An analytical report published by the Hebrew newspaper Haaretz highlighted a radical shift in Israeli political and military doctrine, moving from a concept of border defense to a permanent expansionist approach. Analyst Zvi Bar'el pointed out that Israel now treats its internationally recognized borders as temporary lines that can be crossed, seeking to impose absolute control over territories outside its legal sovereignty.

Bar'el believes that the fundamental problem begins with the state's self-definition, as Israel refuses to adhere to international rules that mandate the establishment of states within fixed borders. This approach has made geographical expansion the core of the contemporary Israeli project, transcending the traditional security pretexts that were used to justify previous military operations.

On the northern front, the analysis revealed the beginning of a gradual expansion process in southern Lebanon aimed at laying the groundwork for new settlements and imposing a permanent reality. The author warned that this path would cost the army dearly in terms of bloodshed, especially given Hezbollah's massive arsenal of rockets and landmines, which could turn soldiers' lives into a continuous hell.

Regarding Syria, the article noted Israel's insistence on remaining in strategic areas in the Quneitra governorate in the south of the country. This refusal to withdraw appears to be part of a long-term plan to officially annex these lands in the future, exploiting regional instability to establish new facts on the ground.

Moving to the Gaza Strip, the analyst confirmed that Israeli forces effectively control half of the Strip's area and are continuously working to expand this control. This move coincides with systematic policies aimed at changing the demographic and geographical nature of the Strip to serve the long-term settlement vision.

In the West Bank, the report observed the spread of what were described as violent militias, operating under the cover and direct support of the Israeli army to carry out what resembles ethnic cleansing. These groups have adopted combat and organizational methods similar to cross-border militias, imposing their political and military agenda and relying entirely on the official state budget.

Bar'el linked this shift to the personality of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who adopts an expansionist doctrine that in some aspects resembles Donald Trump's thinking. However, the author clarified a fundamental difference: while Trump views control over land as a bargaining chip for negotiation, Netanyahu sees it as a 'sacred mission' and ideological goals that are non-negotiable and non-withdrawable.

The analysis indicates that this expansionist approach is accompanied by the construction of a parallel system within Israel that concentrates all powers in the hands of the Prime Minister. In this new system, religious forces and loyal politicians replace democratic institutions, leading to an unprecedented erosion of the rule of law and a decline in public freedoms.

The author also drew attention to the role of security and police agencies, which are sometimes used as tools to instill fear and compliance within Israeli society itself. This internal transformation serves external trends, as dissenting voices against occupation and expansion policies are silenced to ensure the continuation of the settlement project without effective internal opposition.

Bar'el strongly criticized the media's subservience to the government narrative, considering that Israeli society is being led through fear towards a bleak future. He believes that the absence of international accountability and continuous American support give Netanyahu the green light to proceed with violating international law and expanding the scope of occupation in the region.

The article concluded that Israel is heading towards long-term international isolation due to its insistence on rejecting recognized borders and adopting military force as the sole means of dealing with neighbors. It warned that the 'sacred security' sought by the government through expansion will not be achieved, but will lead to more bloody conflicts from which future generations will not escape.

The Israeli occupation of neighboring countries' territories is not a temporary tactic, but an ideological message and mission, and a permanent and sacred goal.

The occupied West Bank in 2026 is witnessing the peak of a 'spatial engineering' process that began in 1967, where the map is no longer merely disputed political borders, but has transformed into a stage for dismantling the Palestinian geographical fabric. The Israeli project aims to replace Arab geographical connectivity with a connected settlement control network, which has led to the transformation of Palestinian cities and villages into what resembles an 'archipelago' isolated amidst a sea of comprehensive Israeli control.

Ma'ale Adumim settlement, established in 1975 east of Jerusalem, is the cornerstone of what is known as the 'Eastern Shield'. The surrounding E-1 settlement project poses an existential threat to the possibility of a Palestinian state, as it aims to connect the settlement to Jerusalem, effectively isolating the holy city from its surroundings and completely separating the northern West Bank from its south.

Updated field data shows that the number of settlers in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, has exceeded 780,000. These are distributed across 192 official settlements and more than 350 settlement outposts, as part of a 'pivot points' strategy aimed at severing connections between major Palestinian urban centers and transforming them into separate cantons.

Occupation authorities currently control about 42% of the West Bank's area through the settlement system and its affiliated regional councils. Areas classified as (C) stand out as a strategic reservoir for settlement, constituting 61% of the total area, where Palestinians are prohibited from building in 99% of it, while facilities are granted to settlers to establish farms and modern road networks.

Israel uses a system of legal designations as tools for soft control, where 15% of the West Bank's land has been converted into so-called 'state lands' exclusively allocated to settlers. Closed military areas also cover about 18% of the area, and are often used to evacuate Bedouin communities in preparation for their later conversion into permanent settlement blocs.

Between 2023 and 2026, an unprecedented settlement explosion occurred, in which the occupation shifted from official government settlement to 'field privatization'. 'Pastoral settlement' emerged as an offensive tool, with more than 165 pastoral outposts established since 2023, 89 of them in 2025 alone, controlling thousands of dunams under direct army protection.

This expansion was accompanied by the legalization of thousands of housing units through the advancement of 390 structural plans, transforming random outposts into legal towns connected to Israeli infrastructure. This infrastructure includes providing settlements with water, electricity, and fiber optic services, to enhance their functional and civilian integration within the Israeli entity, away from their previous military character.

Israel moved to the stage of 'administrative annexation' by transferring broad powers from the military's civil administration to civilian ministries. This shift means that the West Bank is no longer treated as occupied territory subject to the laws of war, but as a part managed through Israeli civilian bureaucracy, facilitating confiscation and construction operations without security or international legal restrictions.

Bypass roads represent the arteries that strangle Palestinian land, consuming 3% of the West Bank's area and creating sharp spatial separation. These roads force Palestinians to use isolated tunnels and bridges to move between their villages, while providing settlers with fast and safe movement connecting settlement blocs to cities within the Green Line seamlessly.

Settler violence transformed from individual behavior into a systematic functional tool to empty the land of its owners, especially in the Jordan Valley and Masafer Yatta areas. These attacks led to the displacement of at least 79 Bedouin and Palestinian communities, and the forced displacement of more than 4,700 people, replaced by settlers in pastoral outposts that change the demographic reality.

In contrast to settlement expansion, Palestinians face a fierce policy of demolition and constriction, with 2025 alone recording the destruction of 1,400 residential and agricultural structures. Also, 925 closure points and military checkpoints are spread across the West Bank, turning citizens' lives into arduous journeys that double travel time and hinder any possibility of normal economic or social growth.

Official sources, including Defense Minister Israel Katz, stated that areas like Jenin refugee camp will not return to their former state, in reference to escalating destructive military operations. These statements reflect the occupation's intention to undermine the elements of survival in the camps and cities that constitute centers of resistance to the accelerating settlement project in the northern West Bank.

The apartheid wall continues to play its pivotal role in isolating hundreds of square kilometers of fertile land and groundwater sources. With the completion of new sections of the wall in 2026, the isolation of occupied Jerusalem deepens, and control is tightened over the strategic corridors connecting the governorates of the homeland, ending the dream of geographical connectivity.

On the fiftieth anniversary of Land Day, data shows that the conflict has transformed into a direct battle for physical existence on the land. Israeli 'fragmentation engineering' aims to prevent the emergence of any independent Palestinian entity, and to transform national political rights into mere humanitarian issues for residents living in isolated islands within an ever-expanding settlement environment.

The term 'settlement expansion' is no longer sufficient to describe the scene, as we are facing a reality of spatial resolution and the transformation of Palestinian geography into an archipelago of isolated islands.

Robert Pape, a professor of political science at the University of Chicago and founder of the Chicago Project on Security and Threats, warned that the prevailing discourse about achieving military 'victory' conceals a dangerous path. Pape explained that the gradual slide towards an all-out war is happening without a clear exit strategy, which could ultimately lead to Iran emerging from this conflict in a stronger and more influential position.

The American academic, in an analysis published by the Israeli newspaper 'Haaretz', pointed out that manifestations of military power, such as precision strikes and assassinations, do not necessarily mean that political goals are being approached. He questioned whether these operations enhance actual security or are merely fuel driving a broad regional escalation that will be difficult to contain in the near future.

Pape based his argument on his thesis in his book 'Bombing to Win', emphasizing that air power alone is incapable of fundamentally changing adversaries' behavior. He argued that bombing might achieve temporary tactical gains, but it often fails to achieve strategic stability, and may even lead to increased resilience and determination to confront the targeted party.

The analysis considered that the occupying state and the United States are currently engaged in what he described as an 'escalation trap', where every military step appears as a major achievement but leads to dangerous consequences. The first phase of this trap, according to Pape, began with the bombing of the Fordow site in June 2025, which did not achieve its ultimate goal due to the transfer of enriched uranium before the attack.

Pape explained that the absence of international oversight over Iranian facilities led to a state of 'strategic panic' among decision-makers, pushing them towards military options aimed at regime change. He warned that this phase leads to a broader escalation, including intense missile attacks and targeting vital maritime passages that affect the global economy.

The academic believes that the Iranian regime has not shown signs of collapse under pressure; instead, it has become more hardline and dangerous as it gains increasing geoeconomic power. He pointed out that Tehran's potential control over the passage of 20% of the world's oil gives it enormous leverage that could tip the balance of power in any open conflict.

Pape warned against transitioning to the third phase, which involves ground operations, emphasizing that they might start limited but quickly expand into a long attrition. He considered that this path reinforces Iran's motives to acquire nuclear weapons as its sole guarantee of survival, rather than deterring it from this path.

The analysis noted a deep gap in decision-makers' perception between tangible military success and invisible strategic failure. While the destruction of military targets is easy to present to the public, it is difficult to measure the deep changes in the adversary's structure, which may become more complex after each strike.

Pape stressed that the Strait of Hormuz represents a trump card for Iran, through which it can achieve broad financial and political gains that burden international powers. He called on Washington to abandon the 'illusion of control' through military force, emphasizing that sustainable solutions only come through viable political and diplomatic arrangements.

Regarding a return to negotiations, Pape noted that opportunities are narrowing and that Iran may raise its demands to include international oversight of Israeli nuclear capabilities. He described Trump's withdrawal from the nuclear deal in 2018 as a grave mistake that accelerated the enrichment program and left the region without a safe alternative plan.

Pape concluded his warning by alerting to the danger of 'radiological attacks' that could cause a major strategic shock even without the use of conventional nuclear warheads. He affirmed that the policy of 'decapitation' and assassinating leaders might replace them with more radical figures, making diplomacy, despite its difficulty, the only path to avoid a catastrophic regional reality.

Tactical military successes can be easily displayed, but they often hide a deep strategic failure to change the adversary's behavior.

Diplomatic relations between the US administration and its Western allies have entered a new phase of tension, following sharp criticism directed at France by Donald Trump. Trump stated that Paris had shown 'very weak cooperation' in military operations against Iran, reflecting a growing gap in security coordination between the two parties.

This American dissatisfaction came against the backdrop of the French authorities' decision to ban military aircraft carrying equipment and ammunition bound for Israel from crossing its airspace. Sources reported that this decision included specific cases, among them an Israeli aircraft transporting American military shipments at the end of last March.

The French stance caused widespread logistical complications for US forces, which typically rely on French airspace as the shortest route to the Middle East. American aircraft, including strategic bombers, were forced to take alternative, longer routes through Southern Europe and the Strait of Gibraltar, increasing operating costs and flight hours.

For its part, the French presidency maintained its position, asserting that this measure is consistent with its consistent policy since the outbreak of the current conflict. Official sources clarified that Paris clearly distinguishes between providing general logistical support and direct involvement in combat operations that it does not fully endorse.

Paris indicated that it had previously allowed American planes to land at the 'Istres' base in the south of the country, but this was conditional on guarantees that they would not participate in offensive strikes. French circles expressed surprise at Trump's statements, considering them to lack accuracy in describing the true French position.

France does not appear to be alone in this approach, as Spain faced similar American criticism after closing its airspace to aircraft participating in military operations. Madrid refused the use of its bases in Andalusia, prompting Trump to threaten punitive economic measures against it, signaling a sharp division within the Western bloc.

In a related context, French-Israeli relations are experiencing an unprecedented deterioration, with the Israeli Ministry of Defense announcing a halt to all its defense purchases from France. This escalatory step reflects a radical shift in Tel Aviv's view of Paris, which it no longer classifies as a reliable partner in security matters.

At the heart of the dispute between Paris and Tel Aviv are pivotal political decisions, most notably France's official recognition of a Palestinian state in 2025. Benjamin Netanyahu's government considered this decision a hostile step aimed at exerting unacceptable international pressure on Israel under the current circumstances.

Other French measures also contributed to deepening the rift, such as preventing the passage of military shipments and demanding restrictions on arms exports to Israel. Additionally, the exclusion of Israeli companies from defense exhibitions held on French soil sparked widespread anger in Israeli political and military circles.

Despite diplomatic attempts led by French Foreign Minister Jean-Noël Barrot to mend relations, his Israeli counterpart Gideon Sa'ar showed no tangible response. Israel continues its military operations in southern Lebanon, ignoring repeated French calls for de-escalation and adherence to diplomatic channels.

In a related context, Trump's statements about the potential withdrawal of US forces from the region caused widespread concern among European allies. Trump called on other countries to take responsibility for securing their own energy supplies, indicating that protecting navigation in the Strait of Hormuz is no longer a top priority for Washington.

These developments embody a phase of reshaping international balances, where France attempts to balance its principles related to international law with its traditional alliances. Amidst the escalatory approach of Washington and Tel Aviv, the European position appears divided, weakening the Old Continent's ability to influence Middle East issues.

France showed very weak cooperation in military operations, and its decision to ban the passage of supplies is causing significant logistical complications.

Egyptian Foreign Minister Badr Abdel Atty held an extensive meeting today, Wednesday, with the High Representative for Gaza in the Peace Council, Nikolay Mladenov, focusing on ways to advance the implementation of the second phase of the ceasefire agreement in the Gaza Strip. These discussions come at a sensitive time, as the Strip continues to witness field violations by Israeli occupation forces, threatening the stability of existing understandings.

Official sources clarified that the meeting discussed in detail the latest humanitarian and field developments in Gaza, and international efforts aimed at supporting the implementation of the entitlements of the second phase stemming from recent international initiatives. The Egyptian side stressed the necessity of adhering to the agreed-upon timelines and provisions to ensure a smooth transition towards a complete cessation of military operations.

During the discussions, Minister Abdel Atty emphasized the importance of not allowing regional escalation in the area to distract from the core issue in Gaza. He pointed out that completing the implementation of all provisions of the second phase is a top priority for the Egyptian state, affirming Cairo's full support for Mladenov's efforts in this complex diplomatic framework.

In a related context, the discussions stressed the necessity of keeping the Rafah crossing open in both directions to ensure the unimpeded flow of humanitarian and medical aid. Both sides considered that alleviating the humanitarian suffering of the Strip's residents requires genuine international will to remove the Israeli restrictions imposed on the entry of relief convoys and basic necessities.

The meeting also focused on the importance of a complete Israeli withdrawal from the agreed-upon areas, paving the way for the start of early recovery projects throughout the Strip. This vision aims to transition to a comprehensive reconstruction phase according to a coordinated international approach that responds to the actual needs of the population who have suffered widespread destruction of infrastructure.

On the ground, the Palestinian Ministry of Health in Gaza announced the martyrdom of four people and the injury of 12 others during the past twenty-four hours. Medical sources clarified that these injuries and deaths resulted from continued direct Israeli targeting of civilians, despite the ceasefire agreement coming into effect since mid-October last year.

Updated statistical data revealed that the total number of victims of the ongoing aggression since October 7, 2023, has risen to 72,289 martyrs and 172,040 injured. These staggering figures reflect the scale of the humanitarian catastrophe that has befallen the Strip, amidst the continued presence of thousands of missing persons under the rubble and in rugged roads.

Field reports indicated that the death toll since the announcement of the truce on October 11 last year reached 713 martyrs, in addition to the recovery of 756 bodies from under the rubble. Ambulance and civil defense crews face extreme difficulties in reaching targeted areas due to the absence of safe conditions and the continued flight of drones and targeting of movements.

In a dangerous development, sources reported that the Israeli occupation army has established its military presence by setting up 7 new sites along what is known as the 'Yellow Line'. These movements included placing concrete blocks and destroying surrounding residential buildings, displacing more families and crowding approximately 2.1 million Palestinians into very small areas.

Current Egyptian diplomatic moves seek to curb these field violations and ensure that the ceasefire agreement does not collapse. The Palestinian side demands genuine international guarantees that prevent the targeting of civilians and oblige the occupation to withdraw from vital centers and residential areas that were re-occupied during the recent ground operations.

Military escalation in the region must not distract from the full implementation of the second phase of the war cessation plan in Gaza.

At a moment when blood mixes with history, and the voice of the land rises above all attempts at obliteration, the occupation emerges from behind its legal masks to declare it explicitly: killing is a right, execution is a policy, and the Palestinian is a legitimate target. On the fiftieth anniversary of the eternal Land Day, the usurping entity is not content with stealing land, but seeks to snatch life itself from its owners by enacting the “Prisoner Execution Law.” This is not a transient law, but a declaration of war written in the language of legislation, summarizing a complete colonial ideology that views the existence of a Palestinian as a crime punishable by death. It is a moment of great revelation, where the judiciary turns into an execution platform, the law into a bullet, and the prison into an open guillotine.

The “Prisoner Execution Law” represents a dangerous strategic shift in the nature of the conflict, as the occupation moves from managing oppression to engineering death as an official policy. It is no longer just violations committed in the shadows or practices denied by the official narrative; rather, killing is now formulated as a legal text, discussed in legislative halls, and given full institutional cover. This shift means that the occupation no longer sees a need to hide its crimes, but rather seeks to normalize them and redefine them as “sovereign” tools within its governing system.

Politically, this law reflects an unprecedented state of extremism within the Israeli governing structure, where the interests of the far-right intersect with the political survival crises of successive governments. The blood of prisoners is used as fuel to strengthen internal hegemony and project an image of power to a public that lives on a discourse of fear and hatred. Turning execution into a political card exposes the nature of this entity, which uses killing as a means to reproduce its shaky legitimacy, and turns the bodies of prisoners into tools in the equation of governance.

Legally, this legislation constitutes a blatant violation of all rules of international humanitarian law, foremost among them the Geneva Conventions, which guarantee the protection of prisoners and detainees and prevent their exposure to harsh or inhumane penalties. It also directly contradicts the basic principles of justice, which require fair and independent trials, while the military courts before which prisoners are tried are an integral part of the occupation system itself, which renders any judgment issued by them fundamentally illegitimate. We are facing an attempt to legalize a described crime, and to turn the judiciary into an enforcement tool within the machinery of oppression.

Humanely, this law opens a wide door to a complex tragedy, not limited to the prisoner alone, but extending to his family and entire community. Every Palestinian prisoner becomes threatened with a death sentence, every mother lives awaiting a call that may bring news of execution, and every child is raised with the idea that his father may be taken from him by a political decision. It is a deferred mass killing operation, targeting the Palestinian spirit and working to spread terror as a means of subjugating the entire society.

Internationally, this development reveals the extent of the collapse in the global justice system. The world that formulated human rights laws after bloody wars stands today helpless before legislation that reproduces the most heinous forms of collective punishment. International silence, or merely expressing concern, can only be interpreted as a green light for the continuation of the crime. Indeed, the absence of effective accountability has encouraged the occupation to proceed with legalizing killing, benefiting from a complex network of political and economic interests that protect it from any real accountability.

Locally Palestinian, this law poses an existential challenge that reorders the priorities of confrontation. It does not target a specific faction or segment, but affects the entire prisoner movement, which is one of the pillars of the national struggle. Therefore, the response cannot be partial or circumstantial, but requires a comprehensive engagement at the popular, political, and media levels, to overturn this law and expose its dimensions to the world. The unity of the Palestinian position in confronting this legislation becomes a national necessity, not an option.

At the heart of this scene, the prisoner movement stands as a central symbol of steadfastness. Those who fought battles of empty stomachs, and faced isolation and torture, today face a new attempt to break their will through the legal guillotine. But history testifies that prisoners have never been the weakest link; rather, they have often been the vanguard of national consciousness, and a living voice for freedom within the walls of oppression. Targeting them in this way reflects the extent of the fear they represent for the occupation, not the other way around.

As for the context of Land Day, the link between land and prisoner becomes clearer than ever. The land that was confiscated by force of arms, its usurpation is to be solidified by killing those who defended it. It is as if the occupation is saying that the battle is no longer just over geography, but over existence itself. And here the deeper truth emerges: that defending prisoners is defending the land, and confronting this law is a natural extension of the battle for Palestinian survival.

In conclusion… the “Prisoner Execution Law” is not just a transient piece of legislation, but a landmark in the course of a long conflict, revealing the true face of the occupation as a system based on organized killing and its legalization. But, at the same time, it places this occupation before a truth that cannot be changed by laws: that a people who have resisted for decades will not be subdued by guillotines, and that freedom won through struggle cannot be executed by decree.

On the fiftieth anniversary of Land Day, the compass is renewed: the land remains, the prisoners remain in its conscience, and the occupation will vanish. This law will remain a witness to a crime, and the Palestinian will remain a witness to his right… until victory.

A general strike has gripped the cities of the occupied West Bank since early Wednesday morning, with all aspects of life coming to a complete halt, expressing widespread popular rejection of the Israeli Knesset's approval of the prisoner execution law. Shops and institutions closed their doors in major city centers such as Hebron, Ramallah, and Nablus, in a protest move aimed at conveying a message of anger against legislation targeting the Palestinian presence.

These field actions came in response to calls launched by the Fatah movement, which demanded the necessity of launching a comprehensive national movement and strengthening diplomatic efforts at both Arab and international levels. In a statement, the movement stressed that the goal of this escalation is to pressure for the repeal of the law and to hold the occupation authorities accountable for their systematic and continuous crimes against the Palestinian people and their prisoners inside jails.

National forces affirmed that this legislation, which they described as 'criminal,' will not succeed in breaking the will of the prisoner movement or deterring Palestinians from demanding their legitimate rights. Field sources indicated that the streets appeared completely deserted in many governorates, reflecting the popular consensus in confronting this new legal threat that affects the lives of thousands of detainees.

Yesterday, Tuesday, West Bank cities witnessed a series of massive protest vigils organized by institutions concerned with prisoner affairs in Jenin, Tubas, Hebron, and other areas. Participants in these events raised slogans condemning Israeli racism, warning that the approval of such laws represents a green light for implementing legal liquidation operations against Palestinian freedom fighters.

The law, approved by the Knesset on Monday, stipulates the imposition of the death penalty by hanging on Palestinians convicted of killing Israelis, while exempting Israelis from the same penalty if they kill Palestinians. Human rights organizations believe that this clear discrimination entrenches the 'apartheid' system and racist legislation that grants full immunity to prison officers and executioners.

The new legislation's provisions include broad powers for military courts in the West Bank, allowing them to issue death sentences by a simple majority without requiring a unanimous decision from judges. The law also prohibits the military commander from commuting or canceling the sentence, with mandatory execution within ninety days of its issuance, along with imposing strict isolation measures on those sentenced in underground solitary confinement cells.

This dangerous development comes amid tragic conditions experienced by more than 9,300 Palestinian prisoners inside occupation prisons, where the pace of abuse and starvation has escalated since October 2023. Human rights reports indicate that dozens of prisoners have died due to medical negligence and systematic torture, making the execution law an additional tool in the slow killing policy pursued by the prison administration.

This criminal law will not break the will of the people or the determination of the prisoners; rather, it will increase their resolve to continue the struggle for their freedom and legitimate rights.

The least that can be said In his book "My Years, My Memoirs", published by "Al-Farajani" publishing house, Abdel Rahman Shalgham, the Libyan Foreign Minister during Gaddafi's era, recounts the details of what he described as the "battle of weapons of mass destruction", which ended with the Jamahiriya abandoning those weapons, which were transported by a giant American aircraft to the United States. Shalgham says: "December 19, 2003, was one of the longest days of my life. It was the culmination of a journey fraught with tensions and booby-trapped with surprises, as Gaddafi rejected an American-British proposal for him to appear directly on Libyan television to announce Libya's complete abandonment of its nuclear, chemical, and long-range missile program, with US President George Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair then coming out to welcome what was stated in his remarks, fearing a trap set for him, saying: This is a dangerous conspiracy through which they aim to obtain an official confession from me of possessing weapons of mass destruction, so that they can then carry out military action against us." Gaddafi suggested that videos be recorded by the three presidents, to be broadcast in order on television screens in the three countries, but the Americans and British strongly rejected the proposal. Shalgham says that after strenuous communications during which we were exhausted and felt anxious about reaching a dead end, Gaddafi told us: "Tell them that we have water, flour, and fire, but we didn't make bread." Gaddafi's face brightened when Shalgham jokingly recalled what the poet Abu Nuwas said to those who arrested him while he was carrying a pot for making wine, and he was told: We will impose the punishment for drinking wine on you. He told them: I am carrying the tools for making wine, but I have not made it. Therefore, the punishment for adultery should be imposed on all of you because you are carrying its tools and have not committed adultery, considering that possessing the "tools" does not necessarily mean the occurrence of the "crime." This is an approximate picture of the behind-the-scenes of the heated negotiations that the United States conducts with its enemies, sometimes through dialogue, and sometimes through fire. While Trump announces that his negotiators have reached "good results" during negotiations they are conducting with "sane" Iranian officials, Tehran denied those negotiations, indicating that they are limited only to the exchange of messages presented to them by mediators that included "15 points", and that it responded with "5 points". However, Trump hinted at the channel of the Iranian Parliament Speaker "Baqer Qalibaf", a name that means "carpet weaver" in Persian. Amidst these confusing statements, in which promises are mixed with threats, it is leaking from the behind-the-scenes of the mediators' meetings in Islamabad that an American delegation, headed by a person of Iranian origin, will hold negotiations tomorrow with Iranian officials in Tehran, which would defuse the explosion, by carrying out a "clearing" between the messages of the two parties, during which a fragile truce similar to the Gaza truce will be reached, to avoid sliding into undesirable consequences as the April 6 deadline approaches. No one knows when the continuous "finger-biting" game will stop between the "real estate developer" who is rushing like a train off the tracks, and the "carpet weaver" who threads the threads with tense fingers. The chances of success of Islamabad's efforts, which Beijing joined yesterday, are equal to the risks of failure, but that does not prevent trying by calling on Trump to stop adventuring, as came in the appeal of the Egyptian President to him the day before yesterday, sensing the immense dangers threatening the region and the world if he continues his raging momentum.

Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi announced the existence of direct communication channels with US Special Envoy Steve Witkoff, noting that these communications have not yet reached the level of official negotiations. Araghchi explained that the exchanged messages sometimes contain threatening language or an exchange of political views, some of which are conveyed through intermediaries he described as friends, stressing that Tehran deals with these correspondences cautiously and within the usual diplomatic frameworks.

The head of Iranian diplomacy stressed that his country has not given any official response to the list of 15 American proposals, nor has Tehran put forward any counter-conditions or alternative proposals at present. He indicated that no decision regarding the start of serious negotiations has been made yet, as all Iranian observations are subject to study and scrutiny, while emphasizing that the Islamic Republic's conditions for ending the conflict in the region are clear and indivisible.

Regarding the internal mechanism for managing these communications, Araghchi denied the existence of any negotiations conducted by unofficial or parallel parties within Iran, stressing that the exchange of messages takes place exclusively through the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and in full coordination with the security agencies. He added that all these movements take place under the direct supervision of the National Security Council, to ensure the unity of the official Iranian position in the face of international pressures and external proposals.

Regarding the regional de-escalation file, the Iranian minister affirmed that Tehran will not accept any formula for a temporary ceasefire, but rather stipulates a comprehensive and complete cessation of the war that includes the entire region, not just the Iranian arena. He sent a message to the US administration that the Iranian people cannot be intimidated by threats, calling on the US president to address Tehran in a language based on mutual respect and recognition of national rights.

Regarding the security of international navigation, Araghchi affirmed that the Strait of Hormuz remains an open waterway for global trade, but it will only be closed to powers that wage war against Iran. He explained that Tehran has taken all necessary measures to ensure the safe passage of ships of friendly countries, considering that the strait can turn into a passage for peace if other countries respect the interests of the littoral states and avoid military escalation.

In conclusion of his statements, Araghchi touched upon the file of relations with neighboring Arab countries, acknowledging the existence of challenges and difficulties that may face the process of rebuilding trust in the next stage. However, he expressed optimism about his country's ability to restore these relations and overcome historical obstacles, while at the same time warning against any miscalculation that adversaries might make, and affirming the readiness of Iranian forces to confront any potential ground confrontation.

The Strait of Hormuz is fully open and closed only to those who fight Iran, and we have taken all measures to ensure the safe passage of friendly ships.

We are not a direct party to this raging war, we have no interest in its goals and motives, and we stand with the Iranian people, with their diverse national and sectarian components, in rejection of this war, and in confronting those who initiated it and detonated its tools. This means that we are against the treacherous Israeli-American attack that the Iranian people have been subjected to, starting from Saturday, February 28, 2026. With Iran against the colony and against its expansionist programs while it occupies the lands of three Arab countries, because the political goal of the colony is expansion and imposing control and hegemony over the Arab East region from the coasts of the Mediterranean Sea to the eastern borders of Iraq, including the Arabian Gulf region, and consolidating the occupation of the entire map of Palestine. We have no interest in Iran's defeat in the context of the American-backed colonial program, supported by the unbalanced right-wing Trump administration dedicated to serving the colony and continuing its occupation, and expanding its influence. However, we cannot accept Iran's absurd dealings in its choices, and its narrow horizons in not prioritizing, and it works to bomb our Arab countries in the Arabian Gulf countries in addition to Jordan, just as it deals with the colony and its bombing, and it harms our Arab security and infringes on the sovereignty of our countries, and directs harm to Arab institutions, and to the Arab individual, by bombing and deliberate targeting of Arab countries. Instead of directing its strikes at the American fleets deployed in the Arabian Sea and the Mediterranean Sea, and at the Israeli colony, it directs its strikes at the Arabian Gulf countries and Jordan, and deals with us as if we are part of the American-Israeli attack, and forces us, through poor choices and lack of prioritization, to be in the opposing trench, with the Israeli-American camp, its enemies, and pushes us, instead of being sympathetic to the Iranians, or at least neutral, and we are not, it deals with us and forces us reluctantly to be in the opposing front: the Israeli-American, and we are classified according to this equation. Iran has stood firm so far in the face of the American-Israeli attack despite the destruction and assassinations that its military, political, and religious leaders have been subjected to, and it is still capable of delivering painful blows to the Israeli colony, so why this political stupidity in poor choices and lack of prioritization?? Europe has so far rejected the motives for war on Iran, and politically rejected forms of dependency to be with the United States' war against Iran, just as China and Russia stand in solidarity with Iran, which indicates that the positions of these three parties are in favor of Iran, and their positions are political levers for Iran's benefit, just as the Arabian Gulf countries and Jordan are still against the war and rejected it from the beginning, and rejected any involvement and still refuse to be a partner of the American-Israeli camp, which provides Iran with positive political fronts in its favor if it handles it appropriately, and limits its defenses to confronting the attacking camp, not to act and do in its involvement to expand the front of enemies by attacking Arab countries. Iran must offer a public apology to the Arabian Gulf countries and Jordan, and declare that it will work to avoid harming Arab geography and sovereignty, because we are neighbors and our religious background is one, and our future is common, and not to be immersed in not distinguishing between black and white, between the camp of enemies and the camp of neighbors, as we are supposed to be with it, and as it should be keen on us to be non-enemy neighbors.

The approval of what is known as the Prisoners' Execution Law in the Knesset in its second and third readings does not represent merely an ordinary piece of legislation, but rather constitutes a dangerous shift in the structure of the legal and political system. It reflects a trend towards using the law in its current form as a harsh deterrent in the context of a complex political conflict. This arbitrary measure, with its exceptional punitive dimensions, places Israel before a real test of its commitment to the principles of constitutional justice and international humanitarian law.This law is a full-fledged crime from the perspective of international law and human rights, due to its direct threat to the right to life, which is the most sacred right in the system of fundamental rights. Furthermore, the allocation of the death penalty to a specific group, based on national or political affiliation, raises serious suspicions about the principle of equality before the law, and reinforces fears of establishing a dual legal system that subjects Palestinians (alone) to harsher rules than others.In a remarkable development, the Association for Civil Rights in Israel submitted an urgent petition to the Israeli Supreme Court challenging the Prisoners' Execution Law, considering it one of the most exceptional and extreme laws in Israeli legislation. It argues that the law exclusively imposes the harshest possible penalty—execution—on Palestinians, by creating two parallel legal systems: one military and one criminal. The Association believes that each of these systems represents a blatant violation of the right to life, dignity, due process, and equality, and that the gaps between them deepen discrimination and produce a legal reality that evokes rejection and disgust.This challenge gains particular importance in light of warnings from the Israeli government's own legal advisors that the law may be unconstitutional, which reflects deep disagreements within the legal establishment regarding its legitimacy. Politically, these warnings mean that the law may face serious obstacles in its implementation, and that the battle over it will not only be political, but also legal and constitutional.According to what was published by Maariv newspaper, the Supreme Court ordered the government and the Knesset to respond to the petitions filed against the Prisoners' Execution Law, while exploring the possibility of issuing an interim order to suspend the implementation of the law until a final decision is made on the petitions. The court also decided not to outright reject the petitions, contenting itself with demanding that the authorities clarify their position.Several human rights organizations, including Adalah – The Legal Center for Arab Minority Rights in Israel, the Public Committee Against Torture in Israel, HaMoked – Center for the Defence of the Individual, and Physicians for Human Rights – Israel, along with a number of Knesset members, also submitted urgent petitions to the Supreme Court demanding the annulment of the law. This step reflects the widening circle of opposition to it within legal and human rights circles, and indicates the transition of the battle against the legislation from the political arena to the legal and constitutional one.The current scene does not merely reflect a legal dispute over a legislative text, but rather reveals a deep conflict between the logic of power and the logic of law, and between the tendency towards collective punishment and the principles of human justice. Laws that affect the right to life cannot be treated as political tools, but rather as moral and humanitarian issues that transcend the boundaries of politics and conflict.In light of these developments, the fate of this law remains dependent on the decision of the judiciary, and on the ability of the international community and the human rights system to protect the fundamental principles of justice, because history proves that the harshest laws may fall before the voice of the law, and that justice—however delayed—remains the only option capable of protecting human beings and preserving their dignity.

Questions are escalating regarding the economic and political cost of the war waged by the administration of US President Donald Trump against Iran, especially after statements by White House spokeswoman Karoline Leavitt, in which she indicated the President's interest in inviting Arab countries to contribute to funding these operations. These statements reflect an American tendency to burden regional allies with the costs of a military confrontation whose timing or ultimate goals they were not consulted on.

Observers believe that the young spokeswoman's lack of political experience may be the reason for the spontaneity of this proposal, but the message has clearly reached wealthy Arab capitals about the need to prepare for imminent American financial demands. This step comes in the context of the 'extortion' policy previously adopted by Trump, but it has now moved from the realm of investments and military purchases to the realm of funding direct and illegal wars from the perspective of international law.

While the White House insists on proceeding with the escalation, reports indicate a sharp division within American research and security circles; 'Foreign Affairs' magazine confirmed that only 5% of experts supported launching this war. Moreover, a very small percentage, not exceeding 1%, believes that this military clash will lead to any real democratic change within Iran, which reinforces the hypothesis that it is a 'personal war' for the President.

On the ground, the repercussions were not limited to the American side but extended to Washington's allies in the region, where the UAE was subjected to more than 2300 attacks by Iranian missiles and drones. Despite this military pressure, divergent Gulf positions emerge; while Abu Dhabi and Riyadh push to ensure the complete neutralization of the Iranian nuclear program, countries like Oman and Qatar adhere to the path of diplomacy and mediation to avoid a comprehensive regional explosion.

Internationally, Trump finds himself increasingly isolated, as NATO countries and the G7 have distanced themselves from providing explicit support for this military adventure. The US Secretary of State expressed his regret for the absence of this support during the last meeting in France, which Trump met with a series of public insults to his traditional allies, deepening the rift across the Atlantic.

Trump's posts on 'Truth Social' raise international legal concerns, as he explicitly threatened to destroy power plants, oil wells, and desalination plants in Iran if a quick agreement is not reached. These threats, if implemented, constitute full-fledged war crimes targeting civilian infrastructure, which could expose the US administration to international legal accountability in the future.

Amid escalating popular discontent within the United States under the slogan 'No to Kings,' Trump faces internal pressures due to the economic repercussions of the war on citizens' daily lives. The massive demonstrations witnessed in American cities recently reflect widespread rejection of the individualistic approach to managing the country's affairs and dragging the American military into conflicts that do not serve supreme national interests as much as they serve narrow political agendas.

Sources indicate that Washington's attempts to secure the Strait of Hormuz by inviting international ships for military escort have received little response, recalling previous failed experiences in the 1980s. The lack of international enthusiasm to participate in this 'adventure' puts Trump and Netanyahu in direct confrontation with Tehran without real international cover, increasing the likelihood of the region sliding into unprecedented disasters.

In conclusion, it appears that the current US administration is betting on a brinkmanship policy to achieve quick political gains before the deadlines it has set expire, but the reality on the ground and widespread international opposition indicate greater complexities. The insistence on completing this war recklessly, and in close coordination with the Netanyahu government, puts the stability of the Middle East and the global economy at stake, in the absence of any clear vision for the post-destruction phase.

We are facing a catastrophic precedent in that Trump seeks to make the billion-dollar daily cost of this war a 'collective' effort in which others participate as if it were a tribute.

US President Donald Trump revealed the approaching end of military operations led by the United States against Iran, confirming that American forces might leave Iranian territory within two to three weeks. Trump clarified in press statements that the strategic goal of preventing Tehran from acquiring nuclear weapons has been put on the path to verification, noting that he sees no need for a long-term presence of American forces there.

The US President indicated that Washington is currently in contact with Iranian leaders whom he described as "more moderate and rational" than previous leaders, considering that there is a comprehensive change taking place in the Tehran regime. Trump added that Iran's return to the negotiating table is a positive step, but he stressed at the same time that concluding a formal agreement is not an absolute condition for ending ongoing military operations.

In a related context, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi confirmed the existence of direct communication channels with the American side through special envoy Steve Witkoff, but he downplayed these contacts, describing them as not rising to the level of formal negotiations. Araghchi explained that the exchanged messages sometimes include threats or an exchange of views conveyed through mediators or security agencies, confirming that Tehran has not yet responded to the 15 American proposals submitted.

The head of Iranian diplomacy stressed that his country will not accept any formula for a temporary ceasefire, but rather demands a complete and comprehensive cessation of the war in Iran and the entire region. He indicated that any decision regarding future negotiations will be subject to the supervision of the Iranian National Security Council, emphasizing the need for the US President to address the Iranian people with a language of respect, far from the language of threat that will not be effective.

Regarding international navigation, Araghchi affirmed that the Strait of Hormuz remains fully open to ship traffic, with the exception of those belonging to entities directly at war with Iran. He clarified that Tehran has taken all necessary measures to ensure the safe passage of ships from friendly countries, while warning against any miscalculations that adversaries might make if they resort to a widespread ground confrontation.

These developments come at a time when sources from the White House revealed Trump's desire to involve Arab countries in bearing the financial costs of military operations against Iran. The US administration had previously hinted at an unprecedented escalation, including targeting oil infrastructure and desalination plants, in an attempt to pressure Tehran to accept American conditions before the deadline set for the sixth of this month.

On the ground, the confrontation witnessed a significant escalation, with the UAE being subjected to more than 2,300 missile and drone attacks launched from Iranian territory, which prompted Abu Dhabi to push for a ground invasion that would permanently cripple Iranian military capabilities. In contrast, countries such as Oman and Qatar adopt positions calling for de-escalation and the activation of diplomatic channels to avoid further destruction in the region.

For its part, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia set clear conditions for any future political settlement, focusing on the complete neutralization of the Iranian nuclear program and the destruction of the ballistic missile system that threatens regional security. These differing positions reflect the complexity of the regional scene, despite the optimistic signals expressed by Trump regarding the imminent end of hostilities.

Reports indicate that the ongoing war has resulted in human losses exceeding 3,000 dead so far, in addition to its profound repercussions on the global economy and energy market. Despite military pressure, observers believe that the lack of explicit support from NATO and the G7 for American operations may push Washington to seek a quick exit that ensures the achievement of its minimum objectives.

Anticipation remains the dominant sentiment, awaiting what the next few days will bring, especially with the approaching end of the deadline set by Trump regarding the Strait of Hormuz. While the White House speaks of an imminent withdrawal, Tehran insists that the dignity of the Iranian people and a complete cessation of aggression are the only key to any future stability in the region, which is living on a hot plate.

We will leave Iran within two to three weeks, and there is no reason for us to stay after achieving the goal of preventing Tehran from possessing nuclear weapons.

Warnings are escalating within Israeli military circles about a real danger threatening the army's collapse, as Ayal Zamir issued an alarm cry regarding the accumulation of military burdens for more than two and a half years. Observers believe that the current government is neglecting the necessity of providing a competent army on the borders, which could, over time, lead to the collapse of the entire state due to weak military readiness.

Media sources reported that the army suffered heavy losses as a result of sending insufficiently trained units to the battlefronts under the pressure of continuous operations. The sources clarified that these units faced severe difficulties in field control, leading to a high rate of injuries and deaths among soldiers who did not comprehend the strategic objectives for which they were sacrificing their lives.

Reports indicate a sharp decline in soldiers' combat motivation in the face of a political leadership described as incapable of convincing them of the justice of the ongoing battles. Fighters feel that they are being led to their demise in absurd and dangerous missions for which they have not received adequate training, and which primarily aim to satisfy political balances within the ruling government coalition.

Military corridors frequently compare the current situation of the Israeli army to historical scenarios of the collapse of major armies such as the Soviet Army and the American Army in Vietnam. Experts criticize the presence of ministers in the government who have never served militarily and do not realize the extent of suffering experienced by armored reserve companies that lack even the minimum number of medics and equipment.

Signs of organizational collapse are evident in the refusal of some brigade commanders to carry out orders to enter complex conflict zones such as Beirut, in addition to a decline in enlistment rates. In some cases, only 200 soldiers arrive out of a battalion of 500, reflecting the growing trust gap between soldiers and their military and political leadership alike.

Soldiers suffer from severe physical and psychological exhaustion as a result of being forced to conduct patrols and combat operations extending for 20 hours a day for two consecutive years. The army urgently needs periods of fitness recovery, rest, and treatment for physical and psychological injuries, but the pressure of multiple fronts prevents this, leading to a decline in decision-making ability.

The actual collapse begins when chronic fatigue takes over units, where soldiers execute orders automatically without initiative or fighting spirit. Serious operational incidents increase, and the maintenance of vital equipment declines, endangering the lives of fighters due to the absence of distinguished competencies who have left service for psychological or social reasons.

Informed sources revealed that successive failures have caused a sharp division within the army's high command, where accusations are exchanged and responsibility is evaded. Groups within the leadership have begun to emerge, supporting and opposing certain decisions, threatening the unity of military command and making the execution of complex tasks almost impossible in the absence of cohesion.

The issue of the law exempting Haredim from military service is considered the straw that might break the camel's back, as it provokes widespread anger among reserve soldiers who bear the greatest burden. Fighters believe that lawmakers do not realize the extent of personal and family sacrifices they make, at a time when privileges are granted to other groups that evade national duty.

The burden of fighting in Gaza, Lebanon, Syria, the West Bank, and Iran falls on a small segment not exceeding 4% of the population, creating a feeling of social injustice. These soldiers return from the battlefronts to see tax money spent on groups that do not participate in defending the state, which shatters morale and pushes towards slow disintegration.

Soldiers strongly criticize the Prime Minister's statements describing Israel as a global power capable of continuing to fight 'whatever the cost' without defining clear political objectives. Fighters believe that this 'arrogance' ignores the severe shortage of manpower and pushes the army towards a long-term attrition for which it has not been prepared structurally or logistically.

Ministry of Defense data showed that about 20,000 soldiers need treatment for PTSD, a number expected to double in the coming years with ongoing operations. In addition, the army lost about 900 killed and 10,000 wounded, figures that constitute a severe moral blow to those remaining in service and who are asked to extend their military terms.

Regular soldiers face immense psychological pressures that lead them to question their future under a government that attacks the Chief of Staff merely for presenting realistic problems to decision-makers. This clash between the military and political levels reinforces an atmosphere of despair within field units and reduces the chances of achieving any real victory on the ground.

In conclusion, the government's disregard for Zamir's warnings and its preoccupation with accusing him of leaking information reflects the depth of the political and security crisis. Instead of addressing the causes of the impending collapse, the political leadership contents itself with promoting false morale, ignoring that victory is not achieved through speeches but through a cohesive and qualified army that trusts its leadership and objectives.

The army is slowly disintegrating due to an enormous and inhumane number of tasks, and soldiers feel they are being led to certain death to satisfy political ambitions.

Israeli writer Raanan Shaked questions the nature of a society that has come to find war a means of escaping routine, noting that many Israelis have come to love this feeling. Shaked believes that this love stems from an old childhood dream of absolute control and getting rid of existential threats with a roaring sound that terrifies everyone forever.

The article points to the stark contradiction in Israeli society, which supports the continuation of the war in opinion polls, while at the same time ranking eighth in the global happiness index. The writer explains this contradiction as an attempt to hide a simple truth, which is that a wide segment of the public actually enjoys the state of alertness and unity imposed by military confrontation.

Shaked describes the 'adrenaline' state that Israelis experience when hearing the sound of explosions and identifying missile interception sites, considering it a kind of 'Russian roulette'. He adds that some are relieved simply because the shells did not hit their homes but hit others in cities like Rishon LeZion or Arad, turning the tragedy into material for television viewing.

The writer strongly criticizes the celebration of the killing of Palestinians, citing the widespread interaction with news of the killing of four women in a women's salon near Hebron. Tweets covering the news garnered thousands of likes and supportive emojis, in a scene that reflects what he described as 'absolute bestiality' and deliberate loss of humanity.

The article also paused at the role played by Hebrew media, such as Channel 14, which sarcastically asked whether the public had distributed 'baklava' to celebrate the killing of women. Shaked sees this media discourse as confirmation of the moral decline that society has reached in light of the ongoing conflict.

In the context of military operations, the writer believes that Israelis love to see assassination lists and faces crossed out with red marks, even though this does not change the security reality at all. Missile launches continue by the dozens, and the targeted regime remains in place, yet the 'love' for these illusory victories continues.

Shaked attacks the return to the 'Lebanon quagmire', considering that there is an incomprehensible desire to sink into it again without thinking about the economic or psychological consequences. He criticizes society's disregard for the financial collapses of freelancers, and the cases of depression and suicide that have begun to spread in families affected by the war.

The Israeli writer describes the new Israelis as reckless 'war mongers' who stopped extending their hands for peace a long time ago and replaced them with sticks and rifles. He believes that over-reliance on the Iron Dome has created a kind of false resilience that allows living under missiles and calling it a daily 'routine'.

Shaked directs harsh criticism at Benjamin Netanyahu's government, describing it as a government with no expiration date and no real goal, seeking only to ensure the continuation of its rule. He expresses his astonishment at the Israeli public's failure to realize how this authority manipulates their fate for narrow political interests.

The article mocks Netanyahu's fleeting visit to the city of Dimona, where he spent only two minutes under heavy, air-conditioned guard, while the city suffers widespread destruction. He criticizes the statements of the mayor of Dimona, who considered the survival of Netanyahu's picture in the destroyed buildings a 'miracle and great luck' instead of demanding compensation.

In the city of Arad, where dozens were injured and residential buildings collapsed, the writer believes that marketing suffering as a 'miracle' is the tragedy of marginalized areas in Israel. These residents, according to the article, believe the lies of Likud party activists who lead them to ruin under religious and national pretexts.

The writer accuses Netanyahu of committing unforgivable mistakes, including forming a government with 'priestly racists' and abandoning the kidnapped in captivity for political purposes. He also criticizes the prime minister's refusal to form an official investigation committee into the events of October 7, and his daily sacrifice of the country to stay in power.

Shaked evokes George Orwell's words about war, describing it as not only horrific, but also 'disgusting and boring'. He believes that war in Israel has come to satisfy many who have not yet understood the limits of power, nor how brutal and incompetent governments sacrifice their people.

The writer concludes his article by calling on Israelis to regain their senses and realize the reality they live in before it is too late. He bitterly wonders if this life full of blood and eternal wars is really what the Israeli people deserve, warning against continuing in this collective blindness.

How we love this new affirmation of absolute bestiality, and the loss of humanity whenever it suits us.

The Israeli Knesset has finally approved a law that legitimizes the execution of Palestinian prisoners accused by the occupation of carrying out deadly attacks. The law was approved by a majority of 62 members against 48, in a move described as a radical shift in the occupation's legislative system towards more extremism.

The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Volker Türk, urged the occupation authorities to immediately repeal this legislation, emphasizing that it flagrantly violates the principles of international humanitarian law. Türk explained that the law lacks fair trial guarantees and is characterized by blatant discrimination against Palestinians subject to military courts.

The new law stipulates the mandatory imposition of the death penalty by 'hanging' on anyone who deliberately causes the death of an Israeli in what the occupation classifies as a 'terrorist act'. The law also strips away any authority to grant pardons or commute sentences, making it an irreversible legal killing tool.

Israeli legislation has set a strict time limit for the execution of sentences, with executions to be carried out within a period not exceeding 90 days from the date of the final judgment. This urgency reflects the far-right's desire to turn prisons into arenas for carrying out systematic executions under legal cover.

The voting session saw a notable presence of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who expressed full support for the law and voted in favor of it. Following the announcement of the results, a celebratory atmosphere prevailed within the Knesset, led by the extremist National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir, who is considered the primary driver of this legislation.

Sources reported that Ben-Gvir celebrated the approval of the law in a provocative manner, appearing wearing a symbol representing a noose, a clear indication of his intention to begin carrying out executions. Observers considered this law a transition from a policy of silent killing within prisons to public and legalized killing.

On the Arab front, Egypt, Jordan, and the Palestinian Presidency expressed their strong anger, considering the law a violation of international conventions and a dangerous escalation. These parties warned that Israel is disregarding all legal and moral obligations towards prisoners and detainees.

Internationally, major capitals such as Paris, Berlin, London, and Rome expressed strong reservations about the law, hinting at the possibility of taking diplomatic measures. The European Union also hinted at the possibility of suspending the partnership agreement with Israel in response to this deterioration in the human rights file.

For its part, a statement by Amnesty International described the approval of the law as a 'public display of brutality,' emphasizing that Israel seeks to entrench an apartheid system. The organization pointed out that this legislation aims to provide legal cover for the liquidation operations that Palestinians are already subjected to.

In a related context, legal experts specializing in prisoner affairs warned that the law will be applied in military courts that lack the minimum standards of international justice. Lawyer Khaled Mahajneh affirmed that the occupation seeks to exploit global preoccupation with regional wars to carry out massacres against detainees behind bars.

Human rights statistics indicate that there are more than 9,300 Palestinian prisoners in occupation prisons, living in very harsh detention conditions. Among these detainees are about 350 children and 66 women, who face real dangers under the new retaliatory laws.

Since October 2023, the pace of violations within prisons has escalated, with more than 100 prisoners martyred as a result of direct torture or deliberate medical negligence. This law comes to crown a series of punitive measures that included starvation and deprivation of the most basic human rights.

Social media platforms witnessed a wave of widespread anger, as Palestinian and Arab activists launched campaigns demanding urgent international intervention to save the prisoners. Activists published videos documenting the suffering of detainees, warning that international silence would encourage the occupation to proceed with executions.

Palestinian national and Islamic forces called for a broad public stance to confront this serious challenge, urging the United Nations and the Red Cross to assume their responsibilities. The factions affirmed that harming the lives of prisoners would ignite the situation uncontrollably in all occupied territories.

The law raises serious concerns about violations of due process, is highly discriminatory, and must be immediately repealed.

The Arab League officially announced from its headquarters in the Egyptian capital, Cairo, the selection of diplomat and former minister Nabil Fahmy for the position of the new Secretary-General. This selection makes Fahmy the ninth in the League's history since its inception in 1945, and he is scheduled to officially assume his duties next July, succeeding the current Secretary-General Ahmed Aboul Gheit.

Fahmy's selection was unanimous and without any objection from member states, which surprised political observers. The recent period witnessed urgent Arab demands, led by countries such as Saudi Arabia, Algeria, and Qatar, for the necessity of breaking Egypt's monopoly on the position and changing the prevailing custom that links the nationality of the Secretary-General to the host country.

Analysts believe that the Arab concession on claiming the position is due to the general state of frustration with the effectiveness of the Arab League amidst escalating regional wars. Sources indicated that Arab Gulf states, which have recently been subjected to security and military pressures, now see the position of Secretary-General as a lost luster not worth the political struggle at the present time.

Gulf officials clearly expressed this trend, with former Emirati minister Anwar Gargash questioning the usefulness of the League's role in protecting regional security. In the same context, Kuwaiti Foreign Minister Jarrah Jaber Al-Ahmad affirmed that the regional organization has completely failed to play an effective role in preserving Arab national security in the face of external threats.

For his part, Ambassador Abdullah Al-Ash'al, former Assistant Egyptian Foreign Minister, described Nabil Fahmy's selection as an 'excellent choice' given his extensive diplomatic experience and professional integrity. However, Al-Ash'al warned that success in this mission depends on the ability to balance international and regional pressures, especially regarding the relationship with the Israeli occupation.

Egyptian academic Dr. Mostafa El-Gamal pointed out that the sharp Arab divisions in this difficult circumstance made the 'Egyptian solution' an available and customary option to avoid conflict. He explained that agreement on a candidate from the Gulf or the Maghreb would have required complex understandings that are not permitted by the current political conditions in the region.

In a different reading, researcher Yasser Abdel Aziz considered the acceptance of the Egyptian personality as a result of the decline in the League's role itself, where the organization's weakness coincided with the state of political decline of some active countries. He added that the Arab decision in recent years has been subject to financial and political power balances, making the Secretary-General's position more coordinative than leadership-oriented.

Historically, the position of Secretary-General has been associated with Egypt, with the exception of a short period when the headquarters moved to Tunisia after the signing of the Camp David Accords. Despite Saudi Arabia's previous attempts to propose names such as Adel Al-Jubeir for the position, Riyadh ultimately preferred to maintain coordination with Cairo to face the changing geopolitical challenges in the Middle East.

Nabil Fahmy faces thorny issues starting from the raging war in Sudan, extending to the crises in Libya, Yemen, and Somalia. The Palestinian issue and the Israeli aggression on Gaza and Lebanon also emerge as a top priority requiring action that goes beyond the traditional statements of condemnation and denunciation that the League has accustomed to issuing.

Nabil Fahmy, born in New York in 1951, has a distinguished resume, having served as Egypt's ambassador to Japan and the United States. He is the son of the late minister Ismail Fahmy, who made a historical stand by resigning in protest against Sadat's approach to peace negotiations, which places the son under the scrutiny of popular and diplomatic testing.

Fahmy's previous stances, especially during his tenure as Foreign Minister after 2013, raise some controversy in human rights and political circles. His term was associated with diplomatic statements describing Egypt's relationship with Washington as a 'legitimate marriage,' and he faced criticism due to media reports about the internal situation in Egypt at the time.

In his first statement after the selection, Fahmy expressed his gratitude to the Egyptian leadership, emphasizing the enormity of the responsibility in light of the 'flagrant violations of international law' that the nation is subjected to. He stressed the need to confront schemes aimed at dominating Arab resources and undermining the stability of member states.

Journalistic observers believe that Egypt categorically rejected the idea of rotating the position, considering it a moral and political right associated with the host country. Although the Gulf states are the largest funders of the League's activities, Cairo succeeded in mobilizing support for its candidate through intensive diplomatic tours that preceded the voting process.

The biggest challenge facing the new Secretary-General remains to revive an entity that some describe as 'in the intensive care unit.' This will not be achieved, according to experts, without a genuine political will from member states aimed at reforming the League's basic system and activating binding decision-making mechanisms.

The League has failed to play an effective role in preserving Arab security amidst current challenges.

Israeli occupation forces launched a series of violent aerial and naval attacks targeting the Lebanese capital Beirut and its suburbs on Tuesday night and Wednesday morning. Field sources reported that explosions rocked the Jnah area, causing panic among residents and sending plumes of smoke into the sky.

The occupation army claimed in an official statement that it targeted a prominent Hezbollah leader, in addition to another leading figure, in two separate operations. These claims come in the context of ongoing military escalation in Lebanon since early March, despite previous ceasefire agreements.

The Lebanese Ministry of Health announced an initial toll of 5 martyrs and 21 injured with varying degrees of wounds as a result of the raid that targeted the Jnah area. Ambulance and civil defense teams rushed to the scene of the attack to recover the victims and extinguish fires that broke out in targeted properties and cars.

The National News Agency clarified that Israeli warships participated in the attack, shelling a number of cars in the Jnah area near the Raouche market. This naval shelling coincided with intensive overflights by occupation warplanes and drones in Lebanese airspace.

For its part, Al-Zahraa Hospital issued a clarifying statement denying circulating news on social media platforms about the evacuation of patients from the hospital. The hospital administration confirmed that it continues to provide its usual medical services and receive the wounded and injured as a result of the aggression, despite the difficult security conditions surrounding the area.

In a separate attack, occupation aircraft targeted a civilian car on the Khalde highway, which connects Beirut to the city of Sidon. This targeting resulted in the martyrdom of two people and the injury of three others, according to official data issued by Lebanese health authorities that followed the incident on the ground.

Lebanese security sources stated that one of the missiles launched by Israeli aircraft towards the car in Khalde did not explode upon impact. Lebanese army forces imposed a security cordon around the area, where the engineering regiment intervened to deal with the missile and dismantle it to secure the international road.

This field escalation comes amid escalating regional tensions, as Israel has expanded its aggression on Lebanese territories since March 2. Tel Aviv claims that these attacks are in response to operations carried out by Hezbollah against Israeli military sites in border areas.

Reports indicate that the ongoing Israeli aggression has left thousands dead and wounded in the region, amid repeated violations of the ceasefire agreement signed in November 2024. Israeli raids are increasingly targeting the Lebanese interior and densely populated residential areas in the capital Beirut.

A state of anticipation prevails in the Lebanese street regarding the outcomes of this new military escalation, amid continued intensive overflights by Israeli aircraft. Rescue teams continue search operations and verification of victims' identities, while fears of a wider comprehensive confrontation in the region increase.

The Israeli army announced it attacked a prominent Hezbollah leader and another in two separate attacks on the Lebanese capital Beirut.

The Lebanese arena witnessed a dangerous field escalation on Tuesday evening, as field sources reported that occupation aircraft targeted a civilian car in the Khalde area, located on the vital road between Beirut and Sidon. This attack comes as part of a wide wave of raids that targeted the southern suburbs of Beirut and several villages in the South and Bekaa, indicating an expansion of the scope of Israeli military operations.

Regarding human casualties, the Lebanese Ministry of Health confirmed the martyrdom of four individuals in an initial toll as a result of a raid that targeted the town of Al-Najjarieh, affiliated with the Sidon district. Medical teams also recorded the martyrdom of three citizens and the injury of nineteen others with varying degrees of wounds following a violent airstrike on the town of Srifa in South Lebanon.

Official Lebanese sources reported a humanitarian tragedy from the town of Jibshit, where a young man and his pregnant wife, along with their fetus, were martyred due to a direct shelling of their home by warplanes. This coincided with intense artillery shelling targeting the eastern neighborhood of the town of Khiam, in addition to raids that targeted the towns of Majdal Zoun, Kfardounin, Barish, and the outskirts of Naqoura.

Israeli raids extended to include the Western Bekaa region in the eastern part of the country, where the town of Mashghara was subjected to a series of airstrikes that caused extensive material damage. Ambulance and civil defense teams continue search and rescue operations in the targeted areas amidst intensive overflights by reconnaissance aircraft in Lebanese airspace.

On the other hand, Hezbollah responded by carrying out large-scale military operations targeting strategic sites in northern occupied Palestine. In successive statements, the party announced the shelling of the 'Biria' base, designated for air and missile defense north of the city of Safed, with a volley of rockets, confirming direct hits on the site.

Response operations also included targeting the 'Meron' observation and air operations management base, which is considered one of the most important intelligence centers for the occupation in the northern region. Hezbollah used qualitative missiles and kamikaze drones in its attacks, which also targeted the 'Tiffin' base located east of the occupied city of Acre, leading to the activation of sirens in the Upper and Western Galilee.

In the context of confronting ground movements, Hezbollah indicated targeting a gathering of occupation soldiers and a 'Hummer' vehicle in the town of Qantara using a kamikaze drone. Another gathering of vehicles and soldiers in the town of Deir Seryan was also targeted with appropriate weapons and artillery shells, in addition to shelling the Malkia settlement with a rocket volley.

Field reports indicate that Israeli shelling did not stop at border villages but also targeted the towns of Kafra, Srifa, Jibshit, Ayta al-Jabal, Tibnin, Harouf, Tuffahta, and Khirbet Douair. These intensive attacks reflect the occupation's desire to impose a new field reality despite international warnings of the region sliding into a comprehensive war.

This escalation comes amidst complex political circumstances, as the region had witnessed a ceasefire agreement in November 2024, but repeated Israeli violations led to renewed confrontations. Lebanese circles accuse the occupation of persisting in targeting civilians and infrastructure under the cover of continuous international support.

Amidst the continued blare of sirens in the northern settlements, political circles are awaiting the outcomes of this field escalation and its impact on regional stability. Lebanese sources confirm that the resistance continues to deter aggressions, while the occupation army continues to mobilize its forces and carry out limited ground incursions at some border points.

Lebanese Ministry of Health announced the death of 4 martyrs in an initial toll of the Israeli raid on the town of Al-Najjarieh in the Sidon district, southern Lebanon.

French courts have opened one of the most complex security and criminal cases, as the trial began for 22 defendants accused of forming what is known as an 'assassination squad' operating for a criminal network within a Masonic lodge. This group faces serious charges including premeditated murder, systematic assassination attempts, and severe physical assaults targeting several individuals in the capital Paris and its suburbs.

The identity of those involved in this case has caused shock in public circles, as the list includes high-ranking officers from the French external intelligence service, along with police elements and prominent businessmen. The indictment also includes professionals from civilian sectors such as medicine and engineering, indicating the network's penetration into vital parts of French society and their exploitation of influence to carry out criminal agendas.

The threads of the case date back to the summer of 2020, when authorities foiled an assassination attempt targeting business coach Marie-Hélène Dini, with members of the French parachute regiment arrested near her home. According to investigations, weapons were seized from the attackers who tried to justify their actions with false claims that the victim was working for the 'Mossad' and that her elimination was in the context of protecting state security.

The victim, Marie-Hélène Dini, recounted horrific details of a series of assaults she endured, noting that the first attack occurred in October 2019 near her home in the Créteil area. Dini explained that she received a severe blow to her head that caused her to lose consciousness completely, without realizing at the time that this assault was the beginning of an elimination plot orchestrated by an organized network.

The pursuit of the victim continued for several months, with the second attempt occurring in July 2020, an operation that led to the exposure of the network after intensive security intervention around her residence. Dini stated that she did not realize the extent of the danger until she saw police reinforcements everywhere, only to learn the next day that she was the direct target of an imminent assassination planned by professionals.

The crimes of this cell did not stop at the attempt to assassinate Dini; subsequent confessions by one of the detained members revealed the group's involvement in a series of other thefts and violent assaults. Among the most prominent crimes confessed by the defendants was the murder of a race car driver, which reinforces the hypothesis that this squad acted as an executive arm for widespread score-settling operations under the guise of the Masonic lodge.

The attackers claimed they received orders to eliminate the victim for the benefit of the French state, alleging her collaboration with the Mossad.

Israeli cities and towns experienced a turbulent night under the weight of sirens that sounded four times in various areas, due to waves of rocket attacks launched from Iran and southern Lebanon. These developments come amidst unprecedented military escalation in northern Israel and the interior, amid a state of widespread security alert.

The Israeli occupation army officially announced the killing of four of its soldiers, including an officer with the rank of captain, following fierce clashes that occurred in Lebanese territory. The statement clarified that the deceased belonged to the reconnaissance unit of the 'Nahal' Brigade, and fell during direct confrontations with Hezbollah fighters in the eastern sector of the border.

Hebrew sources revealed the names of three of the deceased: Captain Noam Madmoni, Sergeant Ben Cohen, and Sergeant Maxim Antis, while the name of the fourth soldier remains undisclosed pending notification of his family. The same incident also resulted in three other soldiers being wounded to varying degrees, one of whom was described as being in serious condition, and all were transferred to hospitals for treatment.

In the early hours of dawn, Israeli monitoring systems detected a rocket barrage launched from Iranian territory targeting the city of Jerusalem and the central region. This barrage is the first of its kind in recent hours, prompting hundreds of thousands of settlers to take refuge in shelters in Jerusalem, Greater Tel Aviv, and the Jordan Valley.

Press sources reported that fragments of interceptor missiles fell in the city of Beit Shemesh, located west of occupied Jerusalem. Despite the occupation's claims that there were no direct injuries as a result of these fragments, a state of panic prevailed in the area after hearing huge explosions resulting from attempts to intercept the incoming missiles.

On the northern front, field reports confirmed that sirens did not stop in the settlements of the Upper Galilee and border areas throughout the night. This was a result of successive attacks carried out by Hezbollah using drones and guided missiles, targeting gatherings and movements of the occupation army in the area.

Hezbollah announced in separate military statements the destruction of an Israeli Merkava tank that was moving on the road connecting the towns of Qantara and Taybeh. The party confirmed that the tank was targeted with a precisely guided missile, which led to it being completely engulfed in flames and its crew being killed or wounded.

The party's operations also included targeting a military checkpoint in the 'Misgav Am' settlement with a swarm of kamikaze drones that accurately hit their targets. In a qualitative development, the party announced striking an air defense system in the 'Ma'alot-Tarshiha' settlement, as part of its response to continuous Israeli raids on Lebanese villages and towns.

With this new toll, the number of recognized casualties in the Israeli army since the start of the recent ground operations in Lebanon rises to ten soldiers. Sources indicate that the number of injuries is constantly increasing, as medical centers in the north have received dozens of wounded soldiers in the past few days.

These confrontations come in the context of an escalation that began in early March, as Israel expanded its targeting circle to include the southern suburb of Beirut. Resistance forces responded by expanding the range of rocket barrages to reach Haifa, Tel Aviv, and Jerusalem, placing the region before open scenarios of comprehensive confrontation.

On the Lebanese side, rescue teams continue to retrieve victims from under the rubble due to intense air raids targeting residential neighborhoods. The Lebanese Ministry of Health announced a tragic toll of victims, confirming that the ongoing aggression has left hundreds of martyrs and thousands wounded since the beginning of this month.

Field data indicates that the occupation army is facing fierce resistance in its limited ground incursions into Lebanese border villages. The resistance relies on a strategy of ambushes, improvised explosive devices, and anti-tank missiles, which has inflicted significant human and material losses on the attacking forces in vehicles and equipment.

For its part, the US administration continues to provide military and political support to Tel Aviv, at a time when international warnings of the region sliding into a widespread regional war are increasing. Major capitals are monitoring Iranian military movements and reciprocal Israeli responses that have begun to take a dangerous escalating turn since the end of February.

The field scene remains dominant, with events accelerating between rocket strikes in the interior and fierce clashes on the land borders. With the continued sound of sirens, anticipation remains the master of the situation for what the coming hours will bring in developments, given the insistence of all parties to continue military operations.

The Israeli occupation army officially acknowledged in a statement the killing of four military personnel, including an officer, during fierce battles in southern Lebanon.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu affirmed that Tel Aviv will proceed with its military confrontation against Tehran, emphasizing that operations will not cease until what he described as the 'terrorist regime' is crushed. In a televised statement, he clarified that the current military campaign is not yet over, and the Israeli army is working to strengthen the security zones surrounding the Gaza Strip, Syria, and Lebanon to ensure the achievement of strategic objectives.

Netanyahu considered that Israel has succeeded in achieving a 'strategic upheaval' in the balance of power, indicating that the equation has fundamentally changed from what it was before the war. While Iran sought to besiege and suffocate Israel, Tel Aviv is now taking the initiative and imposing a siege on the Iranian regime and its proxies in the region.

Netanyahu's statements came at a sensitive time on the eve of the Jewish Passover, and coincided with diplomatic messages from Tehran; where Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian stated a desire to end the state of conflict with Israel and the United States. Pezeshkian stipulated obtaining clear international guarantees that prevent the recurrence of what he described as aggression on Iranian territory.

In a show of force, Netanyahu claimed that Israel has transformed into a regional and global power thanks to recent military moves, affirming his government's commitment to changing the face of the Middle East. He indicated that the direct and indirect confrontation with Tehran has cost the Iranian treasury enormous losses exceeding one trillion dollars, as a result of supporting its allies and building its military capabilities that have been targeted.

The Israeli Prime Minister enumerated what he described as 'ten devastating blows' dealt to the Iranian axis since October 7, 2023, including extensive military operations in Gaza and Lebanon. These blows also included qualitative assassinations that targeted prominent leaders, most notably Hezbollah Secretary-General Hassan Nasrallah, and Hamas political bureau chief Ismail Haniyeh, in addition to the destruction of missile infrastructure.

Netanyahu's speech was not devoid of religious allusions, as he drew a comparison between the current war and the story of the exodus of the Children of Israel from Egypt and confronting Pharaoh. This approach comes within the framework of his increasing use of historical and religious terms to reinforce his government's political and military narrative before the Israeli public on national occasions.

Netanyahu stressed that Iran is now in its weakest historical state, while Israel is growing stronger and more resilient, criticizing the international community's disregard for previous Israeli warnings. He clarified that Tel Aviv no longer contents itself with defense, but has moved to the stage of direct attack to dismantle threats before they reach its borders.

The Prime Minister revealed that he held a series of secret discussions with leaders of countries in the Middle East and Europe, claiming a radical shift in their positions towards the Iranian threat. He indicated that some of these leaders have already begun field and practical coordination with Israel to confront the growing Iranian influence in the region.

In the context of international alliances, Netanyahu described the level of cooperation with the US administration led by Donald Trump as 'historic' and unprecedented. He affirmed that Israel, which used to fight alone in many arenas, now enjoys direct support and 'shoulder-to-shoulder' coordination with the United States in confronting the Iranian project.

The speech touched upon diplomatic and security efforts to launch new regional alliances, with Netanyahu promising to reveal their details soon to Israelis. These statements intersect with media reports indicating that Israel seeks to move beyond traditional cooperation formulas towards building a direct combat military alliance with Arab countries to confront common threats.

Netanyahu reiterated his promises to definitively end Iranian nuclear and ballistic threats, claiming that military operations carried out in June 2025 succeeded in removing the immediate danger. He affirmed that security agencies continue to pursue any Iranian attempts to rebuild these capabilities, especially those built in fortified underground facilities.

Netanyahu concluded his statement by emphasizing that Israel will not tolerate any Iranian attempts to bury its military capabilities away from surveillance or targeting. He stressed that direct field action will remain the standing option for dealing with any existential threat, regardless of international pressure or Iranian attempts at military deception.

Iran wanted to suffocate Israel before this war, while now Israel is suffocating Iran.

Global energy markets witnessed a sharp jump in oil prices during Wednesday's trading, with Brent crude futures reaching record levels not seen since 2022. The price per barrel rose by more than 5 percent to settle at $118.5, driven by growing concerns about disruptions to global energy supplies as a result of ongoing military operations.

In contrast, West Texas Intermediate crude experienced volatility, recording $101.5 per barrel, a slight decrease of 1.4 percent, despite the general upward trend dominating the market this March. These fluctuations come amid severe pressure on global supply chains, which have been directly affected by the ongoing American-Israeli aggression on Iranian territories.

Economic sources reported that prices approached the $120 per barrel mark during some trading periods, reflecting investors' anxiety about the continuation of the armed conflict. Forecasts point to record monthly gains by the end of March, given the lack of an immediate horizon for de-escalating the military situation that has disrupted maritime trade.

Tehran's decision to restrict navigation in the strategic Strait of Hormuz since the beginning of this month is one of the most prominent factors that led to this insane rise. Iranian authorities threatened to target any vessels crossing the strait without prior coordination, putting global energy transport in a real predicament due to the vital importance of this waterway.

Navigational data indicates that approximately 20 million barrels of oil pass daily through the Strait of Hormuz, which represents the lifeline for many major economies. The closure of the strait or the threat to the safety of navigation within it has led to an immediate increase in marine insurance costs and shipping fees, which has directly reflected on consumer prices and global inflation rates.

On the ground, military confrontations that began on February 28 continue, with American and Israeli forces launching widespread attacks that have resulted in thousands of casualties. Reports confirm that the escalation has targeted high-ranking officials in the Iranian state, prompting Tehran to respond by launching waves of ballistic missiles and drones towards targets inside Israel.

In a related context, the conflict expanded to include targeting American bases and interests in several Arab countries, with Iran claiming responsibility for attacks it described as retaliatory. The affected countries expressed their condemnation of these aggressions, which targeted civilian assets and resulted in injuries, demanding the necessity of halting military escalation to spare the region and the world a deeper economic and humanitarian catastrophe.

The closure of the Strait of Hormuz, through which about 20 million barrels pass daily, caused a sharp jump in shipping and insurance costs and raised global economic concerns.

Washington – Said Arikat – 3/31/2026

In a stance reflecting Washington's traditional approach to Israeli policies, a senior American official said on Tuesday that his country "respects Israel's sovereign right to enact its laws and determine its penalties for those convicted of terrorism," commenting on the Knesset's approval of a law allowing the imposition of the death penalty on Palestinians convicted of committing deadly attacks. The official, who requested anonymity, added in response to a question from Al-Quds newspaper correspondent that the United States "trusts that these measures will be implemented within legal frameworks that ensure fair trial and its guarantees."

It is worth noting that the official American response came via a brief email sent from the State Department to the accredited press corps at the department.

However, this statement, despite its legal language, ignores a growing debate about the nature of the law itself, which was approved by the Knesset with a majority of 62 votes to 48, with direct push from National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir, and with the support of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The legislation stipulates the application of the death penalty in specific cases defined within the framework of "terrorism," with formulations that, according to its critics, indicate targeting Palestinians almost exclusively, especially in areas under Israeli control, including the West Bank.

Ben-Gvir explicitly acknowledged this direction, considering that the law "changes the rules of the game," and that anyone who kills "Jews" will not remain alive in prisons. This rhetoric, which links justice to the national identity of the victims, reinforces fears of using the law as a deterrent tool of a political nature, rather than a neutral legal framework.

In contrast, the move sparked widespread criticism from human rights organizations, most notably "B'Tselem," which warned that the application of the death penalty would be carried out through military courts that exclusively try Palestinians, and record conviction rates of up to 96%. It also indicated that sentences could be carried out within 90 days without the possibility of pardon, and with limited discretionary powers for judges, which raises serious questions about the standards of procedural justice.

For its part, Amnesty International considered that the law represents a dangerous expansion in the use of the death penalty, at a time when the world is witnessing a growing trend towards its abolition, warning that it undermines fundamental guarantees of the right to life and fair trial, and entrenches a discriminatory legal structure against Palestinians.

_The American position raises questions about the limits of "respect for sovereignty" when it comes to legislation affecting fundamental human rights. Washington, which has long presented itself as a defender of international standards, seems hesitant here to direct any explicit criticism of a law facing serious accusations of discrimination. This contradiction reflects a deeper problem in American policy, where human rights issues are dealt with selectively, depending on geopolitical considerations and strategic alliances, which weakens its credibility on the international stage.

The new law cannot be separated from the broader context of the justice system in the occupied territories, where Palestinians are subject to military courts, while Israeli settlers enjoy civilian courts. This legal duality creates an unequal structure in terms of procedures and rights, and makes the imposition of a maximum penalty such as the death penalty a highly problematic issue. When the justice system itself is in doubt, any escalation in penalties turns into a tool of oppression, not a means of achieving justice or deterrence.

The timing of the law's approval carries political implications that cannot be ignored, especially in light of the escalating right-wing rhetoric within the Israeli government. It seems that the legislation addresses an internal political base that seeks to demonstrate firmness, even if it is at the expense of international legal standards. However, such steps may have adverse consequences, as they fuel feelings of anger and deepen the cycle of violence, rather than deterring it, which raises a fundamental question about the effectiveness of this approach in achieving long-term security.

By: Said Arikat

April 1, 2026

News Analysis

Washington, D.C- Washington’s response to Israel’s newly enacted death penalty law is as telling for what it says as for what it avoids. A senior U.S. official, speaking on condition of anonymity, stated: “The United States respects Israel’s sovereign right to determine its own laws and penalties for individuals convicted of terrorism. We trust that any such measures will be carried out with a fair trial and respect for all applicable fair trial guarantees and protections.” The language is polished, deliberate—and deeply insufficient. It gestures toward principle while carefully sidestepping the troubling realities embedded in the law itself.

That law, passed by the Knesset with a 62–48 majority, represents a significant escalation in Israel’s legal approach toward Palestinians accused of violence. Backed by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and driven by National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir, the legislation authorizes the death penalty in cases defined as “terrorism.” While framed in general terms, its application is widely expected to fall almost exclusively on Palestinians, particularly those living under Israeli military rule in the occupied West Bank.

This asymmetry is neither incidental nor ambiguous. Ben-Gvir himself has openly framed the law in identity-driven terms, declaring that those who kill “Jews” should not remain alive. Such rhetoric strips the legislation of any veneer of neutrality, exposing it instead as a tool shaped by ethno-national priorities. Justice, in this framing, is no longer blind—it is calibrated according to identity, with Palestinians facing the harshest possible penalties within a system already criticized for its structural inequities.

Those inequities are central to understanding the law’s broader implications. Palestinians in the occupied territories are tried in military courts, where conviction rates are extraordinarily high and procedural safeguards are widely questioned. Israeli settlers, by contrast, fall under civilian jurisdiction, benefiting from stronger legal protections and more robust due process. Introducing capital punishment into this bifurcated system does not simply raise the stakes—it magnifies the disparities, turning an already unequal framework into one where the ultimate penalty may be imposed without the full guarantees of justice.

Beyond its immediate legal implications, the law lays bare what many human rights observers have long described as an apartheid-like system governing Palestinians under Israeli control. Organizations including B’Tselem have explicitly concluded that the regime between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea constitutes apartheid, defined not only by territorial control but by the systematic privileging of one group over another in law, movement, and political rights. The introduction of the death penalty within this framework sharpens that reality: it is not merely unequal justice, but a system in which the most severe punishment is reserved for a population already deprived of equal protection under the law, reinforcing a hierarchy that is legal, political, and existential.

Human rights organizations have warned precisely of this outcome. B’Tselem has highlighted the near-automatic nature of convictions in military courts and the limited discretion afforded to judges under the new law. It cautions that executions could be carried out swiftly, with minimal opportunity for appeal or clemency. Similarly, Amnesty International has condemned the legislation as a dangerous expansion of capital punishment in a context already marked by discrimination, noting that it undermines both the right to life and the foundational principles of a fair trial.

Against this backdrop, the U.S. statement rings hollow. The invocation of “fair trial guarantees and protections” assumes a level playing field that does not exist. It presumes that the legal system tasked with implementing the law is capable of delivering impartial justice, despite extensive evidence to the contrary. By placing its trust in these assurances without scrutiny, Washington effectively endorses a process that many credible observers view as fundamentally flawed.

This is where the language of sovereignty becomes a convenient refuge. By emphasizing Israel’s right to determine its own laws, the United States avoids confronting whether those laws meet international legal and ethical standards. Yet sovereignty has never been an absolute shield, particularly when it intersects with fundamental human rights. The global movement away from the death penalty reflects a growing consensus that such punishments are incompatible with modern standards of justice. To ignore this trend—and the specific concerns raised by this law—is to retreat from that consensus.

The contradiction is stark. The United States routinely invokes human rights as a cornerstone of its foreign policy, often criticizing adversaries for abuses that fall short of the irreversible finality of capital punishment. But when similar or more severe concerns arise in the context of an ally, the response shifts to one of deference and restraint. This inconsistency does more than undermine U.S. credibility; it signals that the application of human rights principles is contingent, shaped by political alliances rather than universal norms.

For Israel, the costs of this approach may extend beyond international criticism. Laws perceived as discriminatory do not enhance legitimacy; they erode it. In a conflict already defined by deep mistrust and recurring violence, measures that appear to target one population disproportionately are likely to inflame tensions rather than contain them. The belief that harsher penalties will produce deterrence ignores the political and social dynamics that drive the conflict. Instead, it risks reinforcing the very grievances that fuel it.

Ultimately, this law is not an isolated measure but a stark manifestation of a broader political trajectory. Its passage through the Knesset underscores the growing dominance of Israel’s extreme right, a political current that openly advocates annexation of the occupied West Bank and even Gaza, while systematically denying Palestinians the most basic human rights. In such an environment, legal frameworks are no longer instruments of justice but mechanisms of control, codifying inequality and entrenching dispossession. By embedding capital punishment within this already discriminatory system, Israel is not strengthening the rule of law—it is accelerating its erosion, with consequences that will reverberate far beyond the courtroom

US Secretary of War, Pete Hegseth, confirmed that the military confrontation led by the United States and Israel against Iran has entered a 'decisive' phase, the features of which will become clear in the coming days. Hegseth explained at a press conference held at the Pentagon that Tehran understands the seriousness of the current situation, stressing that it now lacks effective military capability to respond to ongoing movements.

The American minister refused to rule out the option of ground intervention in Iranian territory, indicating that all military options remain on the table to ensure the achievement of the operation's objectives. He added that maintaining the element of surprise and not revealing plans to the adversary is an essential part of the US military command's strategy at this stage of the conflict.

In a related context, US Army Chief of Staff, Dan Kane, revealed the extent of the intensive air and missile operations carried out over the past month. Kane explained that US forces successfully targeted more than 11,000 sites inside Iran over the past thirty days, which significantly curtailed the Iranian regime's defensive and offensive capabilities.

For his part, US President Donald Trump launched a sharp attack on European allies, specifically Britain and France, accusing them of failing to participate in the war effort. Trump indicated via the 'Truth Social' platform that countries that refused to engage in the war should not expect American assistance to secure their oil supplies through the Strait of Hormuz.

Trump sent a strongly worded message to countries suffering from fuel shortages, demanding that they rely on themselves and head to the strait to seize their oil needs. The US President considered that Washington had completed the 'hard part' of the mission, and that it would not continue to provide free protection to those who did not stand with it in this strategic war.

Trump explained that the Iranian regime had been effectively destroyed, describing the military operations as a 'decapitation' of the regime, although the official name of the operation is 'Epic Fury'. He confirmed that the United States is now negotiating with lower leadership levels in Iran, reflecting the collapse of the highest leadership structure in Tehran.

Informed sources in Washington reported that Trump's statements reflect deep dissatisfaction with Paris's stance, which he accused of obstructing the passage of military aircraft en route to support operations. The sources indicated that France refused to open its airspace to military shipments heading to the region, forcing the US command to change flight paths.

Regarding the field situation, Defense Secretary Hegseth indicated that the past twenty-four hours witnessed a significant decrease in the number of missiles launched by Iran. He considered this decline an indicator of the success of American strikes in depleting the Iranian arsenal, stressing that talks to end the war are gaining real momentum under the pressure of continuous bombardment.

Trump warned that the United States might reconsider all its defense commitments to European allies in the future. The US President linked current military support to the willingness of European countries to participate in international crises affecting US national security, hinting at a return to a policy of isolation from NATO.

Reports indicate that Iran succeeded in closing the Strait of Hormuz to oil tanker traffic, causing widespread disruptions in global energy markets. However, Trump insists that the solution lies in buying oil from the United States, which has an abundance of production, instead of waiting for American military protection in international waterways.

Journalistic sources stated that Trump's escalating rhetoric primarily aims to address the American voter and emphasize that the current administration puts Washington's interests first. Trump seeks to hold European countries fully responsible for any shortage in energy supplies or price increases resulting from their 'reserved' stance on the war.

At the Pentagon, Hegseth confirmed that US forces deployed in the Middle East are on high alert to carry out any new orders that may include ground incursions. He explained that the adversary believes there are 15 different ways of ground attack, confirming that this belief is correct and that operational plans are ready for implementation at any moment.

These developments come at a time when the US administration is threatening to target vital infrastructure in Iran, including electricity and water networks and energy security. This threat is considered a qualitative escalation aimed at exerting maximum pressure on the remaining joints of the Iranian state to force it into complete surrender.

In conclusion, observers in Washington believe that the coming days will be a real test of the allies' ability to withstand Trump's pressure, and Iran's ability to endure successive strikes. As the pace of military operations accelerates, diplomacy 'under bombs' remains the only path the Trump administration sees to end this escalating regional conflict.

No one can lead a war and win it if they tell their adversary what they are willing to do and what they are not willing to do.

The US warship "Tripoli," carrying Marines, arrived in the Middle East from the Sea of Japan, joining military reinforcements in the region. Despite this arrival, the ship positioned itself near the aircraft carrier "Abraham Lincoln" in a location far from the Arabian Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz, raising questions about the ability of these forces to carry out missions within the strait, which faces intense Iranian defensive threats.

US Naval Institute maps indicate that the current positioning of warships reflects strategic caution, with the aircraft carrier "Abraham Lincoln" located 1500 kilometers south of the Strait of Hormuz. This distance is primarily aimed at staying out of range of Iranian missiles and drones, at a time when sources have not recorded any large US naval vessel crossing the strait since the recent confrontations erupted.

In a related context, the aircraft carrier "Gerald Ford" is undergoing maintenance in a Croatian port after being exposed to a fire while in the Red Sea, while the aircraft carrier "George Bush" is preparing to move from Norfolk port to compensate for the shortage in the Eastern Mediterranean. These movements come amid significant field pressures facing the US Central Command to secure vital shipping lanes.

Analyzes conflict regarding the actual role of the newly arrived Marine forces, with some estimates suggesting the possibility of them attempting to seize the Iranian island of "Kharg," which is the main artery for oil exports. However, experts believe that carrying out an amphibious operation on a fortified island facing a militarily closed strait represents an unprecedented logistical and security challenge for the Pentagon.

On the other hand, journalistic sources reported that US military bases in Gulf countries have seen a decline in their activity, becoming almost empty as a result of missile strikes they were subjected to. This situation has prompted some forces to move to urban areas or head towards the European continent, coinciding with restrictions imposed by host countries on using their territories to launch attacks against Tehran.

Observers believe that the goal of reinforcing amphibious forces and paratroopers may be to protect the Bab al-Mandab Strait and secure shipping lanes in the Red Sea, rather than engaging in direct confrontation within the Gulf. Moreover, the need to compensate for the military vacuum resulting from the evacuation of traditional bases has become a top priority for the current US administration to ensure the continuity of military presence in the region.

On the political front, hypotheses emerge suggesting that the US administration may be looking for solutions to end the conflict without the need to open the Strait of Hormuz by military force. This approach comes amid Washington's realization that targeting any large warship would cause severe damage to the image of the United States military, especially with Tehran's desire for revenge for the sinking of one of its frigates previously.

In light of these facts, the question remains about how US forces will reach their strategic objectives deep in the Gulf if the strait remains closed. While Washington possesses air and missile superiority through "Tomahawk" missiles, field control and amphibious operations remain contingent on the ability to overcome Iranian naval defenses and commandos ready to intervene at the entrance of the strait.

It remains likely that the increase in US forces in the Middle East is to protect Bab al-Mandab and compensate for the military vacuum resulting from the withdrawal of forces from Gulf bases.

Abdullah Al Dardari, Assistant Secretary-General of the United Nations, issued strong warnings about the deep and severe economic repercussions resulting from the current military escalation in the Middle East region. The UN official confirmed that the region's countries incurred huge financial losses estimated at about $186 billion during just one month of ongoing military confrontations. Al Dardari explained that these figures reflect the extent of the direct damage that affected vital infrastructure and productive sectors in the region.

During a press conference held in the Jordanian capital, Amman, the Director of the Regional Bureau for Arab States at the United Nations Development Programme indicated that the continuation of fighting exacerbates economic damage at an accelerating pace. He pointed out that current losses represent approximately 6% of the region's total GDP, with strong indications that this value may exceed $190 billion if the conflict continues at its current pace without a horizon for a political solution.

In a geographical breakdown of the crisis, the UN official explained that the Gulf countries are at the heart of the economic storm, where their share of losses is expected to reach $168 billion. In contrast, the Levant region received a significant share of the damage, with estimates reaching $30 billion, which highlights the widening scope of negative impacts that were not limited to direct confrontation areas but extended to include the entire regional neighborhood.

Al Dardari stressed the fragility of the prevailing economic models in the region, warning that non-oil-exporting countries also suffer due to their heavy reliance on remittances from workers abroad and regional aid. In this context, he called for the need to reconsider development paths and search for alternative trade and real economic diversification, especially with the threats facing global energy corridors such as the Strait of Hormuz, through which one-fifth of the world's oil and gas production flows.

On the social level, the UN report warned of severe humanitarian consequences that may result from this economic collapse, as about 3.7 million job opportunities are expected to be lost in various sectors. Al Dardari also warned that the continuation of the conflict could push nearly 4 million additional people below the poverty line, which threatens social stability and increases the complexities of the humanitarian crisis in the region in the long term.

We hope that the fighting stops tomorrow, as every day of delay has negative effects on the global economy.

The turbulent political scene has brought renewed attention to the book 'The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump,' a collaborative work co-authored by 27 psychiatrists and mental health experts. Edited by Dr. Bandy Lee, the book sparked widespread debate about the limits of expert intervention in public affairs and the legitimacy of analyzing leaders' personalities from a scientific perspective.

The contributors to this work do not offer a direct medical diagnosis of Trump, adhering to professional standards that prohibit diagnosis without a clinical examination. However, they relied on the ethical principle of 'duty to warn,' considering it the right of specialists to alert to dangers when it concerns a personality controlling the fate of an entire society.

The authors focus on recurring behavioral traits in Trump's public performance, most notably extreme narcissism, impulsivity, and a lack of empathy for others. Experts believe that the combination of these qualities in a person with vast authority could lead to unpredictable decisions characterized by high risk.

The book discusses what is known as 'the Trump effect,' which is the potential for polarizing and hostile discourse patterns to spread from the top to the base of society. This effect could change the general political culture and create a state of permanent tension in social and political relations within and outside the United States.

Reactions to the book varied between supporters who saw it as a responsible attempt to interpret influential leadership behavior, and opponents who considered it an unacceptable mixing of science and politics. Critics argue that using psychoanalysis as a tool in political conflict opens a dangerous door to the politicization of psychiatry and its employment against adversaries.

The true value of the book transcends diagnosing a specific man, extending to questioning the system that allows personal temperament to control the fate of nations. The central question here concerns how the keys to power are handed to a personality whose decisions rely on mirrors of admiration and a continuous search for public applause.

From a professional angle, the book draws attention to a behavioral pattern based on rapid escalation and heavy reliance on direct public influence. This pattern transforms momentary emotional reactions into official political signals, confusing international calculations and making it difficult to predict future steps.

A balanced assessment places Trump's behavior in a gray area that blends a strong presence and ability to mobilize with arrogance and constant volatility. This mixture raises legitimate questions about the extent of rationality and stability in managing major crises that require calm and wisdom away from emotional outbursts.

In the context of the ongoing confrontation with Iran, a question arises about the extent to which these personal traits reflect on the complex conflict's trajectory. Despite the role of military and diplomatic institutions, the individual leadership style remains a crucial factor in steering escalation or de-escalation in critical moments.

Sharp statements and fluctuating signals can raise the level of risks by pushing other parties towards more rigid positions due to misunderstanding. In an environment charged with nuclear and regional issues, political language carries a weight equivalent to military field movements on the ground.

On the other hand, observers believe that this ambiguity and impulsivity could act as a psychological deterrent, making adversaries fear taking escalatory steps. An adversary facing an unpredictable leader often tends to be extremely cautious to avoid unconventional reactions that might surprise their strategic calculations.

However, this type of deterrence remains a double-edged sword, as it increases the likelihood of fatal miscalculation among warring powers. When contradictory signals multiply and the tone changes rapidly, it becomes difficult for international parties to control the pace of the crisis and prevent its slide towards an all-out confrontation.

Analytical readings suggest that Iran might benefit from this contradiction by deeply analyzing Trump's statements and hedging against all possible eventualities. Prior knowledge of a leader's tendency to declare what they intend to do gives the adversary an opportunity to prepare for the worst-case scenarios and strip fiery statements of their shocking effect.

Ultimately, this case reflects an unprecedented overlap between psychology and public life in the modern era. It puts contemporary civilization to a real test on how to protect international institutions from the whims of individuals and the instincts of leaders who excel at tension more than diplomacy.

The true value of the book lies in exposing a time when personal temperament controls the fate of nations, where momentary reactions turn into official policies.

The Jerusalem Governorate warned against colonial plan number (1627/7), known as the “Shami Neighborhood,” considering it an advanced tool for re-engineering the Bedouin presence in the wilderness of Jerusalem Governorate, within the framework of continuous Israeli policies aimed at reshaping the geographical and demographic reality east of the occupied city, to serve expansionist colonial projects.

The Governorate clarified, in a statement issued today, Tuesday, that the Israeli occupation authorities deposited the plan on March 25, 2026, through the so-called Subcommittee for Planning and Licensing of the Higher Planning Council in the “Civil Administration,” targeting lands in the town of Abu Dis within Basin No. (4), in the areas of: Dhahr al-Raghabna, Manazil Ali, Batin Bishara, Umm al-Shakhalib, and Dhahr al-Qararit, covering an area estimated at about 169.9 dunams.

The Jerusalem Governorate explained that the plan aims to transform the lands from their agricultural and open uses into an urban residential neighborhood under the classification of “Residential B,” with about 79 dunams allocated for residential construction and more than 35 dunams for the road network, and imposing a building density of up to 12 residential units per dunam, with heights reaching up to 6 floors.

The Governorate indicated that the plan directly targets a number of Bedouin communities, foremost among them the communities of Khan al-Ahmar, Abu al-Nawar, and Arab al-Jahalin, in addition to the communities of Wadi al-Jamal, Jabal al-Baba, Wadi Suneisel, and Bir al-Maskoub (1 and 2), aiming to forcibly displace them from their open pastoral environment to a closed urban community, which would lead to the dismantling of their social structure and the destruction of their economy based on grazing.

The Jerusalem Governorate noted that this plan constitutes a direct and updated extension of the forced displacement policies that began in 1997, when groups of Jahalin Bedouins were moved to the outskirts of the town of al-Eizariya for the sake of settlement expansion, emphasizing that the occupation is reproducing the same policies today.

The Governorate also stressed that the occupation’s claims of “consent” from representatives of the Bedouin communities lack credibility, in the absence of conditions for free and prior consent, and the continuation of pressures and violations practiced against these communities, which have repeatedly affirmed their categorical rejection of any transfer or resettlement plans.

The Jerusalem Governorate explained that the plan is organically linked to the E1 settlement project, which aims to connect the “Ma’ale Adumim” settlement with the city of Jerusalem, separate the northern West Bank from its south, and undermine the possibility of a geographically contiguous Palestinian state, noting that the Bedouin presence is an obstacle to the implementation of this project, which explains its targeting with policies of dismantling and removal.

The Governorate affirmed that this plan constitutes a flagrant violation of international humanitarian law, foremost among them the absolute prohibition of forced transfer of populations under occupation according to the Fourth Geneva Convention, in addition to violating the right to adequate housing and livelihoods, and breaching the rules prohibiting settlement in the occupied territories.

The Governorate explained that opening a 62-day objection period does not change the coercive nature of the plan, in the absence of procedural justice and the imposition of complex restrictions on Palestinians that hinder their ability to effectively object.

The Jerusalem Governorate called on the international community to assume its legal and humanitarian responsibilities, and to take urgent action to stop this plan, and hold the occupation authorities accountable for their policies aimed at forced displacement, while at the same time emphasizing the need to support the steadfastness of the targeted Bedouin communities, and strengthen their presence in their lands as the first line of defense against displacement and colonial projects.