The convening of the first meeting of what was called the "Peace Council" for the Gaza Strip constituted a highly sensitive political juncture, not only in terms of its timing and context, but also due to the nature of the representative structure upon which it was based. The absence of genuine and effective Palestinian representation raises a dual problem: the problem of political legitimacy, and the problem of the implications of this framework for the unity of the land and the cause. In light of this scene, Gaza appears to be managed within a supra-national approach, in which roles, attributes, and commitments are redefined away from internationally recognized legal and political references.First: The Crisis of Legitimacy Between International Law and the Logic of PowerThis meeting comes in an international context witnessing a tangible decline in the effectiveness of international law rules, and a marginalization of the United Nations' role as a regulating framework for relations between conflicting parties. Instead of resorting to legal references and multilateral institutions, the logic of power and the imposition of facts on the ground are advancing as a tool for reshaping political reality.Any framework established outside or beyond the international legitimacy system opens the door to questions about its nature: Is it a transitional, emergency path, or an alternative structure intended for permanence? In the Gaza case, it seems that the exceptional character may turn into a rule, unless any new arrangements are reconnected to the determinants of international law and UN legitimacy resolutions.Second: Towards the Entrenchment of Long-Term Administrative-Political SeparationThe proposed formula for the "Peace Council" suggests a direction towards re-engineering the relationship between the Gaza Strip and the rest of the Palestinian geography. Instead of the framework being a tool for reintegration and unity, the danger arises of it transforming into an administrative-political umbrella that entrenches Gaza's specificity as a separate entity, even under the guise of reconstruction or transitional administration.This path not only deepens the division but also redefines the Palestinian cause from a unified national liberation issue into fragmented files, each managed separately. Here lies the structural danger: separating reconstruction from the political context, and separating Gaza from the broader national framework.Third: The Paradox of "Partnership" and the Dilemma of Political EthicsDescribing Israel as a "partner in the Peace Council" raises a deep ethical and legal problem, in light of the serious international accusations directed against it regarding what happened in the Gaza Strip. How can a party accused of committing grave violations (genocide) be presented at the same time as a partner in formulating post-war arrangements?This paradox reflects an imbalance of power in the contemporary international system, where roles may be redefined according to pragmatic political considerations, not according to standards of justice and accountability. The result is a weakening of the principle of accountability, and the transformation of "peace" into a technical process for managing post-destruction, not a path to achieving justice.Fourth: The Crisis of Palestinian Representation and the Emptying of National CharacterIn contrast to granting Israel the status of a partner, (Ali Shaath) was not defined by his Palestinian representative capacity, nor was he given a clear position that expresses the national identity he is supposed to represent. The absence of national character is not a matter of protocol, but carries a deep political significance: redefining the Palestinian presence as an individual or technical presence, not a political representation of a people and a cause.Any political process that does not explicitly recognize national identity and legitimate representation opens the door to the erosion of the concept of sovereignty, and the transformation of the Palestinian actor into an administrative party in a project drawn outside its collective will.Fifth: Reconstruction Between Financial Commitment and Political CaptivityThe issue of Gaza's reconstruction is presented as an urgent humanitarian title, yet indicators suggest that the assumed financial commitments may remain hostage to political calculations. In the absence of clear executive guarantees, the reconstruction file may turn into a tool of pressure or bargaining, instead of being a legal and moral entitlement for the responsible parties.Separating reconstruction from a clear accountability framework threatens to turn it into a conditional process, managed according to power balances, not according to the rights of the affected population.Sixth: Possibilities for Correction and Restoring National InitiativeDespite the bleak picture, the door remains open for an alternative Palestinian approach. This approach is based on three main pillars:1. Strengthening the elements of steadfastness and survival as a strategic priority.2. Consolidating the unity of national decision and representation.3. Fortifying the internal front before engaging in any new political or administrative arrangements.The essential equation is not between "participation or boycott," but between participation from the position of a unified national actor, or engagement from the position of the acted upon in a political engineering drawn outside of it.In conclusion; the "Peace Council" in its current form tests the limits of international legitimacy, the meaning of national representation, and the possibility of preserving the unity of the Palestinian cause.Between the discourse of peace and the logic of power, the features of the next stage are determined. The central question remains:Will this council be an entry point for reconstruction within a comprehensive national framework, or an additional step in the process of dismantling Palestinian geography and decision-making?The answer depends not only on the nature of the council, but on the ability of the Palestinians themselves to redefine their position in the equation, as the owners of the land, the right, and the decision.

Legal sources affiliated with the Prisoners' Affairs Commission revealed a new escalation in the repressive measures adopted by the 'Ofer' prison administration against Palestinian prisoners, coinciding with the advent of the holy month of Ramadan. The sources explained that the occupation authorities have begun imposing restrictions directly aimed at limiting the practice of religious rituals inside the detention center, reflecting a systematic policy to increase psychological and physical pressure on those behind bars during these blessed days.

Among the most prominent of these violations is the prison administration's deliberate refusal to inform prisoners of the timings for the dawn (Fajr) and sunset (Maghrib) calls to prayer (adhan), which deprives them of knowing the correct legitimate times to begin or break their fast. This practice disrupts the prisoners' daily routine, as they find it extremely difficult to organize their meals and perform their prayers on time, representing a blatant assault on their most basic internationally guaranteed rights.

The Commission affirmed that this step comes within a long series of collective punishments aimed at isolating the prisoner from their spiritual and temporal environment, and confiscating their fundamental rights guaranteed by international agreements. Withholding the prayer timings is not merely an administrative procedure; rather, it is a means of moral torture aimed at depriving prisoners of their connection to the spiritualities associated with this holy month, thereby increasing the daily suffering inside the detention cells.

In a related context, reports indicated that the already harsh conditions experienced by prisoners inside 'Ofer' prison have worsened with these new measures that directly affect freedom of worship. The Commission considers that the international community's silence on such practices encourages the occupation authorities to innovate in methods of repression, warning of the health and psychological repercussions that prisoners may suffer as a result of irregular meals in an environment lacking the most basic human necessities.

The Prisoners' Affairs Commission called on all international and human rights institutions, especially the Red Cross, to intervene immediately and urgently to put an end to these transgressions that violate the conventions guaranteeing prisoners' right to worship. The Commission stressed the necessity of obliging the occupation prison administration to respect the religious rituals of prisoners and to stop using religion as a tool for punishment and pressure, emphasizing that the occupation's practices disregard all human and legal norms.

The prison administration uses all means to repress prisoners and deprive them of the most basic elements for practicing their religious rituals, in violation of international norms and conventions.

Washington – Said Arikat - 2/22/2026

News Analysis

In a scene reflecting deep transformations within the American right, the lengthy debate between conservative commentator Tucker Carlson and the US Ambassador to Israel, Mike Huckabee, filmed at Ben Gurion Airport, ignited a fierce discussion about Israel's position in American policy priorities. The interview, which lasted more than two hours, appeared to be a public political trial of an alliance long considered self-evident within the Republican Party, but this time it took place before a self-divided conservative audience.

The encounter, which could be called the "Battle of Ben Gurion," revealed a division between two wings: a rising populist nationalist current within the "MAGA" movement (which brought Donald Trump to the White House) that questions the cost of foreign engagement, and a conservative evangelical Christian current that views supporting Israel as a strategic and doctrinal commitment. Carlson repeatedly hinted that Huckabee seemed more preoccupied with defending Israeli government policies than representing the priorities of his American constituents, while the Ambassador responded that the alliance with Israel is not an emotional matter but a cornerstone of American national security.

Perhaps the most controversial moment came when Carlson asked if Israel, according to a literal religious interpretation, had the right to claim lands extending from the Nile to the Euphrates. Huckabee replied: "It's fine if they take it all," before partially retracting and describing the question as irrelevant. Despite the retraction, the statement sparked a storm of criticism, bringing back to the forefront the discourse of "divine right" which contradicts international law and the principle of self-determination, and places Washington in an awkward position as a mediator supposedly committed to a political solution.

The debate comes amidst the ongoing Gaza war, where military operations continue to claim Palestinian lives despite a fragile truce, and with accelerating Israeli steps to consolidate control in the West Bank. Ministers in Benjamin Netanyahu's government have openly spoken of "eliminating the idea of a Palestinian state," deepening the rift with international consensus on the two-state solution. In this context, Saudi Arabia called on Washington to explicitly clarify its position on Huckabee's statements, considering that such proposals undermine the foundations of regional stability and any serious political path.

In parallel, Donald Trump is hinting at the possibility of striking Iran, a prospect Carlson strongly opposes, citing polls indicating that a limited percentage of Americans support engaging in a new war in the Middle East. Huckabee refused to rely on polls in national security matters, considering that leadership is not managed by the logic of popularity, without providing concrete data on a direct threat from Iran against the United States.

The confrontation was not limited to strategic issues. Carlson criticized Huckabee's meeting with Jonathan Pollard, convicted of spying for Israel, and questioned the continued flow of American money to a country with a relatively high standard of living compared to some American regions. He also referred to previous connections between Ehud Barak and Jeffrey Epstein, while acknowledging that Barak was not accused. These points reflected an attempt to link support for Israel to sensitive issues affecting conservative public opinion.

Moreover, the controversy preceded the broadcast of the interview; Carlson said that his team was subjected to a "strange" security detention at Ben Gurion Airport, while Huckabee responded that what happened was a routine procedure at an airport known for its strict measures. Despite the intensity of the debate, both parties maintained a degree of respect, reflecting an understanding that the disagreement goes beyond individuals to a deeper struggle over the identity of the American right and its role in the world.

Historically, the Israeli right has strengthened its relations with the Republican Party and evangelical movements, based on the conviction that the conservative Christian base represents a more stable ally than liberal American Jewish segments. However, this gamble today faces a clear generational test; young conservatives are less enthusiastic about religious narratives that justify expansionist policies, and more inclined towards an isolationist discourse focused on domestic priorities.

The interview reveals that the American-Israeli alliance is no longer beyond debate within the right, but has become part of a battle to define national interests. When the logic of "divine right" is put forward to justify expansionist policies, the discussion shifts from strategic calculations to a doctrinal certainty that is difficult to question. This shift weakens Washington's ability to claim neutrality, and gives its adversaries material to question its credibility. It also deepens internal division, as Republican politicians find themselves between a skeptical populist base and a traditional elite that sees Israel as an organic extension of shared Western identity.

In the field, data is accumulating that complicates the scene further, as human rights reports indicate that most settler attacks on Palestinians in the West Bank occur under the protection or acquiescence of the occupation army. These facts empty any talk of a political horizon of its content, and give the discourse of creeping annexation practical cover. Ignoring this dynamic in the internal American discussion turns the debate into an ideological argument detached from reality. If the division within the right continues, unconditional support for Israel may become a growing political burden in Washington.

The teenager Muhammad Wahbi Abdul Aziz Hanani, 17 years old, was martyred at dawn today, Sunday, succumbing to critical injuries he sustained from bullets fired by Israeli occupation forces in the town of Beit Furik, east of Nablus. Medical sources reported that the martyr was hit by a direct live bullet to the head during the occupation soldiers' raid on the town, where he was transferred to the hospital in critical condition before his martyrdom was announced later.

The occupation army's raid on Beit Furik came after a violent attack by extremist settlers on the 'Officers' Quarter' in the area, which led to fierce confrontations with residents who tried to confront the assault. Local sources stated that occupation soldiers fired live ammunition and tear gas heavily, resulting in another 14-year-old child being injured by live bullets, in addition to damaging citizens' vehicles and properties.

In a related context, various areas of the West Bank witnessed similar attacks, where a Palestinian young man was shot in the back by settlers in the village of Al-Mughayyir, northeast of Ramallah, and his condition was described as critical. Occupation forces also carried out an arrest campaign targeting 10 citizens from the Al-Hathrour Bedouin community near Khan al-Ahmar, at a time when settler gangs continue to pursue shepherds and destroy agricultural crops in Masafer Yatta and the Jordan Valley.

Official statistics indicate a dangerous escalation in the intensity of Israeli violations in the West Bank since October 2023, with the number of martyrs rising to 1116, in addition to about 11,500 injured. These attacks coincide with forced displacement policies, as 11 Palestinian families were recently forced to dismantle their homes and leave the 'Al-Khalayel' Bedouin community east of Ramallah due to ongoing settler terrorism.

The Palestinian Ministry of Health announced the martyrdom of the teenager Muhammad Wahbi Abdul Aziz Hanani (17 years old), who succumbed to his injuries from bullets fired by Israeli occupation forces in the town of Beit Furik.

The Gaza Strip witnessed a series of intense military attacks at dawn on Sunday, as occupation aircraft carried out widespread airstrikes targeting various areas in the city of Rafah, in the far south of the Strip, causing widespread destruction and a state of panic among residents.

In the northern areas, field sources reported that the occupation's military vehicles directly opened fire with their machine guns towards citizens in the Al-Razan area, located within the Beit Lahia project, which hindered the movement of residents in that targeted area.

Concurrently, the occupation's artillery expanded its targeting to include the eastern neighborhoods of Gaza City, where loud explosions resulting from heavy shelling were heard, amidst the ongoing military escalation affecting all governorates of the Strip from north to south.

Occupation forces launched intense airstrikes on the city of Rafah in the southern Strip, while its vehicles simultaneously opened fire towards citizens in the north.

Israel adheres to a set of security pretexts for rejecting the establishment of an independent Palestinian state, based on its experience of withdrawing from the Gaza Strip and the subsequent repercussions leading up to the events of October 7th. Israeli circles believe that the elevated terrain of the West Bank poses a strategic threat to coastal areas, making the hypothetical Palestinian state militarily vulnerable and capable of targeting the Israeli heartland.

Political analyses confirm that these security arguments lack objectivity, as they can be addressed through international understandings and joint security coordination. However, the real reason lies in the Israeli political doctrine that refuses to relinquish land, which explains the absence of the flexibility that previous governments showed towards historical peace proposals.

Currently, demographic and social crises within Israel are being transferred to large-scale settlement projects in the heart of the West Bank. This settlement expansion, whether official or informal, aims to encircle the Palestinian presence and transform it into small, fragmented enclaves, easily controlled and separated from the outside world by simple security measures.

Israeli steps to effectively annex the West Bank are accelerating, a path that cannot be completed without widespread displacement of Palestinians. Annexation means placing Israel before the choice of a one-state solution, which, to ensure its continuation, requires achieving a decisive demographic superiority, so that Palestinians do not exceed one-third of the population in the new entity.

Israeli political literature proposes the idea of displacement as a solution to the demographic obstacle that previously hindered the one-state project. The options proposed for implementing this vary, from fabricating major crises as a pretext for widespread military operations, to opening paths for forced migration to distant areas or countries willing to receive quotas of displaced persons.

Should the one-state project be implemented, the remaining Palestinians will be subjected to 'social engineering' operations aimed at keeping them as a workforce serving only Israeli interests. This model resembles old colonial systems in Africa, where all details of daily life and education of the population are interfered with to ensure their complete submission to the new system.

These paths are linked to major regional transformations, especially concerning the conflict with Iran and Israel's strategic positioning in the region. The right-wing government led by Benjamin Netanyahu seeks to capitalize on any moral victory to strengthen its influence, which necessitates a counter-movement from the Arab-Islamic alliance to prevent Israeli regional dominance.

Assassinating the two-state solution represents continuous pressure on neighboring Arab countries, as it leads to fragile settlements and endless security and political attrition. The Israeli plan aims to strip Palestinians of their status as a people, transforming them into a mere demographic bloc without political rights, which threatens regional stability as a whole.

While Israel invests in a policy of fait accompli and unilateral actions, the absence of a corresponding Palestinian move to fortify the national presence on the ground is evident. The bet remains on the ability of regional and international alliances to curb Israeli ambitions that seek to impose a solution that serves only its interests without offering any real concessions.

Displacement is inherently linked to annexation, both practically and objectively, and Israeli options include fabricating major events to carry out massacres leading to the departure of Palestinians.

Iranian Foreign Minister, Abbas Araghchi, revealed his country's intention to submit a draft counter-proposal to the American administration in the coming days, following a round of intensive nuclear talks hosted in Geneva last week. These diplomatic moves come at a sensitive time when the relationship between the two countries is experiencing escalating tension, as both sides seek to define the contours of a new agreement to end the current crisis.

In contrast, US President Donald Trump issued firm statements, indicating that he is seriously considering options for launching limited military attacks against Iranian targets to pressure Tehran. Trump clarified in his remarks to reporters at the White House that the military option is on the table, emphasizing the necessity for the Iranian leadership to negotiate an agreement he describes as fair and appropriate for American interests.

Informed sources reported that military planning in the US Department of Defense has reached very advanced stages, with scenarios including targeting key figures and vital facilities. The sources added that orders might extend to include working towards regime change in Tehran if President Trump issues a final decision on the matter, reflecting the seriousness of current American threats.

Trump had set a strict deadline for the Iranian side, ranging from only 10 to 15 days, to reach a final agreement formula, warning of consequences he described as 'very bad.' These threats coincide with widespread American military reinforcements in the Middle East, raising international concerns about the region sliding into a comprehensive confrontation.

For his part, Araghchi explained that the indirect talks held in Geneva with US Special Envoy Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner led to initial understandings on guiding principles. Despite this progress, the Iranian minister affirmed that reaching a final agreement still requires more time and review by senior officials in Tehran before submitting an official response.

In a media interview, the Iranian minister indicated that the counter-proposal might be ready within two or three days, with the possibility of holding a new round of talks within a week. Araghchi stressed that brandishing the military option will not contribute to resolving the crisis, but rather will complicate the diplomatic path that has recently begun to show slight breakthroughs.

President Trump linked his current pressures to the human rights file in Iran, referring to the suppression of recent popular protests as an additional motive to tighten the American stance. Trump claimed that the number of deaths in those protests reached 32,000 people, a figure he considered evidence of the need to change the approach taken with the current Iranian leadership.

In a related context, Trump claimed that his direct military threats succeeded in stopping the execution of mass death sentences that were scheduled two weeks prior, as he alleged he informed Tehran of an immediate strike if any execution was carried out. He explained that there is a fundamental difference in his administration's treatment between the Iranian people, whom he described as victims, and the ruling regime that practices oppression.

The Iranian Foreign Minister responded to these figures by publishing what he described as a 'comprehensive list' of protest victims, confirming that the actual number was only 3,117 deaths. Araghchi challenged those skeptical of official Iranian data to provide concrete evidence to the contrary, considering that exaggerating the numbers falls within the psychological warfare practiced by Washington.

On the technical side of the negotiations, Araghchi confirmed that Washington did not request a complete halt to uranium enrichment during the Geneva talks, nor did Tehran offer it. He explained that the discussion currently focuses on establishing technical and political guarantees to ensure the peaceful nature of Iran's nuclear program forever, in exchange for concrete measures to lift economic sanctions.

In contrast, the White House's response on this point was decisive, with its spokesperson affirming that President Trump will not allow Iran to possess nuclear weapons or even the capability to manufacture them. The American statement emphasized that the administration's firm position is to prevent Iran from enriching uranium, which represents a fundamental point of contention that could hinder reaching a quick agreement.

The United Nations entered the crisis, with its spokesperson Stéphane Dujarric expressing the international organization's concern about the escalating tone of military threats in the region. The international organization urged both the United States and Iran to exercise restraint and adhere to the diplomatic path as the only way to resolve deep differences and avoid a regional catastrophe.

Observers believe that the coming days will be crucial in determining the course of relations between Washington and Tehran, especially with the approaching end of the deadline set by Trump. Either the Iranian counter-proposal succeeds in opening a breach in the wall of the crisis, or the region will face military scenarios that could reshape the political map in the Middle East.

American military reinforcements continue to flow into bases near Iran, in a clear message that the military option is not just a verbal threat. At the same time, world capitals await the results of the Iranian review of the proposals, amidst slim hopes that diplomacy will succeed in defusing an imminent explosion that could affect energy markets and global security.

The military option will only complicate efforts to reach an agreement, and we are in the process of preparing a draft counter-proposal within days.

A state of popular and political anger prevailed in Arab circles following statements made by the US Ambassador to the Israeli occupation authorities, Mike Huckabee, in which he referred to what he described as "Israel's rights" to expand into Arab territories. Observers and tweeters considered these statements a green light for further violations and settlement policies in the region.

In the context of official and popular reactions, Egyptian parliamentarian Mustafa Bakri criticized the US administration's silence regarding its ambassador's positions, pointing out that these claims, which extend "from the Nile to the Euphrates," represent political audacity and starkly contradict the proposed political initiatives. Monitoring sources confirmed that the absence of an official comment from Washington exacerbates the state of tension in the Arab street.

Social media platforms witnessed widespread interaction under the hashtag "provocation and terrorism," where thousands of users expressed their categorical rejection of these trends targeting Arab sovereignty. Activists stressed that such statements end any remaining opportunities for the peace process and reveal the true face of US foreign policy, which absolutely supports the plans of the Israeli far-right.

The US Ambassador's statements contradict announced initiatives and audaciously speak of alleged rights in Arab territories.

Political and security circles in the occupation state are experiencing a growing state of anxiety, as acknowledgments escalate that society is gradually sliding towards a deep abyss. These indicators are evident in the repeated attacks on judges, which have been accompanied by waves of incitement and insults that reflect the depth of internal division.

The incident of a right-wing activist blocking the car of former Supreme Court President, Professor Aharon Barak, sparked widespread reactions in academic circles. Observers considered this behavior a dangerous shift from the language of political persuasion to methods of intimidation and overt thuggery against symbols of the judiciary.

Historian Eran Shalev believes that what contemporary Israel is witnessing is a sharp division between political and societal camps, reaching a stage where reconciliation between the warring parties is difficult. He explained that the recent verbal assaults revealed an emotional and political chasm separating the components of society in an unprecedented way.

What further intensified the shock in the Israeli street was the state of jubilation that prevailed on social media platforms among far-right activists following the attack on judges. This celebration reflects an unbridled desire to undermine the existing political system and challenge institutions that were previously considered red lines.

Sources indicated that the absence of official condemnation by members of the right-wing government coalition for these incidents gives them implicit legitimacy and increases their danger. This political silence is interpreted as an acceptance of the erosion of the basic rules upon which the state was built, which accelerates the pace of internal collapse.

Experts warned that civil wars do not erupt suddenly through armed confrontations, but rather begin with the disintegration of national consensus around the legitimacy of central institutions. When a large segment of the public views the court or security agencies as illegitimate entities, this paves the way for widespread chaos.

Israeli society is currently experiencing extreme difficulty in absorbing fundamental discussions about the budget or security policies due to a lack of mutual trust. Political opponents have transformed in each other's eyes into enemies threatening the state's existence, eliminating any space for rational dialogue.

Accusations against the heads of security agencies are increasing, claiming they represent the so-called 'deep state,' a term used by the far-right to demonize sovereign institutions. This systematic incitement weakens the ability of these agencies to perform their duties in an environment characterized by internal hostility.

Israel's survival has historically been linked to the concept of internal solidarity and unity in the face of external challenges, but this concept is now threatened with extinction. The perception that there is a unity of purpose that unites Israelis despite their different backgrounds has begun to fade in the face of narrow partisan interests and ideological polarization.

Analysts hold Justice Minister Yariv Levin largely responsible for accelerating these destructive processes since he announced the judicial overhaul plan in early 2023. This initiative was not merely a legislative change, but a powerful shock that shook the foundations of the fragile social partnership among Israelis.

Limiting oneself to accusing the left and continuously attacking public figures and journalists is a stark indicator of the disintegration of the social fabric. These practices contribute to dividing society into extremist camps that do not accept coexistence with others, placing the state before an existential test.

Reports confirm that the current leadership bears direct responsibility for ensuring that matters do not slide into a comprehensive civil confrontation. The absence of responsible leadership that seeks to calm spirits and prioritize the public interest increases the chances of an explosion at any moment under street pressure.

The fears of 'the abyss' are no longer mere theoretical analyses, but have become a reality that Israelis feel in their daily lives and political interactions. The erosion of democratic 'rules of the game' means that the decisive moment may shift from ballot boxes and courts to the streets and direct confrontations.

Ultimately, it seems that Israel faces a deep identity crisis that goes beyond disagreements over laws to the core of the social contract. If the situation is not remedied through a comprehensive review of political discourse, the specter of civil war will continue to haunt the future of the Hebrew state.

Civil wars do not begin with armed battles, but when large segments of society stop recognizing the legitimacy of state institutions and their political opponents.

Armed settler groups launched an attack on Saturday evening targeting the 'Abu Najeh' Bedouin community located in the town of Al-Mughayyir, east of Ramallah. Field sources reported that the settlers intimidated Palestinian families and directly assaulted their properties, including sheep pens that families rely on for their livelihood.

This attack coincided with a large-scale incursion carried out by significant forces of the occupation army into the area, where they imposed a security cordon and provided protection for the settlers during their assaults. Sources indicated that the presence of military vehicles prevented residents from confronting the attackers or defending their homes and properties.

This escalation comes amidst an increasing pace of settler attacks in areas east of Ramallah, which aim to pressure Bedouin communities to displace them from their lands, with a clear integration of roles between settler groups and the occupation forces that secure the operational area and prevent any Palestinian reaction.

Occupation forces provided cover for these attacks and prevented citizens from exercising their right to defend themselves and their homes.

Prominent American journalist Tucker Carlson launched a sharp attack on the current nature of relations between Washington and Tel Aviv, considering that excessive attention to supporting Israel comes at the expense of escalating internal crises in the United States. Carlson affirmed that the Hebrew state has become the greatest burden on his country outside its geographical borders, pointing to the necessity of re-evaluating this political dependency.

In a television interview he conducted after a field visit to Israel, Carlson explained that the shared policies between the two parties have directly harmed supreme American interests. He stated that this assessment does not hold the Israeli government directly responsible, as it operates according to what serves its national agenda, but rather blames decision-makers in Washington who allow this drain.

Carlson indicated that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu intelligently maneuvers to harness American resources to achieve his country's goals, which Carlson sees as logical from an Israeli perspective. However, he simultaneously expressed his astonishment at the surrender of American leaders to these pressures, questioning the reasons that drive them to prioritize the interests of an external party over their constituents.

Carlson touched upon the escalation with Tehran, revealing the existence of immense pressure within political circles in Washington to push for a military confrontation aimed at changing the regime in Iran. He considered that engaging in a proxy war on behalf of Israel would only lead to widespread chaos in the region, which does not serve the stability of the United States or its allies.

The American journalist questioned Israel's understanding of its long-term interests, explaining that the pursuit of destroying regional regimes could have counterproductive results for everyone. He believed that engaging in plans aimed at killing those in power in Iran without a clear vision for the future is a dangerous gamble lacking political and strategic wisdom.

Carlson stressed that the United States suffers from real structural dilemmas related to a faltering economy, an unregulated immigration crisis, and a decline in national unity among its citizens. He called on leaders in the White House and Congress to have sufficient strength to reject the demands dictated by Netanyahu, and instead focus on repairing the American domestic house.

In a direct message to decision-makers, Carlson called for adopting a firm stance towards Israeli desires to ignite tensions with Iran, suggesting that the American response should be to distance itself from these conflicts. He affirmed that any Israeli step towards Tehran should remain a private matter for Tel Aviv without involving the American military or treasury.

Carlson sharply criticized a number of US senators, describing them as showing loyalty to Israel that surpasses their loyalty to the United States itself. He specifically mentioned Senator Ted Cruz and Senator Lindsey Graham, accusing them of prioritizing Israeli demands over the needs of the American citizen who gave them their vote in the elections.

Carlson considered that this duality of loyalty represents the fundamental problem hindering the formulation of an independent and balanced American foreign policy. He explained that the influence exerted by pro-Israel lobbying groups within the halls of Congress has led to diverting the compass of American national priorities towards conflicts in which Washington has no stake.

These statements come at a time when the region is witnessing intensive American military reinforcements, driven by continuous Israeli incitement to strike the Iranian nuclear and missile program. Informed sources believe that Washington is brandishing the military option to force Tehran to make substantial concessions regarding its regional influence and strategic weapons.

For its part, Tehran continues to warn that American and Israeli moves are primarily aimed at changing the existing regime under false pretexts. The Iranian government promises a decisive and devastating response to any military aggression, while at the same time affirming its adherence to the necessity of lifting comprehensive economic sanctions as a condition for any nuclear understandings.

Observers linked Carlson's statements to the extreme positions expressed by the US Ambassador to Tel Aviv, Mike Huckabee, in a previous interview. Huckabee expressed his support for Israel's geographical expansion in the Middle East, based on what he described as biblical rights extending from the Nile to the Euphrates, which sparked a wave of condemnation.

Carlson believes that such statements from American officials reflect the depth of the crisis in understanding the national interests of the United States. He considered that being drawn into religious interpretations or the expansionist ambitions of external parties weakens the prestige of the American state and embroils it in endless religious and ethnic conflicts.

In conclusion, Carlson called for the necessity of restoring sovereignty over American political decision-making away from the influences of foreign capitals. He affirmed that America's true strength lies in its ability to say 'no' when the demands of allies conflict with its internal stability and the safety of its economic and human resources.

Israel is a very heavy burden on the United States, and in fact, it is the biggest burden we face outside our borders.

An international press report revealed a serious deterioration in the legal and historical status of the blessed Al-Aqsa Mosque, confirming that the agreement that regulated prayer at the site since 1967 has effectively collapsed. The report clarified that this collapse resulted from continuous pressure from extremist Jewish groups enjoying direct support from ministers in the current Israeli government.

The report indicated that the first days of Ramadan witnessed an unprecedented escalation, represented by Israeli police raiding prayer areas during Tarawih prayers and arresting the Imam of Al-Aqsa Mosque. These actions reflect a new direction among Israeli security agencies, which are now under the supervision of far-right leaders seeking to change the identity of the holy site.

Sources quoted experts in Jerusalem affairs as saying that the current policy aims to end the exclusivity of prayer for Muslims in the Noble Sanctuary, which constitutes a clear violation of the Status Quo. Israeli authorities now allow settlers to perform Talmudic rituals and raise their voices in prayers inside the courtyards, a step that was strictly forbidden in past decades.

In the context of restricting the Islamic administration of the mosque, sources in the Waqf Department reported that the 'Shin Bet' launched a campaign of arrests and expulsions targeting dozens of employees and guards. The measures also included preventing the entry of imams and administrative staff, which weakened the Waqf's ability to manage the affairs of thousands of worshippers who flock during the holy month.

The violations did not stop at arrests but extended to include the sabotage of administrative offices belonging to the Waqf and preventing any necessary maintenance work in the mosque's facilities. Sources stated that authorities prevented the installation of protective sunshades or the establishment of field medical clinics to serve worshippers, and even went as far as preventing the entry of essential health supplies.

Lawyer Daniel Seidemann, an expert in Jerusalem affairs, believes that what is happening is a display of power and control aimed at forcing Palestinians to accept a new reality. Seidemann stressed that the real threat to the sanctity of the holy site is the primary driver of unrest, warning that the current situation is more sensitive than ever before.

National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir is openly leading these changes, having repeatedly expressed his desire to build a Jewish synagogue inside the Al-Aqsa courtyards and raise the Israeli flag there. Ben-Gvir has carried out a series of provocative incursions, supported by government decisions that facilitate the entry of settlers and unilaterally extend their presence hours in the mosque.

For his part, Amjad Iraqi, an analyst at the International Crisis Group, considered that the current Ramadan carries exceptional risks due to the confluence of complex political and field factors. He explained that the current Israeli government feels complete impunity, making it indifferent to international warnings or regional reactions to its violations in Jerusalem.

Field data indicate that Jerusalem police, led by Afshalom Peled, have begun implementing policies that allow settlers to bring prayer books and hymns into the Sanctuary. These changes, which were previously considered a 'red line,' are now a daily practice carried out under heavy protection from occupation forces, which provokes anger in the Palestinian street.

The report stated that the Jerusalem Governorate monitored the prevention of more than 25 Waqf employees from performing their work, in an attempt to empty the mosque of its official guards and custodians. These measures coincide with intensive calls from alleged 'Temple' groups to intensify incursions during the upcoming Jewish holidays, increasing the likelihood of a comprehensive confrontation.

Historically, violations at Al-Aqsa Mosque have been a cause for major intifadas and popular uprisings, such as the Al-Aqsa Intifada in 2000 following Sharon's visit to the site. Today, observers warn that continued tampering with the Status Quo could lead to an uncontrollable explosion, especially given the escalating tension in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

The Islamic Waqf Department, affiliated with Jordan, faces unprecedented challenges in maintaining its role as the sole body responsible for managing the site under Hashemite custodianship. Increasing Israeli pressure aims to marginalize the Waqf's role and turn it into a ceremonial entity with no actual authority on the ground, which is rejected by both the Palestinian and Jordanian sides.

Amidst this grim scene, extremist groups continue to mobilize their supporters to carry out mass incursions, with recent days recording the entry of hundreds of settlers who performed provocative dances. These scenes, circulated on social media platforms, increase the state of tension and push towards spontaneous or organized field reactions.

In conclusion, experts agree that the 'Status Quo' no longer exists except on paper, while Israel imposes a new reality based on temporal and spatial division. This radical shift places the international community before its responsibilities to prevent the explosion of the 'time bomb' that could burn everything in the entire region.

Al-Aqsa is like a time bomb, and what we are witnessing today are repeated provocations that make the West Bank resemble a powder keg ready to explode.

The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) is facing an unprecedented crisis in maintaining its traditional narrative, which considers support for the Israeli occupation a strategic necessity for American national security. Analytical sources reported that the assumptions on which the organization has operated for decades no longer resonate widely in Washington's decision-making circles, especially with the shifting international balance of power and the emergence of new global challenges that top the American administration's priorities.

Observers believe that the environment in which AIPAC thrived during the Cold War years has fundamentally changed. Israel is no longer classified as the sole strategic asset for countering foreign influence in the region. This shift has weakened the fundamental pillars that enabled the organization to impose its dominance on the political discourse in the United States, making massive financial spending on lobbying campaigns insufficient to address structural challenges.

Paradoxically, recent normalization agreements have contributed to undermining some of the arguments AIPAC used to promote, as they proved that countries in the region can build their relationships based on their own interests and regional power dynamics. This regional integration may proceed in ways that do not necessarily require traditional American mediation or the advocacy style that the organization championed for many years.

The collapse of bipartisan consensus between the Republican and Democratic parties is considered the biggest challenge facing the Israeli lobby, as support for the occupation is no longer a position that transcends internal political differences. The increasing polarization in American politics has reflected genuine differences over strategic priorities, making opposition to AIPAC's positions politically possible after it was previously described as political suicide.

In a related context, young voices within the Democratic Party have begun to seriously question the extent to which absolute support for Israeli governments aligns with contemporary American values and interests. Conversely, some right-wing voices have started to question the utility of massive foreign aid, creating a competitive environment with the emergence of alternative organizations like J Street, which broke AIPAC's monopoly on the market of political ideas related to the Middle East.

The ongoing war in the Gaza Strip revealed additional weaknesses in AIPAC's performance, as its automatic defense of Israeli military operations led to a clash with broad segments of American public opinion. This stance put the organization at odds even with segments of American Jews who now see the occupation policies as a threat to regional stability and international humanitarian values.

In conclusion, the Middle East no longer occupies the same central position in American strategic thinking amidst intense competition with China and the repercussions of the war in Ukraine. Although AIPAC still possesses financial resources and deep connections in Congress, it now operates in an environment where its dominance is no longer assumed, as alternative voices are heard and more influential in shaping foreign policy.

AIPAC's recent trajectory reveals its struggle to adapt to radical changes in the strategic landscape, more than it reveals ethical issues.

The Mediterranean region witnessed a large-scale US military movement as the giant aircraft carrier 'USS Gerald Ford' transited the Strait of Gibraltar on Friday. This ship is the largest of its kind in the world, and its movement comes as part of a strategy to bolster military presence in the region by direct decision of the current US administration.

Informed sources reported that this extensive deployment comes in the context of preparing for the possibility of launching a military strike against Iranian targets, in response to escalating tensions. The aircraft carrier 'Ford' is accompanied by three additional destroyers, which unprecedentedly raises the combat readiness of US naval forces stationed near the region's coasts.

With the arrival of these new reinforcements, the total number of US warships in the Middle East rises to 17 combat vessels. This force currently includes the aircraft carrier 'USS Abraham Lincoln,' in addition to nine destroyers and three littoral combat ships specialized in near-shore operations.

The presence of two massive aircraft carriers in the region simultaneously is a rare military event, as each carries thousands of sailors and integrated air wings. These wings include dozens of fighter jets capable of executing complex offensive and defensive missions around the clock, providing vast air and naval superiority.

In addition to naval power, Washington has deployed dozens of additional warplanes to its bases in the region to enhance air deterrence capabilities. These reinforcements included advanced fifth-generation fighters such as the 'F-22 Raptor' and 'F-35 Lightning,' which are characterized by stealth capabilities and high maneuverability in hostile airspace.

Air reinforcements were not limited to offensive fighters only but also included 'F-15' and 'F-16' aircraft, supported by a fleet of 'KC-135' aerial refueling tankers. This system allows fighter jets to remain airborne for extended periods and conduct long-range operations without the need for frequent landings.

In terms of air defense, the United States has strengthened the capabilities of its guided-missile destroyers to provide a wide protective umbrella at sea. These systems work in conjunction with ground defenses deployed at military bases to protect US assets from any missile attacks or drones that might target them.

In parallel with this technical buildup, tens of thousands of US soldiers are deployed at strategic military bases across the Middle East. Despite the exclusion of ground forces participation in direct offensive operations, these forces remain on high alert to confront any reactions or counterattacks that might affect US interests.

The simultaneous presence of two massive warships of this type in the Middle East is rare, reflecting the current level of tension.

Three Palestinian citizens, including a child, were injured today, Saturday, as a result of a series of attacks carried out by Israeli settlers in various areas of the central and southern occupied West Bank. The most severe attacks were concentrated in Al-Mughayyir village, northeast of Ramallah, where settlers directly fired live ammunition at residents.

Ameen Abu Alia, head of the local council of Al-Mughayyir village, confirmed that the attack resulted in a young man being shot in the back, with his injuries described as critical, in addition to another child being injured. He pointed out that the southern part of the village witnessed severe tension with continuous gunfire from settler groups targeting citizens and their properties.

In a related context, medical sources at the Palestinian Red Crescent Society reported that a citizen sustained injuries and bruises after being severely beaten by settlers in the Masafer Yatta area, south of Hebron. The sources stated that Israeli army forces obstructed the access of ambulance crews to the injured person, which delayed the provision of necessary treatment on the field.

The attacks were not limited to physical injuries but also extended to the destruction of agricultural property, as settlers grazed their sheep in the fields of Al-Mughayyir village and destroyed crops. This incident comes just days after settlers threw stones at citizens' vehicles at the entrance to the village, causing significant material damage to Palestinian property.

In a serious field development, 11 Palestinian families in the Bedouin community of 'Al-Khalayel' east of Ramallah began dismantling their homes, which consist of tin shacks and tents. This forced step came as a result of continuous pressure and attacks by settlers and the occupation army, which made staying in the area impossible, prompting the families to seek refuge in other areas.

Citizen Mustafa Kaabneh, one of the displaced residents of the community, explained that the families began removing their tents early in the morning to leave their lands, which they had inhabited for many years. He affirmed that the escalating pace of coordinated attacks between the army and settlers clearly aims to empty pastoral areas of their original inhabitants for the sake of settlement expansion.

In Hebron city, groups of settlers stormed the alleys of the Old City under heavy protection from Israeli occupation forces this evening. Local sources reported that the incursion involved provocations against Palestinian citizens and the closure of some entrances to secure the movement of settlers, which increased the state of tension in the city, which already suffers from severe military restrictions.

Official statistics indicate an unprecedented escalation in the pace of violence in the West Bank since October 2023, where attacks by the occupation and its settlers have resulted in the martyrdom of 1,116 Palestinians. Medical teams also recorded injuries to approximately 11,500 others with varying degrees of severity, amid a complex security environment imposed by daily checkpoints and incursions.

The widespread arrest campaigns launched by the occupation forces continue in various cities and refugee camps of the West Bank, with the number of detainees reaching nearly 22,000 Palestinians since the beginning of the recent escalation. These arrests coincide with demolition and displacement policies targeting the Palestinian presence in areas classified as 'C', threatening to further ignite the field situation.

The situation is very bad; gunfire continues in the southern part of the village, and there are injuries, including a child and a young man in critical condition.

Washington, D.C- When U.S. Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee declared that Israel would be “fine” taking territory from the Nile to the Euphrates, he did more than indulge in rhetorical excess. In a televised exchange with Tucker Carlson on The Tucker Carlson Show, Huckabee articulated a worldview in which biblical promise supersedes international law, and theology is permitted to hover over statecraft as a legitimizing force. Even if later softened as “hyperbolic,” the statement was revealing. It exposed a narrative that has long circulated at the ideological margins but now echoes from the mouth of a sitting American envoy.

The provocation centered on Genesis 15 in the Book of Genesis, which speaks of land promised “from the river of Egypt to the great river, the River Euphrates.” Pressed on whether Israel had a right to that territory today—an expanse covering parts of Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, and Saudi Arabia—Huckabee replied that it would be “fine” if Israel took it all. The ease of that answer is what unsettles. It collapses millennia of theological interpretation, a century of modern conflict, and a dense web of international agreements into a single civilizational claim.

This is not merely a private article of faith. Huckabee has consistently rejected the legal description of the West Bank as occupied territory, preferring the biblical nomenclature “Judea and Samaria” and insisting on an inherent Jewish right to settle it. In doing so, he repudiates not only the prevailing international consensus but also the cautious language that successive U.S. administrations have employed to preserve the possibility—however remote—of negotiated borders. His rhetoric is not an aberration; it is coherent with a Christian Zionist framework that regards territorial compromise as a dilution of divine decree.

What that framework erases are the political and human consequences of permanent occupation. On the ground, the expansion of settlements has been accompanied by a sustained pattern of violence against Palestinians—arson attacks, land seizures, assaults on farmers and shepherds, and, in some cases, killings. Human rights organizations, Israeli and international alike, have documented that much of this violence occurs in the presence of, or under the protection of, the Israeli occupation army. Soldiers frequently stand by as settlers attack Palestinian property or individuals; at times, they intervene not to restrain the aggressors but to disperse or arrest the victims. The structural message is unmistakable: settlement expansion is shielded by state power.

Huckabee’s public posture toward this reality has been, at best, indifferent. He has shown little inclination to condemn settler violence with the clarity he reserves for defending settlement rights. When violence claims the life of a Palestinian— even one who holds U.S. citizenship—the outrage that might be expected from an American ambassador is muted. The killing of 19-year-old Nasrallah Abu Syiam, a U.S.-born Palestinian attacked by settlers, barely penetrated mainstream American coverage. The silence of senior U.S. officials, including the president, compounds the asymmetry. The moral vocabulary deployed to defend territorial maximalism rarely extends to the Palestinians living under its shadow.

Regionally, Huckabee’s comments reverberated with predictable alarm. Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Iraq, and the Arab League condemned the remarks as extremist and destabilizing; Indonesia and Pakistan followed suit. Their reaction was not hysteria but recognition. In a region where borders were drawn through war, treaty, and uneasy compromise, casual endorsement of sweeping annexation reads as a threat to sovereignty itself. Jordan, whose stability is intimately tied to the fate of the West Bank, hears in such statements an existential undertone.

The deeper danger lies in the normalization of a narrative that fuses sacred text with contemporary territorial entitlement. Modern international order rests on the inadmissibility of acquiring land by force and on the principle that sovereignty emerges from mutual recognition, not revelation. To suggest that ancient scripture provides a standing deed to modern territory is to undermine that order. It licenses a politics in which power is sanctified and compromise is recast as heresy.

Diplomacy depends on disciplined ambiguity—on the careful separation between personal conviction and official policy. When an ambassador blurs that line, foreign governments do not parse theological nuance; they assess strategic intent. Even if Washington formally disavows expansionist goals, the spectacle of its envoy entertaining them corrodes credibility. It signals that maximalist visions are not fringe fantasies but tolerated discourse within the orbit of power.

Huckabee’s remarks are thus symptomatic of a broader drift. They reflect a movement in which empathy is selective, legality is negotiable, and the vocabulary of destiny supplants the language of rights. In that narrative, Palestinians appear less as a people with claims than as obstacles to fulfillment of a promise. Settler violence becomes an unfortunate byproduct rather than a structural feature of entrenching control. The occupation army’s role in shielding expansion is obscured beneath invocations of history.

The question is not whether religious belief may inform personal identity; it inevitably does. The question is whether American diplomacy can afford to subordinate international norms to theological conviction. If the United States wishes to remain a credible actor in a conflict defined by land and legitimacy, it cannot allow its representatives to speak as if borders are matters of prophecy rather than negotiation. Words about territory in this region are never abstract. They map themselves onto lives, homes, and graves

The United States of America has begun a large-scale evacuation operation involving hundreds of soldiers from Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar, in addition to similar movements at military bases in the Kingdom of Bahrain. These precautionary steps come amid escalating regional tensions and mutual threats of military attacks, which prompted the US Central Command to reassess the positioning of its forces in the region.

Press sources quoted officials at the US Department of Defense 'Pentagon' as saying that the evacuation operations also included vital centers where the US Fifth Fleet is stationed in Bahrain. These movements aim to reduce potential human losses in the event of a direct confrontation with Iran, especially with growing concerns about Tehran's reactions to any military move by Washington.

Military estimates indicate that there are between 30,000 and 40,000 US soldiers distributed across 13 military bases throughout the Middle East, which puts them in direct danger. Accordingly, the Department of Defense quickly moved to strengthen its defensive systems by transferring additional missile batteries to protect vital installations and the remaining forces at those bases.

In a related context, intelligence reports recalled Iran's targeting of Al Udeid Air Base last June with a barrage of missiles, despite the existence of secret communication channels at the time that informed both the American and Qatari sides of the attack in advance. However, the current circumstances appear more complex with the absence of mutual guarantees and Washington's insistence on an unprecedented military buildup in the region.

Open-source intelligence tracking sources observed the arrival of more than 100 US Army aircraft at bases in Europe and the Middle East in the last week alone. These air reinforcements coincide with the presence of the aircraft carriers 'USS Abraham Lincoln' and 'USS Gerald R. Ford' in the region, which carry more than 120 fighter jets ready for deployment.

For his part, US President Donald Trump issued firm statements during a 'Peace Council' meeting in Washington, indicating that the next ten days will be crucial in determining the course of the relationship with Tehran. Trump stressed the need to reach a 'meaningful' agreement that guarantees American interests, warning of serious consequences if the diplomatic path fails.

Washington adheres to strict demands that include a complete halt to Iran's uranium enrichment activities and the transfer of enriched stockpiles out of the country, in addition to including the ballistic missile program in any future agreement. The US administration believes that these conditions are necessary to ensure regional stability and limit the influence of armed groups supported by Tehran.

In contrast, Tehran categorically rejects expanding the scope of negotiations to include its defensive capabilities or regional influence, asserting that its nuclear program is the only issue open for discussion. The Iranian leadership vows a firm response to any military aggression, considering that American and Israeli moves aim to change the regime and impose political dictates through economic sanctions.

We must reach a meaningful agreement with Iran, or bad things will happen.

Sources reported that security circles in Tel Aviv have begun re-evaluating the strategic threat map for 2026, in light of escalating regional risks and the development of drone technology and precision missiles. Security experts believe that the principle of traditional disarmament is no longer effective in confronting current challenges, which forces the occupation to formulate a political alternative that balances security control in the Gaza Strip and preventing existential threats in the West Bank.

In this context, General Giora Eiland, former head of the National Security Council, stated that the radical shift following the events of October 7 triggered a sharp strategic discussion about the security vision adopted in recent decades. Eiland clarified that the long-held concept that Hamas had been deterred proved false, noting that this erroneous assessment came at a heavy cost in lives and demonstrated the failure of government policies towards the Strip.

Eiland pointed out that Israeli policy was not only aimed at deterrence but also sought to deepen the division between Gaza and the West Bank to ensure the absence of unified Palestinian representation that would thwart any opportunities for political negotiations. However, this approach ignored the increasing security costs, as the government believed that Hamas could be allowed to achieve political and economic stability while preventing the growth of its military capabilities, which later proved to be false.

According to published analyses, Hamas managed to collect huge financial resources that were not only used to strengthen its political rule but were primarily directed towards building a sophisticated military arsenal. Despite these results, political levels in Tel Aviv still reject the return of the Palestinian Authority to Gaza, fearing that this would lead to the unification of Palestinian geography and pave the way for a comprehensive political arrangement that does not serve Israeli security interests.

The former general believes that the two-state solution in its traditional form is no longer a viable option under current circumstances and changing regional power balances. He considered that the old assumption that a Palestinian state would be militarily weaker than Israel no longer holds true, especially since Tel Aviv operates in a turbulent environment and faces cross-border military alliances and armed organizations.

The October 7 attack revealed the possibility of fighting on one front quickly escalating into a multi-front war, with Israel now facing missile threats from Iraq, Yemen, and Iran. In this scenario, the establishment of a Palestinian state is seen as an additional hotbed of danger that could turn into a security choke point threatening Israel's heartland and vital population centers in the center.

Eiland addressed the technological revolution in weaponry, emphasizing that the term 'disarmament' in its classical sense, associated with tanks and planes, is outdated. Modern warfare relies on small and lethal means such as anti-tank missiles and drones that are easy to smuggle and hide within civilian environments and supply trucks, making their monitoring almost impossible.

The analysis concluded with four main findings. The first is that the return of the Palestinian Authority to Gaza may be a better security option than the continued rule of Hamas or attempts to find fragile local alternatives. The second conclusion emphasizes the necessity of formulating a new international strategy that recognizes that the two-state solution is no longer technically and security-wise possible given technological developments that grant small groups enormous destructive capabilities.

In conclusion, Eiland called for moving beyond the dichotomy that limits options between eternal control over the West Bank or the establishment of a fully sovereign state, proposing temporary political models that meet security needs. He stressed the need to confront the international community with the realities of the military danger resulting from any withdrawal to the 1967 borders, considering that the exclusion of the two-state solution must be based on purely security considerations, away from ideology.

The guiding concept that Hamas had been deterred was wrong, and it came at a heavy cost in blood.

The writer evoked the memory of the golden age of journalism through the experience of the late French journalist Hervé Bourges, who saw newspapers as an addiction from which there was no escape, just like music or sports. Reading in those decades was a sacred daily ritual that went beyond novels to include philosophy, politics, and economics, where reading the newspaper was associated with morning habits in cafes and public transport, a scene that has become rare today, especially in the Arab region, which has witnessed a sharp decline in the number of paper journalism addicts.

The charm of journalism in the past was linked to that ethical and cultural contract between the reader and prominent writers and respected columnists who shaped public consciousness. In American and British journalism, names such as William Pfaff, Peter Jenkins, and Hugo Young emerged, who gave their journalistic institutions intellectual weight, making their articles eagerly anticipated events by the public, given their deep connection to European intellectual formation and their ability to provide insightful visions that went beyond mere news reporting.

In the context of major transformations, the renowned commentator David Brooks announced his retirement from writing for the 'New York Times' after a career that began in 2003, expressing in a sarcastic manner his disappointment with the direction American politics had taken. Brooks, who sought to establish a moderate conservative ideology, found himself facing a reality completely different from what he aspired to, as he believes that the world has dramatically changed for the worse since he joined the newspaper, which prompted him to dedicate himself to writing and research projects.

The analysis points to a state of collective loss of trust that has afflicted American society, where disappointment is no longer limited to the religious aspect but has extended to include political and economic institutions. The Iraq War contributed to shattering trust in military power, while the financial crisis destroyed faith in absolute capitalism, leading to the internet, which transformed from a communication tool into a platform for exacerbating hatred and social isolation, making public discourse more negative than it has been in a century and a half.

The culmination of these transformations is embodied in the rise of the Trump phenomenon, which Brooks describes as 'nihilism incarnate,' based on the principle that power and tyranny are the only drivers of life, far from any moral constraints. With 69% of Americans no longer believing in the 'American Dream,' it seems that the United States is on a rough path that may end with it becoming a 'mad wolf' in the international arena, driven by a desire to harm and impose absolute authority.

Trump is nothing but nihilism personified in a man, claiming that morals are only for fools and that life means nothing but power, authority, and tyranny.

The Deputy President of the State of Palestine, Hussein Al-Sheikh, expressed the Palestinian leadership's welcome of the announcement by the High Representative for Gaza in the "Peace Council," Nikolay Mladenov, regarding the establishment of an official liaison office affiliated with the Palestinian Authority. This office aims to institutionalize joint coordination processes with the International Council to oversee the implementation of the transitional phase management plan in the Gaza Strip, and to ensure smooth communication between the concerned parties.

Al-Sheikh affirmed in his statements that this step represents an official and organized channel for direct communication with the office of the High Representative, serving the implementation of US President Donald Trump's vision and Security Council Resolution No. 2803. He clarified that the new mechanism will ensure the transfer of correspondence and decisions through a clear institutional framework, which enhances the role of the Palestinian Authority in following up on field and political files during the upcoming period.

For his part, Nikolay Mladenov stated in an official statement that the High Representative's office will serve as a vital link between the Peace Council and the National Committee tasked with managing Gaza's affairs. He stressed that this cooperation aims to ensure the implementation of all aspects of transitional administration and redevelopment processes with high integrity and effectiveness, meeting the needs of the population affected by the two-year war.

This development comes in the context of activating the "Peace Council" which the US President announced its establishment in mid-January 2026, following the ceasefire agreement that came into effect last October. These moves are based on the UN Security Council resolution issued in November 2025, which set a timeline for the international civilian and security presence in the Strip extending until the end of 2027.

The second phase of the international agreement includes sensitive provisions, including the disarmament of Palestinian factions in Gaza, in exchange for additional withdrawals of the occupation army from areas where it is still present. This phase also focuses on launching comprehensive reconstruction efforts, in an attempt to repair the massive destruction that affected about 90% of the civilian infrastructure in the Strip as a result of the prolonged military operations.

Despite diplomatic efforts, field sources reported that the occupation forces continue to repeatedly violate the ceasefire agreement, with the martyrdom of more than 600 Palestinians recorded since the truce began. These violations raise serious concerns about the stability of the transitional phase and the ability of the Peace Council to enforce full compliance with the provisions signed between the warring parties.

It is worth noting that the war of extermination launched by the occupation forces since October 2023 has left a heavy toll of 71,000 martyrs and more than 171,000 injured, in addition to an unprecedented humanitarian crisis. UN reports estimate that the reconstruction process of what the war destroyed will require a huge budget of up to 70 billion dollars, which requires extensive international coordination led by the bodies emanating from the Peace Council.

This step provides an official channel for coordination and communication between the office of the Peace Council representative and the Palestinian Authority, to implement the US President's plan and Security Council Resolution 2803.

Washington, D.C. — For more than three decades, the two-state solution has served as the international community’s default formula for resolving the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. It appears with ritual regularity in presidential speeches, United Nations resolutions, and European communiqués. Yet repetition has not produced resolution. As the language hardened into orthodoxy, the material foundations necessary to realize it steadily eroded. What remains today is less a political program than a diplomatic incantation.

Recent diplomacy has only reinforced that reality. The “Board of Peace” meeting convened in Washington on February 19 under U.S. President Donald Trump’s chairmanship was presented as a renewed push for regional stabilization. In substance, it demonstrated how detached official discourse has become from conditions on the ground. The gathering preserved the vocabulary of peace while avoiding the structural transformations that have rendered territorial partition increasingly implausible. Such forums now resemble rituals designed to sustain a narrative long after its feasibility has expired.

The flaw is not philosophical. The idea of two peoples exercising sovereignty in two states retains moral coherence in theory. The failure is political. The two-state solution is no longer tethered to enforceable steps, binding timelines, or consequences for noncompliance. It has become a diplomatic alibi—language that signals moderation and responsibility while sparing governments the political cost of enforcement or accountability.

The confusion begins with mistaking a slogan for a strategy. A credible plan would define borders, mandate withdrawal, dismantle settlements deemed illegal under international law, and secure genuine Palestinian sovereignty. Instead, process has replaced outcome. Negotiations are elevated above results. Calls to “return to talks” obscure a fundamental asymmetry: one side retains the power to reshape realities unilaterally, while the other negotiates over territory that continues to fragment.

The notion that occupation is temporary has likewise collapsed. The Israeli presence in the West Bank has evolved into a system of territorial integration. Settlements are embedded in a network of roads, military zones, and administrative regimes that divide Palestinian areas into disconnected enclaves. Expansion continues, accompanied by escalating settler violence, often carried out under the watch—or protection—of Israeli forces. This is not a frozen dispute awaiting compromise; it is an active process of consolidation that narrows the horizon of partition with each passing year.

Diplomatic language further blurs the distinction between statehood and sovereignty. The Palestinian state frequently envisioned would be demilitarized, territorially discontinuous, and subordinate in matters of borders, airspace, and security. A polity lacking authority over land, resources, and external relations does not meet the threshold of sovereign equality. Administrative autonomy under overarching control is not self-determination.

The original Oslo bargain—security and normalization in exchange for statehood—has effectively unraveled. Israel has secured expanding regional integration and strategic cooperation, while Palestinian sovereignty remains indefinitely deferred. When one party accrues tangible diplomatic and economic benefits absent reciprocal territorial concessions, negotiations cease to function as instruments of compromise. They instead stabilize and legitimize imbalance.

Time compounds the distortion. Each year of inconclusive diplomacy coincides with further settlement growth and territorial entrenchment. International initiatives absorb pressure without reversing facts on the ground. Assertions that two states remain “within reach” increasingly sound less like sober analysis than institutional habit.

The symmetrical framing of the conflict reinforces the illusion. The language of “two sides” suggests parity between actors of comparable power. In practice, one authority exercises overarching control over borders, land allocation, population registries, and security across the territory, while the other operates under layered restrictions and military oversight. Recasting structural inequality as mutual intransigence obscures responsibility and diffuses accountability.

International law has been diluted in the process. Settlements, annexation, and self-determination—issues grounded in established legal norms—are routinely recast as negotiable “final status” matters. Violations become bargaining positions; rights become concessions to be traded. Through endless procedure, the abnormal is normalized.

The political utility of this framework is evident. By affirming support for a negotiated two-state outcome, Western governments align themselves rhetorically with international law while avoiding measures—conditionality, sanctions, recognition—that might alter incentives. The vocabulary of peace substitutes for policies capable of changing realities. The formula manages the conflict; it does not resolve it.

At some point, Palestinians must confront the implications of this trajectory. Continued reliance on a framework that lacks territorial feasibility, political enforcement, and meaningful international backing risks prolonging strategic paralysis. Clinging to the promise of imminent statehood may serve external diplomatic interests more than Palestinian self-determination. Disabusing themselves of the illusion is not a renunciation of rights; it may be a precondition for redefining them on firmer ground.

 Two states may once have represented a plausible historical compromise. Today, absent dismantlement of the settlement enterprise and the restoration of genuine sovereignty, the formula functions primarily as cover for inaction. The central illusion is not simply diplomatic. It is the belief that repetition can substitute for reality—and that language alone can reverse facts deliberately created on the ground.

Tony Blair, a member of the executive board of what is known as the 'Peace Council', revealed the outlines of an international plan aimed at reshaping the security and political reality in the Gaza Strip. Blair explained that the success of any future vision for reconstruction is fundamentally based on dismantling the military capabilities of Palestinian factions and ensuring the transfer of governing authority to a technocratic committee that manages civil affairs.

Blair stressed in statements to the media during the Washington summit that the top priority at the current stage is the complete disarmament of the Hamas movement. He considered this step to be the only guarantee to enable the proposed technocratic committee to carry out its administrative tasks without military obstacles or field interventions.

In contrast, the Hamas movement's response was firm in rejecting any plans that overstep national rights, as the movement affirmed that any political path must begin with a comprehensive cessation of Israeli aggression. The movement also demanded the lifting of the unjust siege on the Strip and ensuring the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people as a fundamental condition for any future arrangements.

Blair indicated that the plan enjoys direct support from US President Donald Trump, whom he described as fully committed to Israel's security while seeking to improve the living conditions of Palestinians. The former British official's statements did not address the necessity of stopping Israeli military operations or obliging the occupation government to a timeline for withdrawal.

The meeting revealed the committee's orientations, which appear to be consistent with Israeli security requirements in the first place, as the focus is on administrative and security arrangements, regardless of the ongoing humanitarian tragedy. Observers believe that this vision ignores the extent of the destruction and the victims who have fallen since the aggression began on October 7, 2023.

Regarding international participation, Blair announced that five 'moderate' Islamic countries have agreed to send personnel to participate in the 'International Stabilization Force'. This force will undertake internal security tasks in the Strip in coordination with the international and regional bodies overseeing the plan.

Regarding the financial aspect, Blair revealed massive pledges from Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates amounting to $7 billion. These funds will be allocated to finance massive reconstruction operations and support the institutional capacity building of the new civil police in Gaza.

Blair explained that Israel will have a pivotal role in security oversight, as it will inspect and review the elements of the new police force to ensure what he described as 'proper governance'. This measure aims to reassure the Israeli side about the identity and orientations of the individuals who will take over the security file in the Strip.

Despite the optimistic tone Blair displayed, he acknowledged the existence of ongoing complexities that may hinder immediate implementation, particularly regarding potential contributions from countries such as Turkey. He noted that some international parties might raise concerns for Israel, requiring careful and precise coordination to overcome these diplomatic obstacles.

Blair affirmed that the 'Peace Council' initiative does not seek to undermine the role of the United Nations or replace it in the Palestinian territories, but rather aims to complement existing international resolutions. Through this approach, the Council seeks to create a broad international alliance that provides the necessary political and financial cover for implementing the new arrangements.

Regarding the Council's structure, Blair explained that there is increasing international momentum for participation, with most participating countries providing diverse contributions including funding, troops, or technical support. He considered that the door is still open for other countries to join this alliance aimed at changing the face of the region.

It is worth noting that Tony Blair was a candidate to assume the position of the Council's executive official, but he was replaced by the Bulgarian politician Nikolay Mladenov, the former coordinator of the peace process. Nevertheless, Blair continues to play a central role in promoting the plan and mobilizing international support for it through his extensive connections.

Blair admitted that there are parliamentary and constitutional challenges in some countries that may delay their official involvement in the proposed international force, but he stressed that the summit achieved its primary goal. He believes that the combination of American leadership and strategic planning provides a realistic path towards what he described as 'a more stable and secure Gaza'.

The Washington summit, chaired by Trump, witnessed a noticeable absence of influential European powers, while attendance focused on specific Arab and Islamic countries. This formation reflects the US administration's desire to build a new regional alliance that will take responsibility for the Palestinian file according to a vision consistent with common security interests.

The most important thing now is the disarmament of Hamas and ensuring the new technocratic committee's ability to govern with its powers.

Bishara Bahbah, president of Americans for Peace, expressed strong reservations about recent statements made by Tony Blair, former British Prime Minister and member of the Peace Council, regarding future arrangements for the Gaza Strip. Bahbah pointed out that Blair's proposal, which grants Israel the right to inspect and test the new police force in the Strip, entrenches security dependence on the occupation and undermines the concept of independent governance.

In press statements, Bahbah considered that Tony Blair's political record, especially his controversial role in the invasion and destruction of Iraq, strips him of the necessary credibility to play the role of mediator or supervisor in the Arab region. He clarified that figures associated with previous colonial files cannot gain the trust of the Palestinian street or regional powers in shaping the future of the war-torn Strip.

The president of Americans for Peace warned that Israel seeks to remain an effective controlling power in the details of life in the Gaza Strip, exploiting American influence that grants it broad powers in the Middle East. He believed that the Peace Council seems compelled to follow Israeli dictates, which transforms reconstruction efforts into a tool to enhance security control instead of achieving true stability.

Regarding the humanitarian aspect, Bahbah affirmed that the declared goal of the Peace Council is to provide shelter, food, and clothing for Gaza residents, but these efforts will remain insufficient unless Israeli security control is ended. He stressed that sending any international stabilization forces will not be effective or acceptable if Israel remains the party that determines the rules of engagement and movement within the Strip's borders.

Bahbah emphasized the necessity for the technocratic committee responsible for reconstruction to deal directly with the Palestinian Authority as the sole legitimate representative of Palestinians. He explained that bypassing the Authority at this stage threatens national sovereignty and creates a state of administrative duality that primarily aims to satisfy the Israeli side at the expense of independent Palestinian political decision.

Bahbah described the field situation in Gaza as tragic, noting that the international momentum promoted by the Peace Council has not yet translated into tangible improvement in citizens' lives. He added that humanitarian aid still arrives in drips and does not meet basic needs, which has made the Palestinian people almost entirely dependent on international organizations in the absence of a clear political horizon.

The discussion touched upon the ceasefire agreement signed last October, where Bahbah pointed to the stalled implementation of the second phase, which includes the withdrawal of occupation forces and securing the entry of international forces. He affirmed that postponing these steps for several months weakens the effectiveness of the Peace Council and proves that Israel continues to procrastinate in fulfilling its international obligations to ensure the continuation of its military grip.

Regarding the disarmament of the resistance, Bahbah explained that the guarantees provided to the Hamas movement are insufficient in light of daily Israeli violations, which makes the movement hesitant to hand over its military capabilities. He concluded by emphasizing that the success of any reconstruction process requires serious and comprehensive negotiations that ensure a national administrative role that protects the security of the residents and prevents the renewal of armed conflict in the future.

Blair's political background and involvement in the destruction of Iraq make him an untrustworthy figure on both the Arab and international levels regarding the Gaza issue.

United Nations sources reported that the escalating pace of settler attacks in the occupied West Bank has led to a widespread displacement wave affecting approximately 880 Palestinian families. Stéphane Dujarric, spokesperson for the UN Secretary-General, clarified that these coercive practices have resulted in the displacement of over 4,700 people, amidst warnings of continued violence perpetrated by both Israeli forces and settler groups.

Dujarric noted in a press briefing that international humanitarian organizations are gravely concerned about the destruction of property and the casualties resulting from these policies. He confirmed that the period between February 3rd and 6th witnessed a bloody escalation that led to the martyrdom of three Palestinians by occupation forces' bullets, raising the death toll since the beginning of this year to nine martyrs, including two children.

Regarding the details of the field attacks, sources recorded at least 86 attacks carried out by Israeli settlers in just a few days. These attacks resulted in injuries to over 60 Palestinian citizens, in addition to forcing another 146 people to leave their homes and be forcibly displaced for fear of their lives from sudden attacks.

The UN Secretary-General strongly condemned the killing of 19-year-old Nasrallah Abu Siam, a Palestinian citizen holding American nationality, who fell victim to an attack carried out by settlers. The same assault resulted in three other Palestinians being shot, in an incident described by the international organization as reflecting a lack of accountability and rampant violence in the occupied territories.

The United Nations called on Israeli authorities to conduct an immediate, transparent, and comprehensive investigation into the circumstances of Abu Siam's death and ensure that the perpetrators are brought to justice. Dujarric stressed that Israel, as an occupying power, is legally obligated to take concrete steps to prevent acts of violence committed by settlers against unarmed Palestinian civilians and protect them from retaliatory practices.

On the Lebanese front, the UN spokesperson revealed continued Israeli violations targeting international peacekeeping forces (UNIFIL). He pointed to repeated incidents of obstruction and aggressive behavior by the occupation army, the latest of which was a serious intimidation incident targeting a UN soldier while performing his official duties at a UN site.

According to field reports, Israeli soldiers approached a peacekeeper near the Naqoura area, pointing their weapons directly at him from a very close distance of no more than ten meters. The United Nations affirmed its categorical rejection of these actions, demanding an immediate halt to any interference or intimidation that hinders the work of international missions tasked with monitoring stability on the borders.

Settler attacks in the West Bank have caused the displacement of approximately 880 Palestinian families, totaling over 4,700 people.

Hamas spokesman Hazem Qassem affirmed that the movement does not veto the presence of an international peacekeeping force in the Gaza Strip, as long as its tasks are limited to monitoring the ceasefire agreement. Qassem clarified that the purpose of these forces should be to form a barrier preventing Israeli army aggressions and protecting Palestinians, while simultaneously emphasizing a categorical rejection of any interference in the administrative or internal affairs of the Strip.

In a related context, the spokesman indicated that the movement supports the training of Palestinian police forces within purely national frameworks to ensure internal security and counter attempts to spread chaos. He considered strengthening the police apparatus a necessity to confront plans through which the occupation seeks to destabilize societal stability, stressing that any dialogue about Gaza's future must first be based on a comprehensive and final cessation of Israeli aggression.

These statements follow an extensive meeting of the Peace Council held in Washington D.C., where funding for the reconstruction of the devastated Strip was discussed. Attendees discussed mechanisms for deploying foreign forces to undertake the task of achieving stability after two years of war that left massive destruction, affecting about 90% of Gaza's infrastructure and civilian facilities.

During the meeting, US President Donald Trump revealed massive financial pledges from several countries, particularly from the Gulf region, exceeding $7 billion. These funds aim to launch a comprehensive reconstruction process in the Strip, which is suffering from a suffocating humanitarian crisis, with statistics indicating over 72,000 martyrs and more than 171,000 Palestinians injured since the start of the aggression.

The Washington meeting witnessed a presentation of a future vision for the Gaza Strip through artificial intelligence technologies, depicting the city as a prosperous urban center with skyscrapers and modern facilities. According to the presentation, the plan aims to transform Gaza into an independent, secure, and globally connected area, ensuring a dignified and stable life for its residents away from the woes of repeated wars.

On the military and field side, the features of the stabilization force, which will operate under US leadership, were defined, and its strength is expected to reach 20,000 soldiers. Military sources announced that Indonesia will play a pivotal role in this force by assuming the position of deputy commander, in addition to contributing eight thousand soldiers to enhance security in the region.

Alongside Indonesia, four other countries will participate in providing the necessary elements for the stabilization force: Morocco, Kazakhstan, Kosovo, and Albania. This international diversity aims to give broad legitimacy to the force and ensure its ability to deal with complex security challenges in the Strip, with a focus on preventing the return of armed confrontations.

For his part, Peace Council coordinator Nikolay Mladenov announced the start of procedures for forming a new police force in Gaza, indicating that applications for this force have officially opened. Mladenov confirmed that the first hours saw a large turnout, with about two thousand people applying to join, in a step aimed at building a security apparatus free from direct factional influences.

On the regional level, Egyptian Prime Minister Mostafa Madbouly expressed his country's readiness to continue efforts aimed at training Palestinian police cadres. This Egyptian initiative comes within the framework of empowering Palestinians to manage their internal security affairs efficiently and ensuring the sustainability of stability in the Strip after the withdrawal of occupation forces from populated areas.

In the same context, Moroccan Foreign Minister Nasser Bourita affirmed his country's readiness to send members of the Moroccan police and contribute to specialized training programs for local police in Gaza. These moves reflect an Arab and international desire to find institutional security alternatives that ensure the Strip does not slide into a security vacuum or internal fighting during the transitional phase.

Press reports indicate that Hamas may seek to integrate about 10,000 of its current police elements into the new internationally supported Palestinian administration. This comes at a time when the movement still controls less than half of the Strip's area, while the occupation army continues to occupy more than 50% of the territory, according to the arrangements of the latest ceasefire agreement.

Our position on international forces is clear: we want peacekeeping forces to monitor the ceasefire and ensure its implementation, without interfering in Gaza's internal affairs.

Washington – Said Arikat – 2/21/2026

The American ambassador to Israel, Mike Huckabee, sparked a wide wave of controversy after statements he made during an extended interview with conservative media personality Tucker Carlson, in which he spoke about Israel's "right" to the lands extending between the Nile and Euphrates rivers, a geographical reference that includes five Arab countries in addition to the occupied Palestinian territories.

During the interview, Carlson referred to a text from "Genesis 15" in the Bible, asking whether this geographical extent represents, according to religious interpretation, the boundaries of the "divine promise." He pressed Huckabee to clearly define his position, saying that a literal reading of the text means "the entire Middle East." Huckabee replied after a short hesitation: "It's okay if they take it all," before adding that this "is not what we are talking about today."

The statements were placed in the context of a broader debate about what is known as the concept of "Greater Israel," which Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and a number of officials are accused of adopting views close to, despite their denial of seeking to annex lands outside the current control boundaries.

Carlson returned to confirm that what he heard reflects the essence of "Christian Zionism" in its theological dimension, noting that accepting the idea of seizing the lands of countries such as Syria, Lebanon, or Jordan would be politically unacceptable. However, Huckabee denied that Israel was seeking to annex these countries, stressing that it "wants to protect its people now," adding that any potential control over additional lands would only be in the context of a defensive war.

It is worth noting that Israel occupies all of Palestine and parts of Syria and Lebanon, and launches aggressive strikes across the region.

The debate between the two men did not begin with this interview. Earlier, Carlson criticized Huckabee's positions on the treatment of Christians in the occupied territories, and also criticized his statements to Bloomberg News in which he said that the establishment of a Palestinian state in the West Bank was no longer a goal of American policy, considering that "fundamental changes in culture" are a condition for any political path of this kind.

Both parties exchanged arguments via the "X" platform, where Huckabee invited Carlson to meet him instead of "talking about him," to which the latter responded by welcoming and arranging the meeting. Indeed, Carlson traveled to Israel for the interview.

However, the visit witnessed an additional development, as Carlson told the "Daily Mail" that Israeli security officials detained him and members of his team at the airport after the interview, confiscated their passports for a short period, and interrogated one of the producers about the content of their conversation with the ambassador. Carlson described the incident as "strange," confirming that they later left the country.

In his 165-minute program, Carlson criticized Huckabee for not contacting him after the incident, and went so far as to say that an American citizen in Israel "cannot trust that his government will stand by him if it conflicts with the interests of the Israeli government," a statement that reflects the escalating tension between the two men, and opens a new door for discussion about the limits of American support for Israel and its intersections with internal and external considerations.

In a related context, Huckabee did not issue any statement of condemnation or public comment after the killing of the American-born and national Nasrallah Abu Siam, who was killed by Jewish settlers in the town of Mukhamas northeast of Jerusalem in the occupied West Bank, despite three days passing since the incident, which raised questions and criticisms about the American embassy's position on issues affecting American-Palestinian citizens in the occupied territories.

Huckabee's statements, in which he describes himself as a Christian Zionist, reveal the deep overlap between theology and politics in some circles of the American right that supports Israel. The invocation of religious texts to define contemporary geographical boundaries reflects an ideological vision that transcends international law and modern concepts of sovereignty. Despite his attempt at partial retraction, the theoretical acceptance of the idea of "complete seizure" raises real fears in the region, and fuels narratives of existential conflict. It also puts the American administration to a precise test: will support for Israel remain within pragmatic political frameworks, or will it slide into adopting religious interpretations with broad geopolitical implications?

The debate between Carlson and Huckabee reflects a division within the American conservative movement itself regarding the limits of the relationship with Israel. While Huckabee represents a rigid ideological current in his support, Carlson shows an isolationist tendency critical of prioritizing Israeli interests over American national considerations. The detention incident at the airport, regardless of its details, provided additional material for this debate, and re-raised the question of political loyalties and the limits of the alliance. Ultimately, the disagreement goes beyond two individuals to a deeper discussion about the identity of American foreign policy and its future directions.

Leaked documents reveal a complex web of financial and political relationships that linked the late American financier Jeffrey Epstein with Israel's security elite, most notably former Prime Minister Ehud Barak. This relationship began to take on an institutional character in 2013, with Epstein acting as a financial and strategic intermediary to open new markets for Israeli military and cyber industries in politically unstable regions.

The correspondence shows that Epstein was not just an investor, but a deal architect connecting global capital with emerging Israeli surveillance technologies. Among the most prominent of these companies was 'Carbyne' (formerly known as Reporty), which specialized in emergency response and surveillance technologies, and received financial support from Epstein and direct supervision from Ehud Barak before being sold later for hundreds of millions.

Israel relied on legal loopholes in its defense export control system to export its security technologies, allowing it to circumvent international standards and human rights. Since Israel is not a member of the 'Wassenaar Arrangement,' it found in the back channels managed by Epstein an ideal means to bypass official oversight and achieve secret diplomatic and security interests.

In the case of Ivory Coast, official meetings between Benjamin Netanyahu and President Alassane Ouattara in Jerusalem in 2012 coincided with secret meetings held by Epstein in New York with members of the Ouattara family. This parallel track reflects an Israeli strategy based on building personal relationships with decision-making circles in target countries to pave the way for major security contracts.

Ehud Barak used his influence as a former defense minister to lend intelligence credibility to the deals Epstein was promoting, moving between his capacity as a businessman and a former state official. During his visit to Abidjan in 2013, Barak presented proposals for building an eavesdropping and interception infrastructure, cloaked under the humanitarian guise of building a medical hospital, a common tactic to disguise security activities.

These activities were not limited to the African continent but extended to Mongolia, where Epstein coordinated a visit for Barak in April 2013 to meet senior national security officials there. Correspondence indicates that Epstein guided Barak step-by-step, urging him to exploit civil unrest around the world to turn it into lucrative financial returns through the sale of surveillance systems.

Swiss private banks, such as 'Edmond de Rothschild' and 'Julius Baer,' played a vital role in providing financial and legal cover for these operations. These institutions granted consulting contracts to Barak and Epstein, allowing the conversion of brokerage commissions in arms and espionage deals into legitimate professional fees, away from the eyes of international financial oversight.

One of the most controversial aspects is the involvement of international organizations such as the 'International Peace Institute' in this network, where the institute's diplomatic reputation was used as a front to facilitate security investments. The institute's president, Terje Rød-Larsen, was later forced to resign after his suspicious financial ties with Epstein were exposed, highlighting the Israeli security industry's penetration of international institutions.

The documents show that Barak used official papers bearing the emblem of the State of Israel to present military proposals to foreign countries despite being outside the government. This deliberate blurring of public and private sectors reflects an Israeli policy aimed at marketing 'combat expertise' as a commercial product, while ensuring that these operations remain under indirect supervision from security agencies in Tel Aviv.

After years of diligent work in back channels, results began to appear on the ground through the signing of official security agreements between Israel, Ivory Coast, and Mongolia. It was not long before technical reports detected the use of Israeli spy software such as 'Pegasus' in these countries, confirming that unofficial channels were merely a prelude to imposing cyber dominance.

Epstein's network provided Israel with unique access to financial and power elites in Silicon Valley and in African and Asian capitals alike. Through financial engineers like Epstein and security officials like Barak, Israel was able to build a surveillance export empire that transcends the boundaries of international laws and diplomatic norms.

The Ivory Coast case remains a stark example of how political crises turn into investment opportunities for Israeli security companies. After the UN arms embargo on the country was lifted, Israeli companies were the first to enter the market thanks to the prior arrangements made by Epstein and Barak, raising questions about Israel's role in engineering political changes to serve its commercial interests.

Epstein's 'secret fund' continues to reveal the hidden depths of his relationships with the Israeli security establishment, which appear to have gone beyond mere personal friendships to strategic alliances. These alliances enabled Israel to transform surveillance technologies into a tool of political pressure and a bargaining chip in its international relations, far from any human rights accountability.

Ultimately, this issue highlights how the boundaries between the state and private companies in Israel have blurred, with former senior officials acting as sales agents for spy technologies. As documents continue to emerge, it appears that what was known about Epstein's relationship with Israel is merely the tip of the iceberg in a global system of surveillance and cyber control.

If Ehud wants to make a lot of money, he has to build a relationship with me... Time, attention, consistency, and repetition.

At dawn on Friday, Israeli occupation army mechanisms heavily opened fire with their machine guns towards citizens' lands and homes in the eastern areas of Khan Yunis city, located south of the Gaza Strip.

Sources reported that the Israeli targeting was directly concentrated in the areas adjacent to the border security fence, where the sounds of heavy gunfire clearly echoed throughout the residential neighborhoods near the area, causing a state of anxiety and panic among the local residents, especially children and women.

These military movements come within the framework of periodic sweeping operations carried out by the occupation army along the border strip of the Strip. Field sources confirmed that no injuries among Palestinian citizens have been reported as a result of this targeting so far.

Shooting operations are concentrated along the security fence, where gunfire is clearly heard inside nearby residential neighborhoods.

American billionaire Leslie Wexner, 88, faced sharp criticism following his virtual appearance before the US House Oversight Committee. This session comes as part of the extensive investigations being conducted by lawmakers into the complex network of financial relationships that linked prominent businessmen to convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.

During his testimony from his home in Ohio, the former CEO of 'Victoria's Secret' tried to distance himself from his long relationship with Epstein. Wexner affirmed that he had cut all ties with the late businessman nearly two decades ago, describing him as an abusive person and a master deceiver.

Wexner emphasized in a written statement distributed to American media that he was 'naive and foolish' when he placed his absolute trust in Epstein. The billionaire added that despite being deceived, he had committed no legal violations and had nothing to fear from official investigations.

However, the atmosphere in the session suddenly tensed when lawmakers began questioning Wexner about a legal authorization previously granted to Epstein. The question concerned how a part-time employee obtained absolute authority to dispose of hundreds of millions of dollars from Wexner's personal fortune.

In a dramatic moment captured by the session's microphones, lawyer Michael Levy intervened to prevent his client from elaborating on sensitive financial details. Levy whispered a clear threat into Wexner's ear, saying: 'I'll kill you if you answer any question with more than five words,' which shocked those present and observers.

Legal analysts considered lawyer Levy's behavior to exceed the bounds of traditional legal advice and could be interpreted as an attempt to intimidate the witness or obstruct justice. This incident raises new questions about the extent of the secrets still hidden in the files of the relationship between Wexner and Epstein's financial empire.

This testimony comes at a sensitive time, as congressional investigative committees seek to summon more high-profile political and economic figures. Former President Bill Clinton and his wife Hillary Clinton are expected to testify in the same context by the end of February.

The ongoing investigations are based on thousands of pages of leaked government documents that have re-highlighted Epstein's influential partners. Through these sessions, lawmakers aim to uncover the full details of the network that allowed Epstein to operate freely for many years despite his recorded criminal record.

I'll kill you if you answer any question with more than five words.

American and Iranian officials, along with diplomats from the Gulf and Europe, have revealed a rapid trajectory towards a direct military clash between Washington and Tehran. These warnings come as hopes for a diplomatic resolution to the Iranian nuclear crisis dwindle, amidst a state of alert in regional and international capitals.\n\nField reports indicate that the United States has begun one of its largest military deployments in the region since the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Iran's neighbors in the Gulf, as well as Israel, believe that the outbreak of armed conflict is now more likely than reaching a political settlement given this massive buildup.\n\nIn a related context, informed sources stated that the Israeli government believes talks between Tehran and Washington have reached a complete dead end. Consequently, Tel Aviv has begun extensive preparations for a potential joint military operation with American forces, although no final decision on implementation has been issued yet.\n\nIf this attack is carried out, it will be the second time the United States and Israel have targeted Iranian facilities in less than a year. Airstrikes last June targeted military and nuclear sites, raising tensions to unprecedented levels in the region.\n\nOil-producing Gulf states are on high alert for what they describe as a military confrontation that could spiral out of control and destabilize global energy supplies. Regional officials believe that the fundamental differences between Washington and Tehran have become intractable, making military escalation a likely option.\n\nObservers believe that Tehran may have miscalculated by adhering to its demands at a time when US President Donald Trump finds himself in a political predicament. The large military buildup led by Trump makes it difficult for him to back down without achieving tangible gains that ensure the preservation of his political prestige.\n\nOn the diplomatic front, two rounds of intensive negotiations addressing uranium enrichment and Iran's ballistic missile system have stalled. Efforts to bridge views on easing economic sanctions imposed on Tehran have not succeeded, further complicating the political landscape.\n\nThe behind-the-scenes negotiations witnessed severe tension, with sources reporting that Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi even refused to open an envelope containing American proposals regarding missiles. Omani mediators delivered this envelope in an attempt to break the deadlock, but the Iranian response was a firm and absolute rejection of discussing this issue.\n\nFor his part, the US President issued a direct threat that a nuclear agreement must be reached within a timeframe of 10 to 15 days. Trump warned of "really bad things" happening if the deadline passed without results, which the Iranian side met with similar threats to target American bases.\n\nTrump acknowledged in press statements that he is considering the possibility of a limited military strike to force the Iranian leadership to the negotiating table on new terms. However, the exact timing of any military action remains unclear, pending the completion of US troop deployment by mid-March.\n\nAttention is focused on the anticipated meeting between US Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at the end of February. The meeting is expected to focus on coordinating future military and political steps regarding the Iranian nuclear file and defining the strategic objectives of any potential strike.\n\nWashington has its sights set on military objectives including disabling Iranian air defenses and targeting the Revolutionary Guard's naval forces. The United States considers this force responsible for the continuous threats to navigation in the Strait of Hormuz, through which five of the world's oil production passes.\n\nIn contrast, Tehran shows limited flexibility on international oversight, with Ali Larijani stating his country's readiness for broader cooperation with the Atomic Energy Agency. However, Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei's position remains firm on considering enrichment and missile development as sovereign rights that are not open to negotiation.\n\nEuropean diplomats warn that initiating military action may be much easier than controlling its strategic repercussions in the region. There is concern that the strikes could lead to widespread chaos without guaranteeing a change in the Iranian regime's behavior or weakening its security and domestic grip.\n\nEach side is entrenched in its position, and no real solution can be reached unless Washington and Tehran back down from their red lines.