. These moves come after the dismissal of Attorney General Pam Bondi last week, reflecting the administration's desire to reset its political course before the anticipated midterm elections next November.

Sources reported that the war, now in its fifth week, has led to a significant jump in fuel prices and a noticeable decline in President Trump's popularity, which has caused deep concern within the Republican Party. Observers believe that any potential reshuffle would be an attempt to absorb public anger and demonstrate control over the escalating situation due to the military conflict that began in late February.

Reports indicate that the list of officials threatened with dismissal includes prominent names, most notably Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard and Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick. Trump has expressed dissatisfaction with Gabbard's performance in recent months, and has already begun sounding out allies about potential replacements to lead US intelligence agencies at this sensitive stage.

In contrast, Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick faces increasing pressure from senior Trump allies for his dismissal, not only because of his trade policies but also due to the emergence of new details about his past relationships. Recent documents have revealed meetings between Lutnick and the late businessman Jeffrey Epstein on his private island in 2012, which has put him under renewed political scrutiny despite his denial of the depth of that relationship.

Despite these leaks, White House spokesman Davis Engel affirmed that the President still places his full trust in Gabbard and Lutnick, praising their achievements in international and trade matters. Engel considered the current administration to be the most talented and influential, highlighting Gabbard's role in foreign affairs and Lutnick's role in securing major investment deals for the American people.

However, there is a feeling within the administration that Trump's recent address to the nation did not achieve its desired goals in calming public fears. A senior official described the speech as disappointing, as it failed to provide a clear vision for ending the war or addressing the economic crises directly affecting American citizens, especially concerning energy prices.

Recent polls showed a sharp decline in approval of Trump's performance, reaching only 36%, the lowest since he took office in the current term. The poll also revealed that 60% of Americans oppose direct military intervention against Iran, putting the White House in direct confrontation with public opinion that rejects the continuation of armed conflict and its exorbitant costs.

Sources indicate that Trump is extremely angry about what he describes as biased and unfair media coverage regarding the course of the war in the Middle East. Despite his desire to see more positive news reports, he has not yet shown any intention to change his media or military strategy, content with seeking changes in the political faces around him.

Some advisors believe that hesitation in carrying out cabinet reshuffles may carry political risks equivalent to the risks of change itself, especially since voters are more influenced by tangible results on the ground than by ideological messages. Officials confirm that the direct impact of fuel prices on people's daily lives has become the primary driver of public discontent that threatens the future of Republicans in the upcoming elections.

Tulsi Gabbard had previously angered the White House by criticizing foreign military interventions, which created a trust gap between her and the more hawkish wing of the administration. Despite her ability to hold her position for a period, current leaks suggest that her patience and the President's patience have reached a dead end amid the complexities of the current war.

As for the Department of Commerce, Lutnick has faced criticism since last year for imposing widespread tariffs that confused international allies and sparked widespread economic debate. Those calling for his departure believe that the time has come to inject new blood capable of dealing with the economic challenges resulting from sanctions and trade wars associated with the conflict with Iran.

Senior officials believe that Trump prefers to make these major changes now rather than waiting until closer to the elections, to avoid the administration appearing in a state of chaos later. Bondi's dismissal is seen as the beginning of a series of decisions aimed at reorganizing the internal house to confront what is described as the toughest political challenge Trump has faced since his election.

In the absence of a clear plan to end the conflict that began on February 28, the prevailing public impression remains that the war may be prolonged without a specific timeframe. The President's statement that economic hardship would be short-lived increased uncertainty, especially with all blame being placed on Tehran without offering practical solutions to alleviate the cost of living pressures on voters.

In conclusion, sources confirm that Bondi will not be the last on the list of departures, and that the coming days may see official announcements of changes in other high-level positions. The question remains in Washington whether these personnel changes will be followed by policy changes, or if they are merely an attempt to improve the administration's public image in the face of its sharp decline in popularity.

Making changes to show movement isn't a bad thing, is it?

Hundreds of protesters in the city of Osnabrück, located in northwestern Germany, marched in an angry demonstration to express their categorical rejection of the giant 'Volkswagen' company's shift towards military manufacturing. These popular movements came after reports revealed the German company's intention to allocate part of its production lines in the city to manufacture military equipment specifically for the Israeli army, which sparked a wave of discontent in human rights and labor circles.

The event was organized by the 'Osnabrück Peace Initiative' in the city's theater square, where demonstrators gathered under a broad slogan calling for the rejection of wars and the achievement of global peace. Palestinian flags were raised during the demonstration to express solidarity with the Palestinian people, amidst the ongoing military operations and aggression launched by the occupation authorities, with chants condemning the transformation of German civilian industries into a tool to strengthen the Israeli military arsenal.

Participants in the march demanded the necessity of protecting workers' rights and securing their job future at the 'Volkswagen' factory by promoting sustainable civilian production, instead of resorting to arms deals. Protesters stressed that their city should remain a symbol of peace, expressing their fear that involvement in defense industries would link the region's economy to armed conflicts and foreign wars.

The demonstrators' demands extended to German defense policies in general, as they called on the government in Berlin to take a firm stance by preventing the use of the 'Ramstein' air base in any international military operations. This base is one of the largest facilities belonging to the US Air Force in Europe, and protesters believe that the continuation of its military activity contributes to fueling regional and international conflicts.

Demonstrators expressed their strong opposition to plans to expand a NATO fuel depot in the nearby town of Bramsche, considering these steps to reinforce the militarization of the region. Protesters marched through the streets of the city center to convey their message to public opinion, emphasizing that the pursuit of profit through arms trade cannot be an acceptable moral or economic justification.

These protests come against the backdrop of statements made by Oliver Blume, CEO of the 'Volkswagen' Group, in which he revealed advanced talks to transform the Osnabrück factory into a center for the production of defense components. Blume indicated that the company is seriously considering manufacturing vital parts related to air defense systems, including the 'Iron Dome' system used by Israel in its military operations.

International press reports stated that 'Volkswagen' has entered into negotiations with the Israeli defense industries company 'Rafael' with the aim of building a long-term strategic partnership. These talks include the possibility of producing missile launchers and transport vehicles for defense systems within German territory, which the company considers a way to preserve about 2,300 threatened jobs at the factory.

This project, supported by the German government, faces widespread criticism, as it comes at a sensitive time witnessing a significant military escalation in the Middle East. Observers believe that the involvement of major German industrial companies in supporting Israeli military capabilities puts Berlin in direct confrontation with legal and ethical obligations related to human rights and preventing the export of weapons to conflict zones.

Osnabrück must remain a city of peace, and we demand guaranteed job opportunities through civilian production instead of engaging in the manufacture of weapons and military equipment.