Despite the escalation in rhetoric, the unprecedented military buildup of American capabilities in the region, and President Donald Trump's "brinkmanship" policy, contrasted with Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei's statements reflecting a tone of defiance and insistence on responding to American and Israeli threats; the pressing question is: Are we on the verge of an imminent military confrontation between Washington and Tehran? What are the chances of the United States succeeding in changing the political regime in Iran? Conversely, what are the limits of Iran's military response capability? Can Iran target aircraft carriers and American bases in the region? And finally, what are the repercussions of all this on the security and stability of the region and the world?

Anyone who reads the scene with a cool eye, away from media sensationalism, will realize that what is happening is closer to "controlled madness" than to a blind rush towards war. The United States fully understands that any comprehensive war with Iran will not be a quick military picnic, nor will it end with a limited surgical strike. Instead, it could open the doors of the region to strategic chaos extending from the Gulf to the Eastern Mediterranean. The experiences of Iraq and Afghanistan are still fresh in American memory, with the costs in money, reputation, and lives.

As for talk of regime change in Iran, it is a slogan that has been repeated in the corridors of American politics for decades, but it has never turned into an executable strategy. The Iranian regime, despite its internal crises and suffocating sanctions, has proven an extraordinary ability to adapt and endure, relying on a cohesive institutional security and military structure, and an impressive network of regional and international alliances.

Conversely, Iran's capabilities cannot be underestimated. Over the past years, Tehran has developed an advanced missile system and has demonstrated its ability to operate in multiple theaters through its regional allies. While targeting American aircraft carriers or major bases would remain a high-cost and extremely risky option, it is not impossible should an open confrontation erupt. Any direct hit on strategic American interests would certainly mean the region entering a spiral of escalation whose outcomes cannot be controlled.

This is precisely where the danger of the situation lies: if war breaks out, it will not remain bilateral between Washington and Tehran, but will affect Gulf security, threaten the stability of Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon, and perhaps extend its effects to global energy markets, threatening the international economy with a new crisis. Therefore, the precise cost-benefit calculations of both parties make the option of a comprehensive war more likely to be brandished than actually implemented.

In my estimation, Trump will continue to mobilize, threaten, and warn, but he will not launch a military strike that leads to a wide regional war. The man realizes that any major slip could turn the tables on him domestically, especially in light of the political crises and scandals pursuing him, and the unrest and decline in support within his party. Despite the image he tries to project of himself as a president who does not hesitate to use force, he is not at all interested in the "Samson option" that would bring down the temple on himself and his adversaries at home and abroad.

It is more likely that this round of escalation will end in negotiated outcomes related to the Iranian nuclear program, which will be marketed domestically in Washington as a political and security achievement. If this happens, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu will not dare to go it alone into a military confrontation with Iran, because any open war could mean the end of his political future, and perhaps plunge the Hebrew state into an existential dilemma, especially given its escalating international isolation after the Gaza war and the growing global calls for a just solution to the Palestinian issue.

As for Iran, it will not initiate a preemptive strike, nor will it seek to ignite a war it does not need at this stage. However, at the same time, it will not stand idly by in the face of what it considers existential threats. It will continue to develop its deterrent capabilities and strengthen its relations with Russia and China, thereby solidifying its position as a significant regional power within an international system that is gradually leaning towards multipolarity.

Iran, in historical memory, is not an emergent state, but the heir to the Persian Empire that once extended its influence over vast areas of the world. It understands that bowing under American pressure would mean undermining its regional project and international standing. Therefore, it will maneuver, negotiate, and accumulate power assets, without rushing into a comprehensive confrontation.

In conclusion: We are facing a calculated escalation, and fiery rhetoric that serves deterrence calculations more than it paves the way for war. A comprehensive military confrontation will not occur, because its exorbitant cost exceeds the capacity of both parties to bear. The Iranian regime will likely emerge with a greater presence and influence, while Washington seeks to save face through a new agreement or understanding. These are precise calculations for a war that is intended to be threatened, not to happen.

Children from the village of Abidin, located in the western countryside of Daraa, revealed details of their confrontation with Israeli occupation forces that infiltrated their village yesterday, Sunday. The children confirmed in field testimonies that they used stones and slingshots to confront the military vehicles that stormed the area, expressing their determination to protect their lands from any external aggression.

Local sources reported that the Israeli incursion originated from the Al-Jazeera barracks towards the heart of Abidin village, prompting residents to act immediately and close the main and secondary roads leading to the town. Residents used large stones to erect barriers to impede the movement of military patrols and prevent them from advancing again towards residential areas.

During the raid, occupation forces fired live ammunition at local residents to intimidate them, and also threw dense flare bombs into the sky over the Yarmouk Basin area. Reports indicated that Israeli soldiers deliberately destroyed large areas of agricultural crops belonging to the villagers before withdrawing from the area.

Video recordings documented the children's participation in obstructing the movement of patrols, with one of the participating youths stating that their motive was to protect Daraa and prevent any enemy from entering it. The scenes showed the use of handmade slingshots to pelt armored vehicles, in an expression of widespread popular rejection of repeated Israeli violations of Syrian sovereignty.

Residents of Abidin village began returning to their homes today, Monday, after a harsh night spent in forced displacement to neighboring villages, fleeing shelling and military escalation. The Israeli withdrawal had taken place late on Sunday night after carrying out search and sabotage operations in the vicinity of the village and the surrounding agricultural areas.

For its part, the Syrian government condemned these aggressions in the strongest terms, describing the incursions into the Quneitra and Daraa governorates as a blatant violation of international law and the United Nations Charter. Damascus affirmed that targeting civilians with artillery shells and terrorizing them constitutes a serious breach of the disengagement agreement signed in 1974.

This incident comes in the context of a continuous escalation adopted by the occupation in southern Syria, where incursions have been repeated in several villages in the Daraa and Quneitra countrysides over the past few days. These violations include the establishment of temporary military checkpoints and the inspection of passersby, in addition to indiscriminate firing towards agricultural lands and homes.

A state of cautious tension prevails in the Yarmouk Basin areas in the Daraa countryside, amid fears of a recurrence of these incursions aimed at seizing land and changing field features. Observers confirm that the simple popular resistance shown by the village children reflects the state of popular boiling over international silence regarding these continuous aggressions.

We want to protect Daraa.. We want to protect it from any enemy entering.

The political scene in Algeria has witnessed the emergence of journalist Nesrine Jaafar as one of the new faces aspiring to enter the parliamentary assembly. Her announcement of candidacy within the Workers' Party lists has garnered widespread attention, especially with her transition from behind the media microphone to the arena of direct electoral competition.

Jaafar gained wide fame through preparing and presenting the podcast 'For History,' which is broadcast on electronic platforms affiliated with local media sources. The program succeeded in bringing in-depth political discussions back to the forefront of digital interest, surpassing the one million views mark in several episodes that hosted prominent political figures.

Nesrine hosted influential figures on her program, including former Prime Minister Abdelaziz Belkhadem, and Abu Jarra Soltani, former head of the Movement for the Society of Peace. These interviews provided historical testimonies about pivotal moments in Algeria's history, which enhanced her intellectual standing among the young audience.

Despite the significant digital success, observers believe that the test of the ballot boxes differs fundamentally from viewership rates on social media platforms. The real challenge lies in transforming virtual sympathy into an actual voting bloc that casts its vote for the candidate on election day.

Nesrine Jaafar comes from a family with deep roots in Algerian political and trade union work, as she is the niece of Louisa Hanoune, leader of the Workers' Party. Her father, Kamal Jaafar, is also a well-known trade union and parliamentary figure in Annaba province in the east of the country, which has placed her under the spotlight of political inheritance.

In an interview with press sources, Jaafar affirmed that her upbringing in this political environment made her follow public discussions from an early age. She recalled the electoral atmosphere that filled the family home, emphasizing that her political awareness was formed very early due to this constant interaction.

Nevertheless, the candidate insists that her professional career in media was the result of personal effort, away from her family's influence. She stresses that the success of her program 'For History' came thanks to diligent research and good preparation, and not as a result of her kinship ties with party leaders.

Jaafar's candidacy reopens the old debate about the usefulness of journalists transitioning to legislative and political work. While some believe that a journalist is best able to convey the concerns of the street, others believe that parliamentary work requires legal and legislative skills that traditional media professionals may not possess.

In response to these concerns, Jaafar clarifies that she possesses a solid academic background that supports her political ambition, as she holds a master's degree in public law. This education gives her, according to her, the necessary tools to understand the mechanisms of legislation and law-making within the parliament.

Jaafar places media sector reform at the top of her electoral program priorities, seeking to improve the social conditions of her professional colleagues. She also aspires to work on regulating the advertising market and strengthening legal guarantees that protect freedom of expression and the press in the country.

In her analysis of the electoral scene, Jaafar believes that restoring citizen trust requires a political discourse that keeps pace with the transformations of contemporary society. She pointed out that Algerian youth have become more independent in their choices, which necessitates moving away from traditional discourses that are no longer effective.

My success in the podcast experience was the result of work in research, preparation, and direct communication, not the fruit of family relationships.

The Supreme Judicial Council in Iraq revealed dramatic developments in the anti-corruption file, announcing the seizure of over $14 million and various real estate assets. These measures come within the intensive investigations conducted by authorities with the Deputy Minister of Oil for Distribution Affairs, Ali Al-Bahadli, who was recently arrested in a qualitative security operation.

The judicial statement issued on Monday evening clarified that the confiscated funds were distributed between $11 million in cash and approximately 4 billion Iraqi dinars, reflecting the magnitude of the financial irregularities detected. Judicial authorities confirmed that the seizure also included a group of properties registered under names linked to the case, with work continuing to uncover all parties involved in this network.

These actions fall under the umbrella of a wide-ranging security and judicial campaign launched by the government called 'Dawn Raid,' which aims to cleanse state institutions of financial and administrative corruption. The campaign began at dawn on Sunday with raids and arrests targeting political figures and executive officials in the capital Baghdad and several other provinces, in a move described as the boldest in years.

Official sources reported that the first phase of the operation resulted in the arrest of approximately 47 suspects, including Al-Bahadli and at least 12 members of the Iraqi Parliament. These numbers indicate the widening scope of investigations to include both the executive and legislative branches, putting the political class to a real test of the credibility of slogans raised against corruption.

For his part, the spokesperson for the Iraqi government, Haider Al-Aboudi, reviewed the results of the ongoing operations during a press conference, confirming the official arrest of 21 suspects so far. Al-Aboudi indicated that security agencies continue to track the remaining wanted individuals based on judicial warrants, emphasizing that the law will take its course without exceptions for any party.

The government spokesperson noted that confessions made by those arrested in the early hours have begun to lead investigators to new leads and complex corruption networks. Specialized teams are currently working to track the paths of smuggled and circulated funds within these networks, in an attempt to recover national assets that were illegally seized.

These rapid developments come as Iraqi Prime Minister, Ali Al-Zaidi, prepares for an important official visit to Washington in mid-July. This visit is Al-Zaidi's first since assuming the premiership last month, where he seeks to present his international credentials as a serious leader in implementing structural reforms and combating rampant corruption.

Iraq faces chronic challenges in the integrity and transparency file, as the country has suffered for decades from the loss of billions of dollars due to suspicious deals and bureaucracy. Despite repeated promises from previous governments, the current 'Dawn Raid' campaign raises new hopes for the possibility of holding senior officials accountable and not just pursuing junior employees.

Initial investigations resulted in the seizure of $11 million, in addition to 4 billion Iraqi dinars, as well as a number of properties that were confiscated.

Washington Message

Washington – Said Arikat – 30/6/2026

Democratic Representative Rashida Tlaib of Michigan intends to force a new vote in the House of Representatives on Tuesday, to compel the US administration to end any American military involvement in ongoing Israeli operations in Lebanon. This move reflects growing opposition within Congress to Washington's continued involvement in the war, and increasing criticism of what opponents describe as unconditional American support for Israeli military policies.

In a post on the "X" platform on Monday evening, Tlaib stated that she would force a new vote to end US involvement in what she described as "the Israeli apartheid regime's campaign of ethnic cleansing and territorial expansion in Lebanon." She added that more than 4,250 people have been killed, while twelve children are killed or injured daily, considering that continued American military and political support makes Washington a direct partner in the continuation of the war and its widespread human losses.

This move comes weeks after the House of Representatives rejected, in early June, Resolution H.Con.Res.84, which was based on the War Powers Act and aimed to end any involvement of US armed forces in hostilities related to the war in Lebanon, unless Congress explicitly authorized it.

The House had defeated the resolution by a majority of 324 representatives against only 92 in favor, a vote that reflected the continued traditional consensus within the American political establishment to protect the strategic relationship with Israel, despite escalating international criticism of Israeli military operations, and increasing questions within the United States about the extent of the US administration's adherence to the Constitution, which grants Congress the authority to declare war and oversee the use of military force.

Following the failure of the first resolution, its supporters redrafted it into a new version, H.Con.Res.108, after addressing some legal observations raised during previous discussions, while maintaining the primary goal of ending any unauthorized US military involvement in the war and reasserting Congress's oversight powers over the administration's military decisions.

In parallel, a number of Congress members are pushing for an amendment to the State Department and Foreign Operations Appropriations Bill for fiscal year 2027, which would cancel approximately $3.3 billion in military aid allocated to Israel, in an unprecedented attempt to link US funding to respect for international law, and to end a policy of financial and military support that has continued for decades without real accountability.

Observers believe that the chances of passing the new resolution remain limited given the current balances within the House of Representatives. However, merely reintroducing it reflects a growing political shift within the United States, where the debate is no longer limited to the amount of aid provided to Israel, but has extended to questioning the American role itself, and to holding successive administrations responsible for providing political, diplomatic, and military cover for the continuation of Israeli operations in the region.

The reintroduction of the resolution reveals that the core of the battle is no longer limited to the war in Lebanon, but concerns the nature of the American political system itself, and the limits of Congress's ability to curb the executive branch when it comes to Israel. For years, US administrations have continued to provide military, intelligence, and political support to Tel Aviv, even amid repeated accusations of serious violations of international law. Critics say this approach has transformed the principle of “defending Israel” into a quasi-absolute policy, overriding constitutional and humanitarian considerations, and limiting the ability of oversight institutions to hold the executive branch accountable.

The vote that defeated the resolution reflects the continued strong influence of pro-Israel lobbies within Congress, where the majority of representatives from both parties still view any attempt to restrict military aid or impose oversight on the use of force as a threat to the strategic alliance between Washington and Tel Aviv. However, the widening circle of dissenting voices, even if they remain a minority, indicates the beginning of a gradual shift in the American political mood, driven by growing popular criticism and increasing human rights reports that question the legality of Israeli military operations and their humanitarian consequences.

Although the chances of the resolution succeeding in the short term appear slim, its importance lies in forcing the American political establishment to confront questions that can no longer be ignored: To what extent can Washington continue to fund and arm Israel without bearing political and moral responsibility for the results of using those weapons? And can the United States continue to present itself as a defender of international law and human rights, while using its veto power and providing diplomatic and military cover for an ally facing increasing accusations of widespread violations against civilians? These questions have become a central focus of the political debate within the United States, and are likely to become more prominent as the midterm elections approach.

The Iranian Ministry of Foreign Affairs announced today, Monday, its exclusion of any direct talks with the United States of America in the coming days. The ministry's spokesman, Ismail Baqaei, clarified that the Iranian technical delegation that will head to the Qatari capital, Doha, this week aims to follow up on specific technical files, denying any connection between this visit and the arrival of American officials in the region.

Tehran stressed that the current priority lies in implementing the terms of the existing memorandum of understanding, not in starting negotiations for a new final agreement. The Iranian statement indicated that reaching comprehensive understandings requires full commitment to the previously agreed-upon articles, which Iran seeks to ensure before moving to any higher diplomatic levels with the American side.

In contrast, the American administration had painted a different picture, with Washington announcing arrangements for a high-level meeting in Doha tomorrow, Tuesday. Envoys Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner are scheduled to participate in this meeting to discuss ways to de-escalate, amidst statements by President Trump claiming that the Iranian side requested this meeting.

These diplomatic tug-of-wars come after the conclusion of the first round of indirect negotiations in Switzerland on June 21, which were mediated by Qatar and Pakistan. These discussions focused on the technical details of implementing a 14-article memorandum of understanding, aimed at establishing a roadmap to end the military and economic tension between the two countries.

The Ministries of Foreign Affairs in Qatar and Pakistan had previously revealed that the two parties agreed to form a high-level political committee to oversee the implementation of the understandings. This diplomatic path aims to reach a final and comprehensive agreement within a timeframe of 60 days, provided that what was agreed upon on June 18 is adhered to.

The memorandum of understanding signed between Washington and Tehran includes essential provisions, including a cessation of hostilities and the lifting of the American naval blockade imposed on Iran. The memorandum also includes the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz to international navigation, after its closure led to severe disruptions in global energy markets and a record rise in inflation rates.

In a related context, Tehran issued a strong warning to France, calling on it not to interfere in the security arrangements for the Strait of Hormuz. This stance came in response to a joint French-Omani announcement that touched upon the possibility of carrying out international mine-clearing operations in the strategic waterway, which Iran considered an infringement on its sovereignty.

Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Kazem Gharibabadi affirmed that the responsibility for securing the strait and clearing mines rests solely with the Iranian state, according to recent understandings. Gharibabadi warned that any attempt by external powers to impose a new reality in the strait would be met with outright rejection, describing French actions as 'provocations' that could further complicate the situation.

French President Emmanuel Macron and Sultan Haitham bin Tariq of Oman had issued a statement from Paris affirming the need to ensure freedom of navigation without restrictions. Both sides expressed their readiness to cooperate with relevant parties to carry out joint operations to clear the strait of mines and enhance intelligence monitoring to ensure the safety of global trade routes.

_The Strait of Hormuz is the cornerstone of the ongoing negotiations to end the conflict, as its closure since the start of military confrontation last February has caused an international energy crisis. International powers seek to ensure that the closure scenario is not repeated, while Tehran insists that its management is a sovereign matter related only to the littoral states of the strait.

In this context, differences emerged between Muscat and Washington regarding future navigation fees, with the United States rejecting the imposition of any costs on ship transit. For its part, the Sultanate of Oman affirmed that the arrangements being discussed with Iran aim to regulate navigation and related services, without including the imposition of traditional transit fees.

France and the United Kingdom are currently leading an international coalition that aspires to play a security role in the region after the end of the state of war, which faces clear Iranian reservations. Observers believe that the struggle for influence in the Strait of Hormuz will remain the biggest obstacle to the full implementation of the de-escalation terms between Tehran and the international community in the coming period.

The situation is sensitive and complex, and we advise France not to complicate matters further through its provocations in the Strait of Hormuz.

In Palestine, especially in the Gaza Strip, violations are no longer isolated incidents; rather, they have become a systematic pattern of crimes that strike at the core of the protection afforded to civilians by international humanitarian law. What is happening in Gaza is not so much a war as it is a brutal aggression perpetrated by a racist occupying power that acts as if it is above international law. Targeting civilians, destroying infrastructure, siege, starvation, forced displacement, and collective punishment are all practices prohibited by the 1949 Geneva Conventions, and together they constitute grave violations that cannot be justified by military or security pretexts.

According to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, these acts fall under war crimes and crimes against humanity, including targeting civilians, using starvation as a method of warfare, destroying property and homes, including health, educational, and humanitarian institutions, and imposing collective punishment, all of which undermine the fundamental principles of international humanitarian law.

International legal discourse is no longer confined to war crimes and crimes against humanity but has extended to the most serious international crimes, namely the crime of genocide. The situation in Gaza has entered the judicial verification circle under the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, and the International Court of Justice has recognized the existence of acts that could fall within this crime.

Many international human rights organizations have also considered that what is happening in Gaza amounts to genocide or acts falling within its scope, based on the widespread killing, the extensive and repeated targeting of civilians, especially children and women, the systematic destruction of living conditions, and the use of siege, starvation, and deprivation of the population's means of survival.

The dilemma lies not in the absence of legal texts but in the absence of political will and enforcement mechanisms. The paralysis of the Security Council, the continued political and military support for Israel, and the double standards in applying international law have emptied the international protection system of its practical content. In contrast, a large part of the international community contents itself with statements of concern and condemnation, while the facts on the ground remain unchanged. This contradiction between the gravity of the crime and the limited response reveals a deep crisis in the international system.

Despite what was called the ceasefire agreement, and despite the resistance fulfilling its obligations in the first phase of it, Israel did not adhere to the requirements of the agreement, but rather continued its military operations and the daily policy of killing and targeting civilians. At the same time, the occupation forces continued to impose new realities on the ground by expanding military control areas within the Gaza Strip, which led to a significant reduction in the areas available to the population and the transformation of large parts of the Strip into prohibited or threatened areas. The commitments related to the introduction of mobile homes or the actual commencement of reconstruction were also not implemented, which left hundreds of thousands of Palestinians in harsh humanitarian conditions.

As for the arrangements for managing the Strip, they remained stalled, as the Gaza management committee was unable to play any effective role, and its members were not allowed to enter the Strip, which threatens to transform it from a formal framework into merely a cover for the reality of the Israeli plan to keep the Strip in a state of political and administrative vacuum to implement a strategy of mass displacement if the opportunity arises. The danger of these facts is not limited to the continuation of human suffering but extends to an attempt to impose new political and security arrangements, and to manage the war by other means through consecrating field realities and preventing the formation of a Palestinian authority capable of managing the post-war phase.

In contrast, these developments raise major Palestinian questions about the continued bets of the Palestinian parties dominating the scene, and each of them clinging to the possibility of leading the next phase alone, without regard for the magnitude of the national catastrophe that has befallen the Palestinian people.

The Palestinian experience has proven that relying solely on the justice of the international system is not enough, just as merely condemning violations does not stop them. International law does not operate in a vacuum but is affected by the balance of power and the ability to transform texts into tools of pressure and accountability. Hence, the Palestinian challenge lies not only in proving the crime or legally describing it but in building a national, political, and legal force capable of transforming the moral and legal capital accumulated by the Palestinian cause into real elements of influence.

There appears to be an urgent need for a comprehensive national strategy based on the unity of political representation and a national agreement on rebuilding the Palestinian political system on democratic and participatory foundations, enabling the Palestinian people to possess a unified national authority capable of managing the conflict politically, legally, and diplomatically. Internal division is no longer just a political crisis but has become one of the most dangerous factors weakening the Palestinian ability to protect and defend national rights, and it also opens the door to imposing arrangements that bypass the collective national will.

At the same time, reality compels Palestinians to invest in the moral and legal capital that the Palestinian cause has gained in global public opinion, in universities, unions, civil society organizations, and international solidarity movements, as the conflict has also become a struggle for legitimacy, narrative, and global awareness.

Protecting the homeland and our people's right to a dignified life begins not only with confronting crime but with the ability to rebuild elements of national steadfastness, preserve the social fabric, and unify political will. Peoples under occupation do not triumph only by the means of power they possess but also by their ability to survive and prevent crime from achieving its political goals.

Perhaps the most dangerous thing a Palestinian can offer their tormentor is to surrender to helplessness or to accept that the balance of power is an eternal destiny. The occupation may possess power, but it does not and will not possess legitimacy, and the law may be delayed, but it does not lose its value as long as there is a people who cling to their rights and continue their struggle for freedom, dignity, and life.

And if the international system's inability has allowed the crime to continue, then the historical responsibility of Palestinians lies not in waiting for delayed justice but in building the elements of national, political, legal, and moral strength that prevent genocide from becoming destiny or injustice from becoming a permanent reality.

Israeli occupation forces committed a series of new massacres in the Gaza Strip today, Monday, resulting in the martyrdom of 8 Palestinians and the injury of dozens, at a time when settlement plans aimed at imposing a new demographic reality within the Strip are escalating. Medical sources confirmed that the raids focused on displaced persons' tents and civilian-dense areas, leading to a significant increase in the number of casualties since the early morning hours.

In the Mawasi Khan Yunis area, which the occupation claims are safe zones, a mother and her child were martyred, and several displaced persons were injured due to a raid that directly targeted their tents. Eyewitnesses reported that the shelling caused widespread destruction to citizens' already dilapidated properties, increasing the suffering of families who have been forcibly displaced multiple times since the start of the aggression.

The targeting did not stop there, as an Israeli drone shelled a tent of vacationers on the Mawasi beach west of Khan Yunis, leading to the martyrdom of two Palestinians and the injury of 27 others with varying degrees of wounds. The injured were transferred to Nasser Medical Complex and nearby field hospitals, where medical sources described the condition of some of the wounded as serious due to direct shrapnel.

In the eastern area of Khan Yunis, the occupation army opened fire towards a gathering of civilians near Bani Suhaila roundabout, resulting in the martyrdom of a citizen and the injury of a child who was with him. These attacks come within the framework of a systematic targeting policy against any civilian movement in border areas that the occupation is trying to turn into buffer zones.

In the central Strip, a drone targeted a gathering of citizens on Al-Baraka Street in Deir al-Balah city, leading to the martyrdom of 3 Palestinians, including a child. Local sources reported that the shelling was sudden in a vital area frequented by residents to secure their daily needs, causing a state of extreme panic among passersby.

Northern Gaza Strip was not spared from the aggression, as a young man and a woman were moderately injured after artillery shelling targeted the Al-Salateen area in Beit Lahia town. The occupation artillery continues to randomly shell residential areas, hindering the access of ambulance and civil defense crews to the targeted areas to rescue the injured.

On the ground, the occupation army carried out extensive demolition operations of buildings and residential facilities northeast of Khan Yunis city, where massive explosions were heard shaking the entire area. The demolition operations coincided with intense gunfire and artillery shelling from vehicles stationed in the eastern areas, in an attempt to change the landscape and destroy infrastructure.

Eyewitnesses reported the incursion of Israeli military vehicles into the vicinity of the electricity company in Nuseirat refugee camp in the central Strip, where they moved the concrete blocks known as the 'Yellow Line' westward. This field movement aims to expand the security strip controlled by the occupation, reducing the areas available to Palestinians and violating ceasefire understandings.

On the political front, Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich revealed the completion of all technical preparations for establishing 3 new settlements inside the Gaza Strip. Smotrich clarified that the Settlement Administration in the Ministry of Defense is only awaiting the green light from Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to begin immediate implementation on the ground.

Smotrich, who leads the 'Religious Zionism' party, called for the necessity of completing the occupation of the entire Gaza Strip and definitively resolving the battle against the Hamas movement. He considered that establishing a belt of Jewish settlements inside the Strip is the only guarantee to provide security for the envelope settlements and Sderot city, as he put it.

In a related context, Innovation and Science Minister Gila Gamliel presented a government plan supported by the 'Mossad' agency aimed at displacing Palestinians from the Gaza Strip. The plan relies on what she described as 'voluntary migration,' considering that emptying the Strip of its inhabitants will pave the way for turning it into a major settlement opportunity in the near future.

Field data indicates that the occupation army currently controls about 70% of the Gaza Strip's area and imposes strict restrictions on the movement of citizens in the remaining areas. International concerns are growing that these military and political moves may be a prelude to annexing large parts of the Strip and re-settling it after two decades of withdrawal.

According to the latest statistics from the Ministry of Health in Gaza, Israeli violations since the last ceasefire came into effect have led to the martyrdom of 1045 Palestinians. These figures reflect the extent of ongoing violations, with women and children constituting the largest proportion of victims who fell in the treacherous attacks.

Since October 8, 2023, the total toll of the aggression has reached more than 73,000 martyrs and over 173,000 injured, in addition to the destruction of 90% of the infrastructure. Gaza is experiencing an unprecedented humanitarian catastrophe amid continued shelling, siege, and plans targeting the Palestinian presence in the Strip.

The Settlement Administration, which I head, has completed the preparatory work, and we are ready to establish 3 settlements immediately once we get the green light.

US President Donald Trump revealed arrangements for a diplomatic meeting in the Qatari capital, Doha, bringing together representatives from the United States and the Islamic Republic of Iran. Trump clarified in statements made to reporters from inside the Oval Office that this meeting could hold great importance in the course of strained relations between the two countries, noting that the Iranian side requested this meeting scheduled for Tuesday.

In a post on the 'Truth Social' platform, the US President confirmed that the American delegation would include prominent figures from his inner circle, with Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner heading to Doha. This mission aims to conduct high-level talks aimed at containing current crises and ensuring regional stability in light of recent developments.

For its part, Tehran presented a different account of the nature of the diplomatic move, as the spokesperson for the Iranian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Ismail Baghaei, denied any intention to hold direct political negotiations with Washington at present. Baghaei affirmed that the Iranian delegation heading to Qatar is a specialized technical delegation aimed exclusively at following up on the technical aspects of the memorandum of understanding signed between the two parties.

The Iranian Foreign Ministry stressed that the top priority for its delegation is to activate Article 11 of the agreement, which explicitly stipulates the necessity of releasing frozen Iranian assets abroad. Iranian sources indicated that this visit does not mean opening the door to comprehensive negotiations, but rather is a procedural step to ensure Washington's commitment to its previous pledges.

These diplomatic moves come after successful mediation that led to a preliminary agreement to cease mutual attacks that erupted last weekend. Informed sources reported that the current de-escalation allowed the return of maritime navigation to normal in the Strait of Hormuz and its surrounding areas, which eased tensions in one of the world's most important energy corridors.

Earlier, the Sultanate of Oman hosted bilateral talks with the Iranian side focused on the issue of managing the Strait of Hormuz in the post-war phase. These discussions are the first of their kind to address long-term security and navigation arrangements, reflecting a regional desire to avoid any military confrontations that could disrupt global oil supplies.

In a related context, informed diplomats confirmed that back channels of communication between Washington and Tehran remain effective and are working efficiently to contain any field misunderstandings. They explained that technical teams will meet in the coming days to review all provisions of the memorandum of understanding reached on June 18, which established an initial framework for de-escalation.

The aforementioned memorandum of understanding includes 14 basic articles, most notably the cessation of hostilities and the lifting of the naval blockade imposed by the United States on Iranian ports. The agreement also stipulated the full reopening of the Strait of Hormuz to international trade without restrictions, which observers considered a major breakthrough in the existing crisis.

It is worth noting that the first round of these indirect negotiations was held in Switzerland under the joint patronage of Qatar and Pakistan and concluded on the twenty-first of this month. That round resulted in a temporal roadmap aimed at reaching a final and comprehensive agreement to end the state of hostility between the two parties within 60 days.

A joint statement previously issued by the Qatari and Pakistani foreign ministries indicated the formation of a high-level committee to oversee the political tracks of the mediation process. This committee acts as a guarantor for the implementation of mutual commitments and to ensure that no party deviates from the understandings reached under the supervision of international mediators.

Anticipation remains the master of the situation regarding the outcome of the Doha meetings, as analysts believe that the success of the technical teams in resolving the frozen assets file may pave the way for deeper political meetings. In contrast, cautious American statements reflect the magnitude of the challenges facing trust-building between the American administration and the Iranian leadership at this sensitive stage.

The meeting scheduled to be held in Qatar between the United States and Iran this week may be important, or it may not be.

Field sources reported the arrival of new batches of humanitarian aid to the Gaza Strip, with 5 relief convoys managing to enter during the current week. This step comes as part of efforts aimed at alleviating the escalating living crisis faced by the residents of the Strip due to current conditions, by securing basic and emergency needs.

The new convoys included 68 trucks loaded with approximately 817 tons of various relief materials, which included food parcels and essential shelter supplies. Humanitarian teams in the Egyptian city of El Arish are operating an integrated logistics center to sort and prepare these shipments, ensuring their rapid arrival and efficient distribution to affected families within the Strip.

These convoys fall under the 'Gallant Knight' operation, which aims to sustain the flow of relief support to Palestinians. The authorities overseeing the operation affirmed that intensifying efforts at this stage comes in response to increasing needs, and embodies their commitment to humanitarian responsibility towards those in need, thereby contributing to raising the efficiency of urgent response to pressing crises in Gaza.

Ongoing relief convoys constitute a lifeline aimed at meeting basic requirements and alleviating the burden of humanitarian suffering for Gazans.

Palestinian medical sources announced today, Monday, the martyrdom of 15-year-old child Amir Ahmed Jaber, as a result of being shot by Israeli occupation forces during their raid on the city of Al-Bireh. The sources clarified that the bullet directly targeted the head area, leading to a critical deterioration of his health condition before his official death was announced.

Military forces belonging to the occupation army had raided the 'Um Al-Sharayet' area in Al-Bireh, amidst heavy gunfire, which led to the outbreak of field confrontations. Sources reported that Palestinian Red Crescent crews attempted to provide first aid to the injured child and perform cardiopulmonary resuscitation at the scene of the attack, but the severity of the injury prevented his condition from stabilizing.

For its part, the Palestine Medical Complex in Ramallah confirmed that medical teams made strenuous efforts to save the life of child Jaber immediately upon his arrival at the hospital, but he succumbed to his wounds. This incident comes in the context of an ongoing military escalation targeting residential neighborhoods and civilians in various governorates of the occupied West Bank.

Official data issued by the Palestinian Ministry of Health indicates that the pace of systematic killing has significantly escalated since the beginning of the current year 2026. The ministry recorded the martyrdom of 72 people by the bullets of the occupation army and settlers, reflecting the open-fire policy pursued by Israeli forces against Palestinians.

In a related context, the Wall and Settlement Resistance Commission monitored a sharp escalation in attacks during last May, reaching approximately 1659 attacks. These violations were distributed among direct killings, home demolitions, and daily incursions, the largest part of which was carried out by the army, while settlers participated in hundreds of other attacks.

Regarding the total toll since October 7, 2023, reports revealed catastrophic figures reflecting the extent of the aggression in the West Bank and Jerusalem. 1172 people were martyred, including a large number of children and women, while the number of injured exceeded 12,666, suffering from injuries of varying severity due to the ongoing confrontations.

The violations were not limited to killing and injuring, but also included widespread arrest campaigns that affected about 23,000 Palestinian citizens since the beginning of the major escalation. Policies of property and infrastructure destruction also led to the displacement of approximately 33,000 citizens from their homes, amidst the continuation of military operations aimed at undermining stability in Palestinian cities and towns.

The Palestine Medical Complex in Ramallah announced the martyrdom of child Jaber after medical efforts to save his life failed, as he arrived at the hospital in a very critical condition.

In a scene that encapsulates the brutality of the ongoing war on the Gaza Strip, the story of citizen Najwa Abu Atiwi stands as a living testament to the human tragedies whose wounds never heal. The chapters of suffering began with a treacherous Israeli bombing, which not only robbed her of her facial features but plunged her into a spiral of endless psychological and physical pain.

With bitterness, the Gazan mother recounts how her life turned into a daily nightmare, as her children became afraid to approach her or look at her face, which was completely altered by the injury. This violent transformation in the mother's relationship with her children reflects the magnitude of the trauma imposed by the occupation on Palestinian families, where fear has replaced safety and affection.

Shrapnel and the explosion caused severe damage to the bones of her face, jaw, and nose, in addition to the complete loss of one eye, making eating, speaking, and breathing a difficult daily challenge. Despite undergoing several complex initial surgeries in the Strip's hospitals, the effects of the disfigurement still dominate her appearance and vital functions.

Medical sources following Najwa's case reported that her health condition is likely to deteriorate at any moment due to the limited medical capabilities available in Gaza. Reports confirm her urgent need for immediate travel to complete a treatment journey that includes skull bone reconstruction and artificial eye implantation in specialized centers outside the Strip.

Najwa's tragedy is not limited to her body; she lost one of her daughters in the same attack that disfigured her face, leaving her in a bitter struggle between the pain of loss and the helplessness of injury. Today, she lives in extremely harsh living conditions that exacerbate the daily suffering she faces with the rest of her surviving family members.

Najwa's story sparked a wide wave of sympathy on social media platforms, where activists and human rights advocates launched urgent calls to save her life. Supporters emphasized the necessity of breaking the medical siege imposed on the wounded and enabling critical cases to reach international hospitals before it is too late.

Activists affirmed that this mother's case represents a model for thousands of wounded in Gaza who face complex injuries that exceed the capacity of the exhausted health system. They pointed out that the continued prevention of travel for treatment deprives victims of recovery opportunities and turns their lives into a series of continuous physical and psychological torments.

Human rights organizations described what Najwa is going through as a 'cry of pain' in the face of a silent international community regarding crimes of genocide. They added that the transformation of a mother's embrace into a source of fear for her children is the harshest image of human pain that wars can leave in the collective memory of peoples.

On the official level, the Ministry of Health in the Gaza Strip announced the cancellation of travel for a group of patients and wounded last Saturday via the Rafah crossing. This disruption came as a result of the occupation authorities' refusal to grant them the necessary security approvals, exacerbating the crisis of the already collapsed health sector.

Ministry of Health data indicates a serious humanitarian gap, as only 1204 patients were able to leave out of more than 17,000 registered cases. This inability to secure travel increases daily mortality rates among the wounded who are waiting for their turn behind closed crossings.

The Ministry warned international organizations that every day of delay in opening the crossings means the loss of more lives that could have been saved. It called for real pressure on Israel to ensure the flow of medical aid and the exit of cases requiring precise surgical interventions not available locally.

Since the start of the aggression in October 2023, official statistics have recorded the martyrdom of more than 73,000 Palestinians and the injury of over 173,000 others. These staggering numbers reflect the magnitude of the catastrophe that has affected people and stone, as the occupation destroyed about 90% of the infrastructure in the Strip.

Najwa Abu Atiwi's story remains a cry in a deep valley, demanding the restoration of the right to treatment and human dignity that was taken by the bombing. It represents thousands of hidden stories behind walls, where the wounded struggle with death and oblivion under a tight siege that prevents them even the right to hope for recovery.

Urgent international intervention is no longer a luxury demand, but a necessity to save what remains of humanity in the besieged Gaza Strip. Without opening humanitarian corridors, stories like Najwa's will continue to repeat daily, bearing witness to an era where justice was absent and the language of force and destruction prevailed.

My children have become afraid of my appearance after the injury, in a scene that summarizes the violent transformation that the war has imposed on the details of our lives.

Occupation War Minister, Yisrael Katz, affirmed that the presence of army forces in Lebanese territories would extend for a long period, indicating that this approach comes within a comprehensive security strategy. Katz revealed the existence of understandings and agreements with the commander of the US Central Command stipulating non-withdrawal from the specified security areas in both Lebanon and Syria, in addition to the Gaza Strip, reflecting close military coordination with Washington on these fronts.

The minister stressed in his statements that the occupation authorities would not take any additional withdrawal steps after the current experimental phase in South Lebanon, unless the condition of complete and comprehensive disarmament of Hezbollah is met. Katz considered that the existing link between the Iranian and Lebanese arenas represents a strategic interest for the United States, claiming that without this interconnectedness, Hezbollah's military capabilities would have completely collapsed in the face of successive strikes.

In the context of field changes, Katz explained that Tel Aviv was forced to adopt alternative military options due to some restrictions and external political orientations, as it was decided to move to a plan to deepen the presence in the area known as the 'Yellow Line' within Lebanese territory. This plan aims to strengthen field control and prevent any attempts to reposition armed forces in areas near the northern borders of the occupied territories.

The occupation war minister also expressed clear skepticism about the efficiency and ability of the official Lebanese military system to control the situation or confront armed factions in the South. Katz claimed that Lebanese army soldiers would not engage in any direct confrontation against Hezbollah, which forces the occupation army to extend the period of its ground operations and military presence within Lebanese territory to ensure what he described as achieving long-term security objectives.

There will be no further withdrawal after the two experimental areas in South Lebanon until Hezbollah is fully disarmed.

As the dust of battle begins to settle and the memorandum of understanding between Washington and Tehran is signed, international focus shifts to evaluating the outcomes of months of military escalation. Although the discussion centers on mutual concessions, a careful reading of the scene reveals a silent winner who did not fire a single bullet in this confrontation: China, which leveraged the crisis to solidify its position as a balanced international power.

Beijing, which condemned the American and Israeli attacks on Iranian territory from the very first moments, strongly denounced the assassinations of senior leaders in Tehran. Chinese diplomacy maintained an approach advocating negotiation, presenting itself as a responsible alternative that prefers dialogue over the uncalculated military adventures pursued by Washington.

Sources reported that Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi led intensive diplomatic efforts with the Iranian side throughout the conflict, and Beijing also supported regional mediation efforts. This role was clearly evident in the statements of Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, who publicly thanked China for its constructive contribution to advancing the negotiation process towards a ceasefire.

Analysts believe that China succeeded in highlighting the contradiction between its diplomatic moves and what it described as the reckless military campaign led by the United States and Israel. This narrative resonated widely in the Global South, which viewed the war with suspicion and apprehension about its repercussions on global stability and the international trade system.

The war was not merely a military conflict; it also exposed deep fissures within the Western allied front, as European governments showed clear hesitation to engage in the conflict. These public divisions over the legitimacy and economic costs of the war provided Beijing with strategic breathing room and weakened Washington's ability to lead a unified international coalition.

Chinese state media used the events of the war to reinforce the message that the United States is an unreliable and volatile partner in its political choices. International reports cited researchers stating that Washington's image was significantly damaged, as it now appears to many as a harsh power that imposes exorbitant costs on its allies without guaranteeing clear results.

In the background, Beijing used the failure of the American military decisive action in Iran to send veiled messages regarding the Taiwan issue. If Washington's overwhelming military power could not impose a quick outcome against a regional power, then this raises major questions about its ability to intervene in more complex conflicts in East Asia.

On the energy front, China faced a real test, as it imports half of its oil needs from the region, yet it demonstrated unexpected resilience. Thanks to its massive reserves and diversification of supply sources, Beijing was able to absorb the shock of navigation disruption in the Strait of Hormuz without experiencing collapses in its domestic economy.

China did not merely protect its energy security; it also practiced 'energy diplomacy' by increasing its exports of refined petroleum products to regional countries that were suffering from severe shortages. This move even included US allies such as the Philippines, which enhanced Beijing's influence as a reliable supplier in times of major crises.

The global oil price crisis gave a strong boost to China's strategy of transitioning towards clean energy and electric vehicles. As a global leader in this sector, Beijing presented itself as a power driving sustainable alternatives in a turbulent world, transforming an economic threat into a long-term investment and political opportunity.

Analytical sources indicated that the failure to achieve clear strategic objectives from the war weakened American deterrence globally. China is closely observing how US military interventions often leave behind long-term instability, and it uses this argument to convince its neighbors that relying on American protection may be a losing bet.

The Iranian experience proved to China that technological and military superiority does not necessarily mean the ability to impose political will. This conclusion reinforces Beijing's confidence in its approach based on soft power and close economic ties, as more effective tools than direct confrontations that drain resources and international reputation.

As the region enters a fragile peace, the United States appears to have exhausted a large part of its diplomatic and political capital in a war that did not achieve its ultimate goals. In contrast, China emerges with new leverage, benefiting from its role as an impartial mediator and an economic power capable of withstanding the most severe geopolitical shocks.

Ultimately, the final results of China's gains from the war on Iran may not appear immediately, but they have laid the foundation for a shift in the balance of power. Beijing is now more capable of presenting its vision for a multipolar world order, based on the failure of unilateral military approaches to achieve the desired stability in the Middle East.

Washington appears to many as harsh as China, but less predictable and less strategically efficient in managing international crises.

The Qatari capital, Doha, is preparing to host a high-level meeting tomorrow, Tuesday, bringing together American and Iranian officials in a new attempt to de-escalate the growing tensions between the two sides. The American administration announced that President Donald Trump's special envoys, Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner, will lead the American delegation in these sensitive talks.

US President Donald Trump confirmed via social media platforms that the Iranian side requested this meeting in Qatar, without revealing additional details about the agenda. This announcement comes just hours after the Iranian Foreign Ministry denied reports of arrangements for a direct meeting with the American side.

For her part, White House spokeswoman Caroline Leavitt clarified that Witkoff and Kushner will travel to Doha to discuss the terms of the recently signed memorandum of understanding. Leavitt indicated that technical discussions will take place on the sidelines of the high-level meetings to ensure that the precise details related to the existing agreements are addressed.

Leavitt emphasized Washington's commitment to the terms of the ceasefire agreement but warned at the same time that any acts of violence would be met with a similar response. She added that the United States has already responded to attacks targeting commercial vessels, affirming President Trump's desire to see tangible progress in the regional peace process.

In a related context, the Sultanate of Oman entered the crisis with statements by its Foreign Minister, Badr Al Busaidi, who affirmed his country's rejection of imposing any fees on ships passing through the Strait of Hormuz. Al Busaidi stressed the necessity of adhering to international law in any arrangements concerning the strategic shipping lane, noting that there is ongoing dialogue with Tehran on this matter.

Omani Minister clarified that there is a clear difference between the rejected transit fees and the costs of maritime and environmental services that can be discussed voluntarily. These statements come at a sensitive time as the Strait of Hormuz represents a focal point in the ongoing negotiations between international powers and Iran to ensure the safety of global navigation.

Talks in Doha are based on the memorandum of understanding signed on June 17, which consists of 14 clauses aimed at ending a four-month conflict. Under it, the two parties agreed to cease hostilities and reopen the Strait of Hormuz to global trade, but field violations have threatened this path.

Informed sources reported that the technical teams tasked with implementing the memorandum will meet in Doha in the coming days to strengthen direct communication channels. Through these channels, mediators aim to contain any field incidents that could lead to the collapse of the fragile understandings that were reached with difficulty.

An Iranian official source revealed that the focus of Tuesday's meeting will primarily be on managing the Strait of Hormuz and avoiding military escalation. This round differs from previous talks hosted by Switzerland, as the parties seek to establish practical mechanisms to prevent maritime and aerial friction in the Gulf region.

On the financial front, sources confirmed that Tehran and Doha are in the final stages of agreeing on technical procedures for the release of $6 billion in Iranian assets. These funds are expected to be transferred in two packages, as part of confidence-building measures preceding deeper negotiations on the nuclear file.

Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian described the release of these funds as a major victory for the Iranian people, noting that the agreement also included lifting sanctions on the oil sectors. Pezeshkian affirmed that the recovery of frozen assets in Qatar is an essential step towards alleviating the economic pressures his country is suffering from as a result of international sanctions.

On the ground, tension remains high after an exchange of missile strikes between the two sides, with Iran targeting American military sites in Kuwait and Bahrain early Sunday. This escalation came in response to threats made by President Trump, putting the Doha talks to a real test of diplomacy's ability to curb the military option.

In Lebanon, Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri expressed pessimism about the agreement brokered by Washington between Lebanon and Israel to cease hostilities. Berri warned that the terms of the agreement might aim to stir internal divisions, ruling out its implementation on the ground given the current circumstances and Israeli intransigence.

Tehran closely links regional issues, asserting that the withdrawal of Israeli forces from southern Lebanon is an integral part of any comprehensive agreement with Washington. Iran believes that ending the war that began last February requires a package of regional understandings that guarantee the interests of all parties involved in the conflict.

The President wants to see the peace process move forward and reach a conclusion, but violence will be met with violence.

Southern Syrian regions are witnessing a notable military escalation with the Israeli occupation army expanding the scope of its ground incursions into the Daraa and Quneitra governorates. These field movements come under the pretext of securing what the occupation describes as 'security zones,' at a time when the intensity of operations directly and systematically targeting border villages and towns is increasing.

Military sources affiliated with the occupation announced that forces from 'Etzioni Brigade 6' carried out search and combat operations in the area, resulting in the killing of a number of people last Saturday. These sources confirmed that the army intends to continue its military activity to ensure control over the border strip, which Damascus considers a blatant aggression that disregards signed international agreements.

In a field development in the village of Abdeen, located west of Daraa governorate, an Israeli military force stormed the town amidst heavy gunfire and intense overflights by reconnaissance aircraft and helicopters. The villagers attempted to confront this incursion by placing stones and obstacles on the roads to impede the advance of vehicles, in a popular expression of rejection of the repeated violations of Syrian sovereignty.

The aggressions included intense artillery shelling targeting the outskirts of residential villages, in addition to dropping flare bombs in the sky of the area to facilitate ground sweeping operations. Local sources reported that Israeli warplanes participated in the attacks by firing heavy machine guns, coinciding with the establishment of temporary military checkpoints and the searching and abuse of citizens.

For its part, the Syrian Ministry of Foreign Affairs condemned these aggressions, describing the incursions in Quneitra and Daraa as a blatant violation of the territorial integrity of Syria and the United Nations Charter. The ministry stressed that these movements represent a clear breach of the disengagement agreement, calling on the international community to assume its responsibilities to stop this escalation that threatens the stability of the entire region.

On the regional level, condemnatory stances were issued by Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Jordan, and the General Secretariat of the Gulf Cooperation Council. These positions unanimously rejected any infringement on Syrian sovereignty, considering that Israeli practices increase the suffering of civilians and push towards further tension in an already turbulent regional environment.

In the context of international documentation, a United Nations mission conducted a field visit to the village of Jamla in the Yarmouk Basin area in the western Daraa countryside. The mission listened to live testimonies from residents about the repercussions of the ground incursion and the restrictions imposed on their daily movement, with the aim of preparing reports documenting the field violations carried out by the occupation army within Syrian territory.

The situation in southern Syria remains prone to further deterioration in light of the Israeli insistence on imposing a new geographical and security reality. Regional powers are cautiously monitoring the outcomes of this ground expansion, amidst fears that these temporary incursions will turn into a permanent occupation of new strategic locations that go beyond the disengagement lines established decades ago.

The continuation of these aggressive practices undermines efforts aimed at consolidating security and stability, and portends further escalation and tension in the region.

The Israeli occupation authorities have ended a tragic chapter of waiting for the family of young Majdi Abu Arra, from the town of Aqaba, north of the West Bank, by officially informing them of the news of his martyrdom. This announcement came after a year and a half of complete silence and the enforced disappearance of his fate, while the occupation authorities still refuse to hand over his body to his family for burial.

The Commission of Detainees and Ex-Detainees Affairs and the Palestinian Prisoner's Society clarified in a joint statement that the General Authority for Civil Affairs received confirmation from the Israeli side regarding Abu Arra's martyrdom. The statement indicated that the occupation deliberately concealed any information related to the circumstances of his death or the exact date of its occurrence, which deepens the suffering of the family, who repeatedly demanded to know the fate of their son.

For his part, Noor Abu Arra, the martyr's father, stated that the family received a call from the human rights center 'HaMoked' informing them that the occupation admitted to Majdi's death after a long legal process before Israeli courts. The father confirmed that the Israeli army had denied his son's presence with them for the past months, despite all attempts and communications made by official Palestinian and human rights bodies.

The details of the incident date back to December 3, 2024, when an occupation drone targeted a vehicle Majdi was in with two other young men who were martyred at the time. Since then, all news of Majdi has been completely cut off, and he entered the lists of missing persons whose legal or health status the occupation refuses to disclose, before finally admitting his martyrdom.

Palestinian human rights organizations considered what happened to Abu Arra to be a full-fledged crime of enforced disappearance, a policy that has escalated dangerously since the start of the widespread aggression in October 2023. Sources confirmed that these practices are not limited to the West Bank but include thousands of missing persons and detainees from the Gaza Strip who face an unknown fate inside Israeli detention centers.

The joint statement stressed that the policy of enforced disappearance is not merely a transient security measure, but rather part of an extended colonial system aimed at brutalizing Palestinians and breaking the morale of their families. Sources indicated that the continued detention of bodies constitutes a blatant violation of international laws and humanitarian norms that require respect for the dignity of the dead and the right of families to burial.

This crime comes amid an unprecedented Israeli escalation in the West Bank, where official data indicate the martyrdom of more than 1,170 Palestinians and the injury of thousands since October 2023. The number of arrests has also reached record figures exceeding 23,000 cases, amid human rights reports warning of the deterioration of humanitarian conditions inside prisons and the escalation of the slow killing policy.

What Abu Arra was subjected to constitutes a full-fledged crime of enforced disappearance, a policy that has affected dozens of detainees, especially from the Gaza Strip.

The human rights organization "B'Tselem" issued a new report highlighting the escalating targeting of Palestinian children in the occupied West Bank, confirming that 2025 saw the killing of 54 children and minors by Israeli forces. The report clarified that these figures are part of a broader context of ongoing violence since October 7, 2023, with the total number of martyrs in the West Bank reaching 1,086 Palestinians.

According to data provided by the organization, among the martyrs who fell in the West Bank during the period up to the end of June 2026, there are 241 children and minors. This statistic indicates that one out of every four Palestinians killed by Israel in the West Bank was a child, representing the highest toll of child victims since the occupation of the area in 1967.

The organization's CEO, Yuli Novak, considered this systematic killing not merely isolated incidents, but a direct result of an official policy that gives soldiers a green light to use lethal force. Novak pointed out that the absence of legal accountability and oversight within the Israeli military establishment encourages the continuation of these grave violations against minors.

The report cited statements by the commander of the Central Command in the occupation army, Avi Bluth, who openly boasted that killing rates in the West Bank had reached levels not seen in the region for decades. The organization considered these statements to reflect the mindset of the military leadership, which views an increase in the number of Palestinian deaths as a military achievement requiring legal protection for its perpetrators.

"B'Tselem" affirmed that field investigations prove that killings are not always linked to a real threat to soldiers' lives, but rather victims are classified as "saboteurs" to justify the crime. The organization stresses that the military judicial system almost completely refrains from opening serious investigations or filing indictments against those involved in killing children.

In additional details about field conduct, the report revealed that Israeli forces deliberately obstructed ambulance access in about 25% of documented cases during 2025. They also prevented citizens from providing first aid to injured children, often leading to them bleeding to death before necessary medical care arrived.

Violations are not limited to direct killing but extend to the detention of victims' bodies, with occupation authorities still holding the bodies of 18 children killed last year. Human rights institutions consider the detention of bodies a collective punishment for victims' families, aiming to increase their psychological suffering and prevent them from burying their children with dignity.

The organization linked what is happening in the West Bank to the ongoing aggression in the Gaza Strip, where the occupation has killed more than 21,000 Palestinian children. It explained that international silence regarding the massacres in Gaza has given Israel a sense of impunity, encouraging it to apply the same deadly policies in West Bank cities and refugee camps without fear of consequences.

"B'Tselem" directed harsh criticism at the international community, considering that merely issuing verbal condemnations is no longer sufficient to stop the bloodshed of Palestinians. The organization demanded concrete and effective punitive steps against Israel to ensure a halt to the violation of civilian lives, especially children, who represent the most affected group by these policies.

The report concluded that the continued international immunity granted to Israel makes Palestinian lives an easy target for the Israeli war machine in all occupied territories. The organization stressed the need for international human rights bodies to intervene to document these crimes and bring those responsible to trial before the competent international courts to ensure they do not escape punishment.

The widespread and unprecedented killing of Palestinian children and minors in the West Bank is a result of a broader Israeli policy that allows the killing of Palestinians without any accountability or oversight.

Field sources reported the martyrdom of three Palestinian citizens, including a child, and the injury of several others with varying degrees of wounds, as a result of a missile strike carried out by an Israeli occupation army drone on Monday. The shelling targeted a group of residents near the Wadi al-Salqa bridge, located on al-Baraka Street in the city of Deir al-Balah in the central Gaza Strip, leading to casualties among the civilians present in the area.

According to the information received, the martyrs who fell in this targeting are Ali Fayez Esbeitan, Hassan Salman al-Hanajra, in addition to the child Malik Wael Abu Shawish, who was no more than eight years old. The bodies of the martyrs and the injured were transferred to a nearby hospital to receive treatment and deal with the critical cases left by the explosion.

Medical teams explained that the shrapnel from the missile launched by the drone caused direct injuries among passersby and residents who happened to be at the site at the moment of the raid. This continuous field escalation comes within the framework of the military operations launched by the occupation on various areas of the Gaza Strip, targeting civilian gatherings and vital streets.

Medical sources confirmed that the bodies of the martyrs and the wounded were immediately transferred to the hospital, due to the shrapnel resulting from the missile launched by the drone.

Hebrew press reports revealed a new direction within the Israeli occupation leadership aimed at remarketing plans to displace Palestinians from the Gaza Strip under misleading diplomatic names. The occupation authorities issued strict instructions to all security officials and the 'Mossad' agency to immediately abandon the use of the term 'voluntary migration' in international forums and official discussions, and replace it with the term 'Freedom of Movement plan' in an attempt to circumvent the legal and human rights criticisms that faced previous endeavors.

This shift in terminology comes after Israeli efforts met with widespread international rejection, as the international community considered what is called 'voluntary migration' to be nothing more than a cover for internationally prohibited forced displacement operations. High-ranking sources in the occupation entity acknowledged that the change in name aims to alleviate diplomatic pressure and facilitate convincing foreign countries to absorb the displaced, emphasizing that the ultimate goal remains to empty the Strip of as many of its residents as possible to impose a new demographic and security reality.

In a related context, the head of the National Security Council of the occupation, Shmuel Ben Ezra, held an emergency meeting with security establishment leaders to discuss ways to revive the displacement file, which had seen stagnation in recent months. During the meeting, representatives of the 'Mossad' agency acknowledged the existence of intractable diplomatic obstacles, as no country in the world has yet shown actual willingness to participate in this plan or receive the displaced, which reflects a dismal failure in marketing the project despite all Israeli attempts.

On the ground, about 2.4 million Palestinians in the Gaza Strip continue to cling to their land despite the massive destruction that has affected about 90% of the infrastructure and residential buildings. Data confirms that the war of extermination launched by the occupation since October 2023 has left a heavy toll exceeding 73,000 martyrs and 173,000 injured, but these sacrifices have not broken the will of popular steadfastness that rejects all forms of displacement, whether under the name of voluntary migration or the newly coined terms.

It is worth noting that these Israeli moves come at a time when a ceasefire agreement has been in effect since October 10, 2025, which puts these plans in direct confrontation with international obligations and the reality on the ground. Observers emphasize that the occupation's resort to manipulating terminology reflects a deep political dilemma, as it tries to reconcile its strategic goals of emptying the land with the restrictions imposed by international law and the steadfast Palestinian position.

The real goal is based on leading a process that leads to the displacement of the largest possible number of residents of the Strip to facilitate the imposition of any future arrangements.

The Rostropovich-Vishnevskaya Foundation (RVF) has launched a new drinking water desalination unit in Al Zarqa, south of Jabalia, in northern Gaza.

The unit was installed and commissioned by the foundation’s engineering team in an area located near the "Yellow Line," which remains under Israeli military control.

Residents of Al Zarqa and the surrounding neighborhoods have been facing a severe shortage of safe drinking water due to the extensive destruction of water infrastructure and the area's proximity to the Yellow Line, making it extremely difficult for humanitarian actors to provide a reliable water supply. In response, RVF established a fully equipped desalination unit that provides clean drinking water free of charge. The facility has a production capacity of more than 1,000 liters of safe drinking water per hour.

The project reflects RVF’s ongoing commitment to protecting the health and well-being of children and their families by helping address Gaza’s worsening drinking water crisis. The humanitarian situation has deteriorated further in recent weeks as several other desalination facilities have ceased operations due to shortages of fuel, lubricants, and other essential supplies.

RVF plans to continue expanding its humanitarian response, in partnership with international donors and supporters, by installing additional desalination units in the communities most in need, contributing to improved access to safe drinking water for displaced children and their families, the majority of whom continue to live in temporary shelters and tents.

The circulating calls for what was termed the "June 26th Movement" in the Gaza Strip sparked widespread debate within the Palestinian street, between those who saw it as an expression of deep popular resentment after more than twenty months of genocidal war and destruction, and after years of imposing a de facto rule, and those who considered it an attempt to exploit the humanitarian tragedy in the context of political projects linked to regional and international "day after" scenarios.Regardless of the party behind these calls or the extent of the response to them, preoccupation with the debate surrounding them should not obscure the fundamental question regarding the nature of the upcoming Palestinian phase. Is the conflict intended to be reduced to the issue of who governs the Gaza Strip, while at the same time the processes of completing the settlement project in the West Bank and Jerusalem continue, and the policies of genocide, starvation, and displacement in the Gaza Strip and West Bank camps deepen according to the declared plans of the occupation?The national priority today remains clear: to stop the aggression, end the Israeli occupation of the Gaza Strip, and thwart attempts to consolidate Israeli control or impose security and political arrangements that undermine Palestinian national rights. However, this priority does not mean ignoring the internal Palestinian crisis, nor accepting the continuation of division or the entrenchment of a de facto rule that has weakened the political system and allowed extensive external interference in Palestinian affairs.It has become clear that Israel, led by the Netanyahu government, is not content with merely managing the war, but is working to exploit its results to reshape the Palestinian reality in a way that serves its colonial settlement project, benefiting from internal division and attempts to impose new political formulas under various titles, whether called "the day after," "Gaza administration," or "peace council," all of which are proposed outside the Palestinian national will.In this context, what is happening in Palestine cannot be separated from the rapid transformations in the region. In Lebanon, positions of Lebanese national forces emerged rejecting agreements or arrangements understood as a response to external pressures and political dictates, reflecting the increasing pressure on national decision-making in more than one Arab arena, and an attempt to readjust it within complex regional and international balances. In contrast, the arrangements proposed in Palestine for the post-war period or for the administration of Gaza do not deviate from the same context, where stability is intended to be reproduced according to conditions that do not reflect free national will, as much as they try to impose political power balances that were not achieved during the war.Here, the seriousness of the stage becomes clear. The scene is no longer a traditional local conflict, but rather closer to a redistribution of spheres of influence and control over sovereign decision-making in more than one arena, from Gaza to the West Bank, and from Beirut to Amman and Damascus, within a single regional approach under formation, where political, security, and economic files intertwine.Therefore, confronting these projects is not only by rejection, but by presenting a clear Palestinian national alternative, starting with a comprehensive and responsible national dialogue aimed at ending the division and restoring the unity of the political system, and restoring the PLO's standing as the legitimate and sole representative of the Palestinian people and the holder of political and geographical authority, on the basis of the unity of land and people, while developing its institutions on democratic and participatory foundations.In this context, the need arises to form a transitional national salvation government to manage the affairs of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, unify civil and administrative institutions, oversee relief and reconstruction, and prepare for presidential and legislative elections, as well as National Council elections as soon as conditions are available to ensure their integrity and comprehensive Palestinian participation at home and in the diaspora.The issue today is no longer merely administrative arrangements for governing Gaza, but rather a redefinition of the entire Palestinian national project. The real battle is no longer about who rules the land, but about protecting independent national decision-making, and preventing the Palestinian issue from being turned into a humanitarian or security file managed according to external calculations.Moreover, the transformations in the international system, despite their complexities, open a margin that can be exploited if there is a unified national will and vision, and a more balanced and open foreign policy that utilizes the multiplicity of international power centers and the movement of peoples, including within the ongoing United States today, to turn them into elements of support for the struggle of our Palestinian people, instead of waiting for externally imposed solutions.Our battle is not over who governs Gaza, but over the nature of the entire upcoming Palestinian phase. It is a battle to rebuild national unity, renew the legitimacy of the political system, and reformulate the national liberation project in line with regional and international transformations, and to protect the Palestinian decision from external tutelage and dictates.If we Palestinians do not take the initiative to formulate our project ourselves, others will continue to formulate it for us. This is the real battle today, which is the battle for national identity, independent decision, and the restoration of political initiative to strengthen popular steadfastness and pave the way for freedom, national independence, and justice.* Member of the Fatah Movement's Advisory Council.

The situation in the Gaza Strip is no longer merely a humanitarian crisis; it has become an expression of an advanced stage of the Israeli war of extermination, which takes multiple forms of killing, bombing, and assassinations, extending to starvation, suffocating siege, and reduction of humanitarian aid. At the same time, Israel continues to impose new realities on the ground by expanding the so-called “buffer zone” or “yellow line,” which now includes approximately 70% of the Strip’s area, while Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu continues to threaten to prolong the war and refuse any clear commitment to ending it.

In contrast, Palestinians in the Gaza Strip are awaiting the results of ongoing discussions between Palestinian factions and mediators, amid increasing pressure to reach a ceasefire agreement that redefines the political and security future of the Strip, especially concerning the issue of weapons, civil administration, and security arrangements.

However, what is happening today cannot be reduced to ceasefire negotiations; rather, it appears to be part of a broader attempt to produce a new political, geographical, and demographic reality in Gaza, making the war's outcomes a starting point for a different phase, not its end. Here, a question arises that goes beyond the details of negotiation to the nature of the phase itself: Are we facing the end of the war, or a re-formulation of Gaza's shape and future?

In this context, international pressure becomes part of the political landscape accompanying the war. The international community, along with Arab parties, continues to pressure Palestinian factions to fulfill their commitments according to the American plan, while any similar pressure on Israel to fulfill its commitments is absent.

The recent American-Gulf statement clearly reflected this paradox, as it emphasized the disarmament of factions and linked the reconstruction of Gaza to security and administrative arrangements, without any demand for Israel or the United States to fulfill their commitments outlined in the ceasefire plan and Security Council resolution. This disregard reflects a continued international approach that places the burden of commitments solely on Palestinians, while exempting Israel from any political or legal accountability.

This imbalance extends to the Arab and Islamic positions, which have so far failed to exert effective political pressure on the United States to compel Israel to stop the war, lift the siege, and guarantee Palestinian rights. Nor have Arab political and economic tools been utilized to restore balance to the Gaza file, making it part of a broader regional equation instead of remaining an arena where conditions are imposed unilaterally.

Thus, the problem was not limited to the inability to stop the war; it took a deeper form of providing international and regional political cover for its continuation, transforming it from an open military war into a political process managed with the aim of reshaping the reality of the Gaza Strip in line with the Israeli vision.

From this perspective, the American plan does not appear to be a response to the war's outcomes, but rather a political extension of it. What Israel failed to achieve by military force, it seeks to impose through long-term political, security, and administrative arrangements that make control over the Strip less costly and more sustainable, without ending the occupation or recognizing Palestinian national rights.

Therefore, the current phase is not a “post-war” phase, but a phase of transition of the war from its direct military tools to more subtle political, security, economic, and administrative tools, which are no less dangerous. The battle is no longer just about a ceasefire, but about who sets the rules for the day after, and who determines the shape of Gaza, its inhabitants, its administration, and its future.

This is clearly evident in the realities on the ground: the expansion of buffer zones, the tightening of restrictions on the entry of humanitarian aid, the control over its distribution mechanisms, the prevention of reconstruction, and the continuation of daily targeting are not separate measures, but interconnected links in a single project aimed at reshaping Gaza demographically, geographically, and politically. In this sense, what military war fails to impose by force is being worked on to be established through the management of populations and resources and the control of living conditions, thereby transforming the “transitional phase” into a permanent reality.

Moreover, the focus on the imbalance of power between Palestinians and Israel, while true, conceals a deeper imbalance related to the absence of a genuine international will to impose mutual and equal commitments. Experience has shown that the international community has not only failed in oversight and implementation but has practically adopted a logic that obliges Palestinians to their commitments immediately and bindingly, while Israeli commitments are treated as issues subject to postponement, reinterpretation, and negotiation.

Thus, pressure on Palestinians is no longer merely a reflection of the imbalance of power; it has become part of a conflict management mechanism, where they are seen as the party most susceptible to pressure and concessions, while the stronger party is left to impose facts on the ground and then renegotiate them later. In this sense, international pressure is no longer separate from the Israeli project; rather, directly or indirectly, it has become one of the tools for solidifying its results.

This is not limited to Gaza alone; the proposed model extends beyond the Strip's borders. Linking reconstruction to security considerations, linking humanitarian rights to political conditions, and reshaping the Palestinian administration to align with Israeli requirements are all indicators of an attempt to redefine the relationship between Palestinians and the occupation on new foundations, where the occupation becomes less costly, while Palestinians become more dependent on external arrangements that determine their political and economic lives.

In this context, prolonging the transitional phase becomes a means of gradually entrenching realities on the ground, so that temporary measures become a permanent reality, and crisis management becomes an end in itself, not a phase leading to a just political solution.

However, this reality, despite its harshness, does not mean that its outcomes are predetermined. The success of any project to reshape Gaza does not depend solely on international and regional power balances, but is also affected by the Palestinians' ability to build a unified national stance that limits Israel's ability to exploit division and impose its new realities. The greater the division, the greater the occupation's ability to transform temporary realities into permanent arrangements.

Despite all this, Palestinians face a central challenge: their ability to rebuild their internal home, restore a minimum level of political unity, and formulate a common national strategy capable of protecting the Palestinian people, preserving the land, preventing displacement, and thwarting projects to reshape Gaza, thereby restoring the initiative to the Palestinian cause instead of merely reacting to what the occupation imposes.

Ultimately, the question is no longer how the war will end, but what reality it will leave behind. The real battle is no longer purely military; it has become a battle over the shape of Gaza, over the future of the Palestinian cause, and over the Palestinians' ability to prevent the catastrophe from being transformed into a permanent political system that reshapes their existence, rights, and future.

Media sources revealed a new trend within the political and security levels in the Israeli occupation state, which stipulates abandoning the use of the term "voluntary migration" when referring to plans for the displacement of Palestinians from the Gaza Strip. The sources explained that the new adopted name is "Free Movement Plan," in a tactical attempt to re-market the project, which faced significant setbacks and outright rejection from the international community in recent months.

According to leaked information, official instructions have been issued to all security, intelligence, and diplomatic institutions concerned with the necessity of adopting the new term in all international correspondence and communications. This step comes after the previous designation sparked sharp criticism, as global capitals considered it an explicit promotion of the policy of forced "transfer," which hindered any international cooperation to receive displaced persons from the Strip.

Decision-making circles in Tel Aviv are betting that changing the name may contribute to softening the positions of some countries that have expressed moral and legal reservations, which may open the door again to reviving contacts regarding the absorption of a number of Palestinians. Previous reports had indicated intensive Israeli attempts to reach agreements with African countries and internationally unrecognized parties, but these endeavors have not achieved tangible results so far.

In an admission that reflects the reality on the ground, a senior Israeli official acknowledged that Hamas still maintains its presence and influence within the Gaza Strip despite ongoing military operations. The official indicated that the current strategy aims to reduce the population density in the Strip by pushing the largest possible number of residents to leave, considering that emptying the land of its inhabitants represents a fundamental pillar for any future security or political arrangements planned by the occupation.

On the humanitarian front, local sources reported the sudden and unexplained disruption of travel for the wounded and sick through the Rafah crossing, which exacerbated the suffering of critical cases awaiting treatment abroad. This closure comes despite previous understandings that stipulated the passage of about 50 patients daily with their companions, which puts thousands of injured people at risk of certain death in light of the collapse of the health system inside Gaza.

Coinciding with these political moves, the occupation army continues to escalate its military operations, as aerial and artillery shelling targeted tents for displaced people in Khan Yunis city, resulting in martyrs and injuries among unarmed civilians. Occupation forces also expanded their bulldozing and shelling operations in the central areas of the Strip, specifically in Deir al-Balah and al-Maghazi camp, as part of a policy of systematically destroying infrastructure and residential blocks.

International and human rights organizations warn that living conditions in Gaza are reaching a point of no return, in light of the severe shortage of drinking water, medicines, and basic foodstuffs. Fears of epidemics spreading are increasing due to waste accumulation and the collapse of sanitation services, while commodity prices continue to rise wildly, putting the residents of the Strip between the hammer of daily shelling and the anvil of siege and systematic starvation.

Israel seeks to push the largest possible number of Palestinians to leave the Strip to facilitate any future arrangements there.

A few wordsMany friendly inquiries were received, asking about the reasons for this column's absence for weeks, during which abundant waters flowed under the bridges of crises, some of which spawned from others in the region and the world.A writer, like a warrior, is allowed to rest, to take a break from the fatigue of staying up late and the hardship of traveling through the wilderness of crises, and on the edges of developments, which no sooner stop than they return again, like darkness in a deep sea covered by waves upon waves upon clouds.There are moments when one becomes frustrated by the bleakness of the scene and the unfortunate turn of events, so he suppresses his despair, conceals his helplessness, and resorts to silence so that his frustration does not seep through the cracks of his words, affecting people as it affected him. For if a writer feels despair, he must keep it to himself and not reveal it to others, as negative emotions spread in the air like viruses.The silence was not a retreat, but rather a moment of reflection necessitated by the need to distance oneself a little from the noise of successive events, to view the scene from a distance that allows for reading the complete picture, not just its scattered fragments.This column returns anew, monitoring events, reading the map of developments, analyzing new occurrences, and standing as much as possible at the frontiers of crises, exploring the limits of outcomes with keen insight, without any exaggerations; attempting to untangle knots rather than merely observing them. For the writer's task today is not merely to describe the tragedy, but rather to search for commonalities and to illuminate the darkness in the sea of shadows where crises multiply, in a region that produces more questions than it offers answers.A salute to the passion of dear readers, always present in the details of this free space that they visit whenever the morning breathes.

Media sources have revealed extensive movements led by extremist settlement groups to bring about a radical and comprehensive change in the map of deployment in the occupied West Bank. This plan, dubbed 'Execution Day,' aims to penetrate areas classified as (A), which are under full Palestinian control, representing a direct undermining of what remains of international political and security understandings.

These movements are led by organized groups under the names 'Settlement Farm Union' and 'Habita Forum,' which have defined a precise mechanism for deploying forces and settlers in about 100 strategic points. This step comes after months of surveying and mapping operations, which focused on selecting locations that give settlers a topographical advantage and the ability to control vital passages.

The data indicates that the targeted sites are located in the heart of major Palestinian communities, lands that had been transferred to the responsibility of the Palestinian Authority under the agreements of the 1990s. The project's organizers seek to regain control over what they describe as 'state lands' that have been under Palestinian civil and security sovereignty for decades.

These plans have reached the decision-making corridors of the occupation government, where they were presented to prominent ministers and figures close to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich stands out as one of the main supporters of this approach, which aims to impose a new reality that goes beyond the traditional settlement boundaries in Area (C).

This shift reflects a fundamental change in the discourse of the far-right, which has moved from demanding the annexation of Area (C), which constitutes 61% of the West Bank, to openly calling for the complete annulment of the Oslo Accords. Observers believe that the implementation of this plan would practically mean ending the administrative and security presence of the Palestinian Authority in major cities and villages.

The proposed plan presents the government with a complex security and political dilemma, as the entry of settlers deep into Area (A) will inevitably lead to direct confrontations and widespread field escalation. This step would also provoke a severe international diplomatic crisis, given the close global scrutiny of any change in the status quo in the occupied territories.

The leaders of the settlement movements are betting on seizing a favorable political moment to pass the plan through a decision by the small ministerial council 'the Cabinet.' The project's organizers confirm that the matter does not require complex or lengthy legislative procedures, but rather a single political decision that will overturn the security balance in the region for years to come.

Amidst this escalation, fears are growing that these proposed settlement points will turn into permanent hotbeds of armed conflict, especially since they include the vicinity of major Palestinian cities. This plan comes at a time when the West Bank is witnessing escalating tensions, making 'Execution Day' a potential spark for a comprehensive explosion that would end any prospect for political solutions.

One small decision from the Cabinet could change the security reality for many years to come.

Dr. Ibrahim Nairat

Palestine is no longer discussed today merely as a battlefield or an urgent humanitarian aid issue, but as an open political file potentially subject to reshaping, its features slowly being drawn behind the scenes more than they are publicly announced. While the war in Gaza continues and its repercussions become more complex, a quieter but more profound discussion is taking place in the background: What comes after this moment?

In Washington, European capitals, and influential Arab decision-making centers, approaches are crystallizing that speak not only of ending the crisis but of re-engineering the Palestinian political landscape itself: Who will govern Gaza? How will the relationship between Gaza and the West Bank be reformulated? What is the future of the Palestinian Authority? And what is the nature of the political system that can lead Palestinians in the next phase?

Despite the differing priorities of the United States, Europe, and Gulf states, there is a general convergence on several key issues: ending the war, reconstructing Gaza, restructuring the Palestinian Authority, reunifying the Palestinian political system, and then launching a political process that revives the prospect of a Palestinian state. However, the discussion is not limited to changing governments or personalities; it extends to rethinking the very philosophy of governance.

From a Transitional Authority to a State Project

In a number of political circles and research centers, a vision emerges based on transitioning from a “transitional authority” model to a “state” model. This means moving from daily conflict management to building permanent institutions of a modern state, including a civilian government, an independent judiciary, professional public administration, a regulated economy, and security agencies operating within a unified political and constitutional framework.

In this context, there is repeated talk of a Palestinian government with a civilian and technocratic character that would manage both the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, in parallel with deep reforms in the Authority's institutions, restructuring of security agencies, and renewal of the Palestinian political structure, leading to elections when political and security conditions allow.

The goal here is not limited to improving administrative performance but extends to rebuilding political legitimacy, restoring internal trust, and creating an environment capable of launching a more stable political process.

However, this vision is inseparable from the fundamental problem governing the Palestinian situation, which is the endeavor to build state institutions that perform their functions as if they were a fully sovereign state, while this sovereignty remains incomplete due to the ongoing occupation. This places this model in a middle ground between a “transitional authority” and a “complete state,” where state functions are gradually exercised within existing political and security constraints.

Within this innovative vision, a more specific understanding emerges that the desired Palestinian state institutions should exercise their internal powers towards citizens as if they were a fully sovereign state, in terms of managing public affairs, enforcing law, providing services, and regulating political and economic life, despite the continued presence of the occupation as an external factor limiting sovereign space.

More precisely, the state here is not built as a fully sovereign entity at the level of political reality, but as an institutionally complete system of functions internally, capable of imposing public order and unifying executive authority within society, thereby strengthening the idea of the state from within, even in the absence of full external sovereignty.

This vision is based on a relative separation between the “internal function of the state” and the “issue of ultimate political sovereignty,” focusing on building institutions capable of enforcing law and unifying administrative and security decisions, pending the development of the overall political process.

The goal here is not limited to improving administrative performance but extends to rebuilding political legitimacy, restoring internal trust, and creating an environment capable of launching a more stable political process.

From Multiple Authorities to a Civil State

If past decades were characterized by multiple decision-making centers and overlapping functions between political and security spheres, many of the proposed visions for the next phase tend towards building a civil political scene where the government is the supreme executive authority, and law is the governing framework for the relationship between the state and society.

This approach is based on the idea that the stability of any modern political system requires unity of political and legal authority, such that all institutions, including security agencies, are subject to a single constitutional framework, and the law applies to everyone without exception, within an agreed-upon political legitimacy.

In this context, a vision is proposed that the powers of using force and enforcing law should be confined to official institutions, as this is one of the pillars of building a modern state. The state's monopoly on these powers is not seen merely as a security measure but as a condition for building institutions capable of imposing public order and ensuring equality before the law.

Factional Presence and Institutional Re-alignment

In parallel, a vision emerges within ongoing discussions regarding the reorganization of factions' presence within the Palestinian political system, in a broader context related to strengthening the rule of law and unifying executive authority. The intention here is not to abolish the political role of factions but to redefine it within a clear institutional framework, so that all political actors become subject to the authority of the state and law without exception.

This vision is based on the idea that building a modern state requires unity in executive decision-making, which necessitates subjecting political and security activities to unified legal and regulatory rules, and re-aligning the relationship between factions and governing institutions on an institutional rather than a parallel basis. In this sense, factions are viewed as political forces operating within a state system, not as parallel or alternative entities in the areas of governance and security.

This proposal comes within a vision aimed at reducing duplication of decision-making and multiple centers of power, and enhancing the ability of institutions to enforce law equally on all actors. However, the success of this path remains dependent on the existence of a consensual formula that precisely defines the nature of the relationship between factions and the state, ensuring that law enforcement does not become a tool for political conflict, but rather a unifying framework for reorganizing political life.

Redefining Tools of National Action

If this path progresses, the next phase may witness a gradual shift in the Palestinian center of gravity from military tools to political, diplomatic, and institutional tools, through expanding Palestinian presence in international organizations, strengthening international law instruments, intensifying diplomatic work, and investing in international recognition of the Palestinian state.

In contrast, popular and civil resistance may gain wider space as one of the organized tools of national action, through peaceful mass movements, human rights work, economic boycott, trade union and media activity, and recourse to international justice, within a political and legal framework linked to the state project and its institutions.

In this sense, the shift from military to political action is not understood as a retreat from the national project, but as a repositioning of its tools within a different phase of the conflict.

Does Consensus Precede State Building or Does the State Produce It?

Many believe that any process of rebuilding the Palestinian political system requires broad national consensus beforehand. However, this vision clashes with the reality of the prolonged political division, making it extremely difficult to wait for comprehensive consensus before starting to build institutions.

Another approach suggests that state-building can be a tool for producing consensus, not a result of it.

Comparative experiences indicate that stable institutions, the rule of law, and unified political authority often contribute to gradually reducing divisions, because they impose common rules to which everyone adheres regardless of their political differences.

From this perspective, the most realistic approach may not be to wait for comprehensive consensus, but to gradually establish a rule-of-law state that possesses institutions capable of enforcing law equally on everyone, and subjecting various forces and actors to a single constitutional authority.

Law enforcement here is not understood merely as a security function, but as a process of building trust between citizens and the state, and between society and political institutions. As this authority becomes entrenched, political disagreement transforms from a conflict outside institutions to an organized competition within them.

Vision Gap Between Inside and Outside

However, despite this movement in visions, the perspective adopted by some decision-making circles in the West does not fully align with Palestinian aspirations.

In light of the situation after the Gaza war, it appears that part of Western thinking stems from the idea that the priority in the current phase is to build a stable political system, effective civil institutions, and entrench the rule of law, thereby creating a more stable environment that can later allow for the re-launch of a political process leading to a two-state solution.

This vision is based on the premise that major transformations are not limited to changing the balance of power but can also lead to gradual changes in political consciousness and societal choices, and that periods of intense conflict often open the door to reordering political priorities.

Hence, some Western decision-makers and think tanks are betting that investing in institution-building, supporting civil governance, strengthening the economy, and entrenching the rule of law may, in the long run, contribute to the emergence of a political environment more amenable to negotiated settlements, including the revival of the two-state solution path when appropriate regional and international conditions are met.

However, this bet faces a fundamental challenge: collective consciousness is not shaped solely by political decisions or institutional arrangements, but is also influenced by historical experience, the continuation of the existing reality, and the extent to which people feel that any new political project truly leads to sovereignty and freedom, rather than merely more efficient management of the same reality.

Between State Building and Conflict Management

Ultimately, what is being discussed today is not just about rebuilding infrastructure, but about reformulating the Palestinian political system itself. The question is no longer who will govern Gaza after the war, but what political model Palestinians are intended to move towards: a model of a state with complete institutions, or a model of sustainable conflict management.

Perhaps the greatest challenge lies in the ability to reconcile two parallel paths: building a modern state based on the rule of law and institutions, while simultaneously preserving the essence of the Palestinian cause as a matter of freedom and self-determination.

If Palestinians succeed in building this balance, the post-Gaza phase could turn into an opportunity to re-establish the national project on more stable and clear foundations. However, if the gap between the international vision and Palestinian aspirations widens, the path may remain confined to crisis management instead of reaching a historical settlement that ends the conflict.

Challenges are escalating for the Lebanese state in its efforts to implement the provisions of the framework agreement with Israel, amidst a wave of continuous field violations and the ambiguity surrounding the mechanisms for the withdrawal of occupation forces from the southern regions. Data indicates significant obstacles preventing the agreement from being translated into tangible reality, especially with the absence of clear timelines.

Sources reported that the Israeli occupation army has not yet begun to implement any actual withdrawal steps that were supposed to start within the initial timeline. The sources confirmed that field military units have not received explicit orders to evacuate the sites included in the agreement, which raises doubts about Israeli intentions regarding de-escalation.

In a related context, media reports revealed the postponement of the withdrawal operation, which was scheduled for Sunday morning, indefinitely, without providing official justifications for this delay. This comes at a time when extreme secrecy surrounds the details of the military annex to the agreement, which was described as secret and does not include precise criteria for the areas the army will leave.

Circulating information indicates that the military annex lacks binding timelines for the withdrawal of Israeli forces or for the disarmament mechanisms of Hezbollah in the border areas. This procedural vacuum raises widespread questions in Lebanese circles about the seriousness of the Israeli side in adhering to the international commitments recently reached.

For its part, the Northern Command of the occupation army proposed withdrawing from three villages: Froun, Al-Ghandouriyah, and Zawtar Al-Gharbiyah, areas that do not originally have a permanent military presence. Observers considered this proposal an attempt to circumvent the essence of the agreement by evacuating secondary points where only raids were carried out without fixed positioning.

The problem of terminology in Israeli discourse stands out, where the focus is on the concept of 'redeployment' instead of a complete and comprehensive 'withdrawal' from Lebanese territories. Israeli sources believe that this wording grants the army the right to return to those sites at any time under the pretext of monitoring the implementation of the agreement's provisions and preventing any security threats.

On the political front, no official comment has been issued from Beirut on the statements by Benjamin Netanyahu and his security minister, Yisrael Katz, regarding the insistence on keeping forces within the so-called 'Yellow Zone'. These statements contradict the Lebanese vision, which presented the agreement to the public as a sovereign step aimed at completely ending the occupation.

On the ground, Israeli aggressions did not stop despite the announcement of de-escalation, as occupation aircraft launched raids targeting the city of Nabatieh and the town of Meifdoun. Occupation forces also carried out extensive demolition operations of buildings and facilities within the villages of Hadatha and Taybeh, in addition to destroying what they claimed was a strategic tunnel in the town of Majdalzoun.

In contrast, Hezbollah affirmed in a statement that it is closely monitoring all Israeli violations along the border line, emphasizing its full right to respond. However, the party indicated its current commitment to the ceasefire, while at the same time warning against allowing the occupation freedom of movement within Lebanese sovereignty.

Internal debate is escalating in the Lebanese arena after statements attributed to the party considering the agreement 'non-existent' from its ideological and field perspective. In an attempt to contain the situation, Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri is leading intensive regional and international contacts to ensure that fragile understandings do not collapse and to consolidate stability.

As part of regional support, Iranian Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf affirmed during a call with Berri that preserving Lebanon's sovereignty is a fundamental pillar in understandings with international parties. Ghalibaf referred to the activation of a technical committee for de-escalation, including representatives from the United States, Iran, and Lebanon, to follow up on developments.

Questions remain in Beirut about the ability of state institutions to impose their control and implement international commitments amidst this field complexity. With continued disagreements over the interpretation of the agreement's provisions, South Lebanon remains an open arena for all possibilities, awaiting practical steps to end the current state of ambiguity.

Israeli phrasing focuses on the concept of redeployment instead of withdrawal, which allows for later return under the pretext of monitoring implementation.

Israeli occupation forces committed a new massacre this Monday morning, following a drone strike targeting a gathering of civilians in the city of Deir al-Balah in the central Gaza Strip. Medical sources confirmed the martyrdom of three citizens, including a child not exceeding eight years of age, while a number of wounded were transferred to nearby hospitals for treatment as a result of the shelling that targeted the vicinity of Wadi al-Salqa bridge.

The sources clarified that the martyrs are Ali Fayez Esbaitan, Hassan Salman al-Hanajra, and the child Malik Wael Abu Shawish, who died in a direct raid on Al-Baraka Street. This crime comes in the context of a series of continuous violations by the occupation army of the ceasefire agreement concluded last October, threatening the collapse of fragile understandings on the ground.

On the ground, local sources reported that occupation vehicles began to expand their military control in the central region by shifting what is known as the 'Yellow Line'. Israeli bulldozers moved concrete blocks an additional 150 meters westward, in a step aimed at seizing more land and establishing a new military reality within the Strip.

The new expansion operations included the area extending from the vicinity of the electricity company in the southern direction to the Wadi Gaza bridge in the north, where residents were surprised by the placement of concrete blocks alongside Salah al-Din Street. This move represents a clear violation of the terms of the ceasefire agreement, which stipulated a partial withdrawal, a comprehensive cessation of hostile operations, and the facilitation of the return of displaced persons.

Reports indicate that the occupation has completely reneged on its commitments regarding the agreed-upon deployment maps in the first phase of the agreement. According to current data, the percentage of land militarily controlled by the Israeli army has risen from 53% at the time of signing the agreement to approximately 70% currently, reflecting a strategy of gradual territorial encroachment.

Regarding human casualties, Ministry of Health data revealed that Israeli violations since the agreement came into effect have led to the martyrdom of 1048 people and the injury of thousands more. These figures reflect the occupation's insistence on continuing to target civilians despite political announcements of calm, exploiting the absence of effective international oversight on the ground.

It is worth noting that the Gaza Strip has suffered massive destruction affecting 90% of its infrastructure since the start of the war of extermination on October 8, 2023. The total toll of the aggression has reached more than 73,000 martyrs and 173,000 wounded, amid catastrophic humanitarian conditions and a near-complete halt of basic services due to the siege and continuous military operations.

Israel reneged on its commitments and continued its military operations, with the area of military control within the Strip increasing to 70% at present.

Amidst a tragic health reality sweeping across the Gaza Strip, the dreams of Palestinian families to provide the minimum level of care for their children are fading, as death lurks for the young due to a lack of treatment and malnutrition. The child Zeina Abu Eid was the latest victim of this bitter reality; she was not killed by the incurable disease alone, but by the long wait on medical referral lists that never opened the doors to salvation for her.

Zeina suffered from a rare autoimmune hepatitis, a condition that requires urgent surgical intervention for a liver transplant and precise examinations that exceed the capabilities of the exhausted health system in the Strip. Dr. Ahmed Al-Farra, director of the children's building at Nasser Medical Complex, explained that her condition required immediate travel to save her life from rapid deterioration.

Despite the issuance of an urgent medical referral, complex coordination procedures and the closure of crossings prevented her departure in time. Medical sources confirmed that death was faster than official papers, as the child passed away last Friday after a harsh journey of suffering with illness and waiting.

Zeina's mother bitterly recounts the details of the last days, noting that her daughter initially underwent a misdiagnosis that led to taking treatments that weakened her immunity instead of strengthening it. Within a few days, the child's health deteriorated dramatically, as she lost her sight and hearing and fell into a complete coma before her death on June 26th.

Zeina's story is not just an individual case, but a reflection of a major tragedy experienced by thousands of patients in Gaza; official statistics indicate that there are more than 22,000 patients awaiting their turn for medical referral abroad. Among these, there are about 5,000 children facing real risks to their lives due to the lack of surgical and medicinal capabilities.

Doctors warn of 500 critical cases among children suffering from diseases similar to Zeina's condition, including congenital heart defects, cancer, and kidney failure. Medical staff in Gaza describe this situation as a 'death sentence' written next to the medical diagnosis for every patient who cannot leave.

Zeina's father, who hoped to see his daughter grow up before his eyes, stood before her grave, appealing to the world to intervene to save the rest of Gaza's children. He stressed that his family's dream was shattered in an instant due to the absence of essential medical supplies that could have given his daughter a second chance at life.

For his part, Dr. Muhammad Zaqout, Director General of Hospitals, confirmed that the number of injured and sick people who actually need urgent travel reached 17,730 cases. Medical sources accused the occupation authorities of deliberate and unjustified intransigence in dealing with the humanitarian medical file, which exacerbates the daily death toll.

Reports indicate that the occupation follows a systematic policy to reduce the number of patients allowed to leave through the remaining crossings, in addition to reducing the working days allocated for humanitarian cases. This restriction is not limited to the movement of individuals, but extends to preventing the entry of essential drug shipments and specialized surgical equipment.

Strict restrictions on the entry of medicines have led to the vital departments in hospitals going out of service, making major operations impossible within the Strip. Patients remaining in the exhausted hospitals face a severe shortage of painkillers and antibiotics, making their treatment journey fraught with continuous pain.

Thousands of injured and sick people in Gaza share the same unknown fate, as they line up in long queues awaiting security approvals that may never come. The closed crossings remain the biggest obstacle to their ambition for healing, amidst international silence regarding the humanitarian catastrophe ravaging the health system.

In conclusion of the medical appeals, the Ministry of Health demanded the necessity of opening safe and sustainable humanitarian corridors to ensure the departure of critical cases and the entry of medical aid. Hope remains pinned on international action to end the policy of 'death while awaiting coordination' that has been claiming the lives of children and women in the Gaza Strip without stopping.

Our family's dream was shattered in one minute due to the lack of medicine and essential medical supplies that could have saved our daughter.