The General Secretariat of the National Popular Conference for Jerusalem affirmed that the arbitrary measures of the occupation in Jerusalem and its surroundings, especially what is happening in the Bedouin communities in Jabal al-Baba, Mukhamas, and others, in addition to the continuous incursions into Qalandia refugee camp, the airport road area, Hizma town, and Shuafat refugee camp, aim to achieve a major political goal, which is "annexation" that Netanyahu's government has announced more than once. It noted that this operation, which violates the political agreements signed with the Palestine Liberation Organization and under international patronage, is being implemented on the ground today to become a fait accompli over time. 

The General Secretariat added that these dangerous measures also aim to displace the Bedouin families living in the mountains and desert of Jerusalem to make the area free of an authentic advanced Palestinian front that constitutes the first line of defense against settlement and replacement colonialism, which has come to control strategic locations in the occupied city and the Palestinian West Bank. 

The General Secretariat considered that the invasion by the occupation forces over the past few days, which is still ongoing, of Qalandia refugee camp, Kafr Aqab, and Hizma town, and the targeting of the UNRWA headquarters in Shuafat refugee camp, under the pretext of enforcing the law and removing encroachments and violations on streets and sidewalks, aims to mislead and obscure the political goal of this operation, which is annexation and isolating these areas from the capital Jerusalem, and imposing Israeli will in this vicinity, which includes about 300,000 people, most of whom were displaced from the holy city and currently reside in the Kafr Aqab area. 

The General Secretariat, in a situation assessment issued by the Media Unit of the National Popular Conference for Jerusalem today, Wednesday, indicated that Israel has practically begun to confine Jerusalem to the Old City and the city to be of a Jewish majority and a Palestinian minority, after succeeding in the forced displacement plan in which it used economic warfare and the weapon of geography against Jerusalemites, forcing them to search for an alternative for their livelihoods and secure suitable housing for their families after the occupation municipality, the executive arm of the Likud government, tightened the noose on them from all sides, which forced them, under the weight of these great pressures, to move towards the outskirts of Jerusalem. 

The General Secretariat added that what is happening in Qalandia refugee camp and Kafr Aqab specifically aims at annexation par excellence, explaining that the occupation authorities announced that their operations in the area aim to remove random encroachments, illegal buildings, and collect illegal cars, while the undeclared goal is to create a buffer security zone extending from the airport area to the end of the back street of Kafr Aqab, which connects it to the city of Al-Bireh. This means that the occupation authorities want to provide this security depth to secure the families of settlers who will reside in a new settlement being built in the heart of Qalandia International Airport, comprising about 9,000 settlement units, with an average of 45,000 settlers who will be a ticking time bomb capable of exploding at any moment in this highly sensitive area. 

It continued in its assessment of what is happening: The military operation in Qalandia, Kafr Aqab, and Hizma specifically cannot be separated from what happened recently in the neighboring town of Qalandia, where demolition notices were distributed and implemented quickly under the pretext that they were built in "Area C," which constitutes 61 percent of the total area of the West Bank, while a new separation wall is being built in the Qalandia airport area and all buildings adjacent to the current wall are being removed, meaning that the occupation is working to establish a security depth to provide protection for settlers who will come to the area within a year at the latest. This refutes Israel's claims that it is carrying out a "municipal campaign" aimed at organizing the area. 

The General Secretariat added: Even if we assume for the sake of argument that the goal is to organize the area, is this area under the jurisdiction of the occupation municipality? And does it receive services from it? The answer is "no," as it is a neglected area located in the middle, meaning that the Palestinian Authority cannot provide services to it, while Israel has withdrawn its hand from it since the Oslo Agreement until today, as the area suffers from randomness, continuous water and electricity outages, and unequal provision of health services to all residents, as medical centers affiliated with "Clalit" and "Kupat Holim" provide treatment to patients holding Jerusalem IDs in particular because they hold Israeli insurance, while the majority of residents hold green IDs, i.e., issued by the Palestinian National Authority, where they are forced to seek treatment in private hospitals in Ramallah and Al-Bireh at their personal expense. 

The assessment stated: The Israeli pretext is a big deception, and the real intentions are annexation and expansion at the expense of Palestinians in the area, while there is another undeclared goal, which is to demolish UNRWA facilities in Qalandia, such as the Industrial Training Institute, and this may extend to include UNRWA clinics and schools in a serious attempt to cancel all symbolic manifestations of the refugee issue and the right of return, and this also applies to Shuafat refugee camp and the UNRWA institutions located there. "

The General Secretariat stressed that Israel, with American green light, is working to liquidate the Palestinian issue through the silent annexation of the West Bank after the destruction of the Gaza Strip and the establishment of an international peace council there, and the termination of the existence of UNRWA institutions that symbolize the existence of a historical political issue titled "right of return." In contrast, it is reactivating the civil administration and its affiliated institutions, which means reducing the role of the Palestinian Authority in the administrative and service fields, or rather undermining it, to become merely an "ATM" dependent on foreign aid. 

The General Secretariat warned that Israel is currently working to invent a "new Jerusalem" for the displaced from the capital Jerusalem, with Kafr Aqab as its center, while the Qalandia training institute will be the most prominent address for this invented city by completely seizing it and establishing a huge attractive tourist and commercial area on its ruins, knowing that its area is about 90 dunams and it was built more than 70 years ago, i.e., after the great Nakba in 1948. 

In light of this, the General Secretariat demanded the following in its assessment: 

First: To be aware of the inherent security danger behind the military operation carried out by the occupation authorities in the mentioned areas under the title of "municipal campaign."

Second: UNRWA must take concrete steps through the United Nations to stop the robbery of its headquarters with the aim of liquidating the symbolic address of the refugee issue.

Third: The residents of the area must thwart the opportunity for the Israeli occupation and not be drawn into the trap set for them, especially in Qalandia refugee camp, where there are hidden intentions to turn it into a disaster-stricken area similar to the northern camps. 

Fourth: The Palestinian National Authority and the leadership of the Palestine Liberation Organization must act urgently with the Security Council and United Nations organizations to take measures aimed at stopping the Israeli aggression and its malicious actions, which aim to impose a new political reality on the ground. 

Fifth: The international community must break its silence regarding this massacre to which Jerusalemites are exposed through comprehensive Israeli measures aimed at detaching them from their city and replacing them with extremist settlers who desecrate Al-Aqsa daily with protection provided by the Israeli Ministry of War. 

Sixth: We appeal to the brotherly Jordan, in its capacity as the custodian of the Islamic and Christian holy sites in Jerusalem, to act in this framework because its position and word have an echo that may affect the official Arab level and society. We also call on our brothers in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia to stand by the residents of Jerusalem's camps to provide them with protection from the danger of liquidation and engulfment by the Israeli occupation.

The Rafah border crossing will officially open for pedestrian movement in both directions next Sunday.

News Analysis 

Politico magazine surveyed the opinions of 17 leading foreign policy experts, diplomats, and academics from around the world, in an attempt to answer a pressing question: What remains of the global order led by the United States since the end of World War II?

This article is an analytical summary of what was reported in an extensive 18-page investigation published by Politico on Tuesday, re-deconstructed and its key findings extracted, in light of the tumultuous transformations the world is witnessing with Donald Trump's return to the White House, and the accompanying political earthquakes that shook the foundations of Western alliances and the rules-based international order.

The discussion is no longer about whether the international system is eroding, but about the fact that this system has entered its death throes. Trump's return was not merely a change in style or rhetoric, but revealed a structural shift in the position of the United States itself: from a guardian of the global order to a power that treats it as a burden, and even a tool that can be dismantled and reshaped according to the logic of power and immediate self-interest.

From Guarantor of the Order to Source of Threat

The moment of the American threat to take control of Greenland – despite the subsequent retraction – constituted a deep symbolic shock. The issue was not in the execution, but in the principle: for the first time, an American president openly threatened to use force or blackmail against the territory of an Atlantic ally. At this point, many Western capitals began to realize that the American umbrella was no longer an absolute guarantee, and that the idea of a "safe ally" had become questionable.

At the Davos forum, Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney expressed this shift with unprecedented clarity, speaking of a "rupture" in the rules-based order, and calling on what are known as "middle powers" to unite to build a new global order. This was not rhetorical speech, but an announcement of the realization that Washington was no longer the ultimate authority of the international system.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky went further, demanding that Europe abandon the illusion of strategic dependence on the United States, and build its independent military and security capabilities. The war in Ukraine, as many experts see it, not only revealed Russia's brutality, but also the fragility of Western commitments when their cost becomes politically or economically high.

The Crisis of "Middle Powers": Between Incapacity and the Search for Alternatives

The experts surveyed by Politico agree that middle powers – such as Canada, Europe, Japan, Australia, India, and Turkey – find themselves today in a highly complex position. They are neither great powers capable of imposing an alternative order, nor marginal states that can seek refuge in neutrality. They are caught in the void between rusty American hegemony and unsettling Chinese ascendance.

Europe, in particular, seems the most confused. Since the end of the Cold War, it has built its security on the assumption of stable American commitment. Today, it finds itself required to build "strategic autonomy" in the fields of defense, energy, and industry, after decades of deliberate dismantling of its military capabilities. However, experts warn against the illusion of quick solutions: building a real deterrent force requires many years, huge investments, and a missing political consensus.

As for Canada, its problem is deeper. Geography and economics link it to the United States in an almost fated way. Therefore, some analysts warn that any Canadian attempt to directly confront Washington might remind Ottawa of the meaning of the "Monroe Doctrine" in its modern form. Talk of middle alliances does not negate the reality of the imbalance of power.

The Disintegration of the Illusion of Multilateralism

One of the most pessimistic conclusions in the Politico survey is the skepticism about the ability of "middle powers" to act as a cohesive bloc. These countries differ in their geopolitical priorities, threats, and economic calculations. The experience of previous blocs – from "BRICS" to various multilateral initiatives – has shown that slogans are not enough to build an effective front.

However, this does not mean the absence of options. The prevailing trend today is what experts call "strategic hedging": diversifying partnerships, reducing dependence on one power, and building self-capabilities in economy, technology, and defense. It is a policy of "risk management" not "system creation."

India is presented as a model for this approach. New Delhi maintains close cooperation with Washington, without severing its strong ties with Moscow, and at the same time seeks to manage its relationship with Beijing. This pragmatic balance does not reflect confidence in the international system, but a deep awareness of its fluidity and danger.

Asia and the Pacific: Silent Concern

In East Asia, Japan and Australia appear to be in a critical position. They rely on the United States for security in confronting China, but they have become doubtful of the reliability of this dependence. Japan, for example, chose not to openly challenge Washington, but quickly increased its defense spending, strengthened its economic security, and invested in alternative supply chains, in anticipation of any shake-up in the alliance.

Australia, in turn, realizes that the Greenland lesson does not concern Europe alone. If an Atlantic ally is not safe from American pressure, what guarantees the security of a geographically distant ally in the Pacific?

The End of the System... and the Beginning of the Unknown

The conclusion that almost all experts agree on is that the world has entered a phase of "between two systems." The old system is disintegrating, without a stable alternative on the horizon. The United States is no longer willing to play the role of guarantor, and China is unable – or unwilling – to offer a unifying model, while the logic of power and coercion returns to govern international relations.

In this vacuum, middle powers find themselves facing two choices: either slow and painful investment in resilience, flexibility, and building flexible cooperation networks, or drifting into a world governed by deals and blackmail, where sovereignty becomes a privilege, not a right.

What this survey reveals is not only the decline of the American role, but the collapse of the illusion that accompanied the liberal order for decades. The system did not fall because it was just, but because it was supported by American power. When this power declined or its political mood changed, the fragility of rules and institutions was exposed. We are facing a world not governed by laws, but by the ability of states to protect themselves from the fluctuations of the great powers.

The dangerous aspect of the current stage is not the rise of China (as some promote) or Trump's tendencies (as others exaggerate), but the world's habituation to the logic of coercion. When open threats, sanctions, and the blackmail of allies become normal tools in international politics, sovereignty loses its legal meaning. Middle powers are today required not only to protect their interests, but to defend the very idea of order, even at its minimum, before the world turns into an open arena of conflict without controls.

US President Donald Trump's warning about the potential return of Nouri al-Maliki to the premiership has once again shed light on a highly sensitive chapter in Iraqi political history. Maliki is not merely a name put forward in the race for power, but rather a symbol of an era characterized by sectarian polarization, state fragility, and the erosion of trust in the political process in post-American occupation Iraq.

Trump, known for his direct rhetoric, stated in a social media post that Iraq "slipped into poverty and chaos" during Maliki's rule, adding that the United States "will not provide any support" to Baghdad if the man returns to office. According to political analyses, the message was not directed solely at Maliki, but rather targeted the entire Iraqi political class, which continues to recycle the same faces more than two decades after the American invasion.

Nouri al-Maliki, leader of the Islamic Dawa Party, served as prime minister for two consecutive terms between 2006 and 2014. These years witnessed the entrenchment of the sectarian quota system, the expansion of security apparatus influence, and widespread marginalization of social components, particularly in Sunni areas. This period also saw the peak of sectarian violence, severe tensions with the Kurdistan Region, and ended with the sudden collapse of the military institution in the face of ISIS in the summer of 2014.

Today, Maliki's name returns to the forefront with the support of the Shiite "Coordination Framework," which holds parliamentary weight and advocates for his nomination under the pretext of "political and administrative experience." However, this experience, in the eyes of his critics, has been associated with the politicization of state institutions, the instrumentalization of the judiciary, and the exclusion of opponents, making Maliki a symbol of the failure of the national state project launched after 2003.

The last parliamentary elections, held last November to elect 329 representatives, did not break this cycle. Shiite alliances maintained their majority with 187 seats, while the electoral process seemed more like a mechanism for recycling elites than for renewing them. In this context, Iraqi President Abdul Latif Rashid's congratulation to Maliki on his nomination, and the call to "strengthen national partnership," raised questions about the gap between official rhetoric and the actual experience of governance.

Maliki was born in 1950 and joined the Dawa Party early on. He was forced to leave Iraq in the late 1970s after being sentenced to death under Saddam Hussein's regime. After the American invasion in 2003, he returned from exile as part of a political wave that rose under a system hastily crafted by Washington, based on the equation of quotas and sub-identities under the banner of "building democracy."

Analysts believe that Maliki's rise was not separate from American will. After 2006, Washington considered him a "manageable" partner in terms of security, even at the expense of internal balance. This support, according to those readings, was a narrow-minded pragmatic choice that ignored early indicators of an authoritarian tendency and contributed to deepening societal division, making the United States an indirect partner in the failures of that period.

The 2010 elections are considered a pivotal moment, when the "Iraqiya" list led by Ayad Allawi won the largest number of seats, but Maliki retained power with American and regional support. This circumvention of ballot box results dealt, in the eyes of many Iraqis, a severe blow to the credibility of the democratic path and reinforced the conviction that the final decision is not made within the country alone.

Trump's warning about Maliki's return presents a clear paradox: How can Washington today warn against a figure who was part of the engineering of his rise? Is it a belated acknowledgment of the failure of American policy in Iraq, or a selective use of political memory? Between these two interpretations, the question remains open about Iraq's ability to break the cycle of the past, or whether the balances of yesterday still hold the threads of the future.

PhD Researcher in Educational Administration

As we reflect on our world today, a troubling question may come to mind: What occupies the minds of our adolescent children? The answer, often, lies in a small screen glowing in their hands, a window overlooking a noisy world of “influencers” and “trends.” This world, which at first glance seems innocent and entertaining, conceals a real crisis of values. What we see is not influence in the positive sense of the word, but rather a disguised void, superficial content that glorifies appearances and celebrates triviality, sometimes even promoting absurd challenges that could cost a young man or woman their physical safety. Here, it becomes imperative for us to pause and ask: What is our role as educators and mentors? And how can our educational institutions regain the initiative and reorient our youth's moral compass? Delving into the nature of the content our youth consume reveals a bitter truth. The numbers do not lie; a study issued by the Pew Research Center in 2024 indicates that a large percentage of teenagers spend daily hours on social media platforms. YouTube tops the list with a daily usage rate of 73%, followed by TikTok at 60%, then Instagram and Snapchat at 50% each. Even more concerning is that the percentage of those who use these platforms “almost constantly” reaches 16% on TikTok and 15% on YouTube. This precious time is wasted following content that offers nothing but a mirage of false fame and disguised superficiality. What is more alarming is that this digital void is not just a waste of time, but a real danger lurking for our youth's psychological and physical health. Several studies have sounded the alarm, with the U.S. National Institutes of Health linking in a 2025 study the excessive use of these platforms to increased rates of anxiety and depression among adolescents. In our Arab context, a study conducted in the Middle East confirmed the significant negative impact of these “influencers” on the social, moral, and health aspects of our youth, by promoting excessive materialism and irresponsible consumer behavior. We cannot overlook the dangerous “trends” that spread like wildfire, pushing adolescents, in their frantic quest for attention, to imitate actions that could endanger their lives. “The adolescent, in their journey of self-discovery, is like a sponge that absorbs everything around them. When the surrounding environment is saturated with triviality and superficiality, we risk creating a generation that measures a person's worth by the number of their followers, not by the depth of their thought and the nobility of their morals.” Faced with this overwhelming torrent of low-quality content, the solution cannot be isolation or prohibition, but rather building a “moral immune system” in our youth. Here, the responsibility of our educational institutions grows, as they must go beyond their traditional role of imparting knowledge to become lighthouses that guide minds and refine souls. It is no longer enough to fill our students' minds with information; we must plant in their hearts the first seeds of critical thinking and provide them with the tools to distinguish between what is beneficial and what is harmful. The inclusion of “media literacy” and “digital culture” at the core of our curricula is no longer an intellectual luxury, but an existential necessity. Our children must learn how to read between the lines and how to analyze the hidden messages broadcast by this content. Our classrooms must transform into safe spaces for dialogue and discussion, and in contrast to “influencers” with empty content, we must highlight positive and inspiring role models in our societies. This battle cannot be fought by the school alone; bridges of communication must be built with the family, which bears the greatest burden of follow-up and guidance. It is a shared responsibility that requires concerted efforts to protect our future generations. Ultimately, we are at a dangerous crossroads. Either we leave our future generations easy prey to this digital decline, or we work to awaken awareness with all our might. It is a comprehensive societal responsibility, for the future we aspire to will not be built by hands that applaud emptiness, but by enlightened minds and hearts full of values. The question that should trouble us all today is: Which future do we choose to build?

It is superfluous to remind that Palestine is experiencing an unprecedented historical turning point, and a decisive stage whose basic features have become completely clear, including:-

First, the decision of the Zionist movement, with all its components, to use decisive force in the conflict with the Palestinian people and to attempt to liquidate their Palestinian cause with all its components, and to complete the project of settler-colonialism throughout Palestine.

Second, the transformation of Israeli racism and the Israeli occupation system towards fascism in goals, methods, and practices.

Third, the alliance of Israeli fascism with contemporary global imperialist fascism, and its attempt to assume the role of a sub-imperialism dominating the entire Middle East and the Arab periphery.

Fourth, the lack of hesitation in using war crimes, including genocide, collective punishment, and ethnic cleansing again.


Fifth, Arab and regional disintegration in the face of the colonial onslaught and Israeli encroachments on the sovereignty and interests of states, from armed aggression against Syria, Lebanon, Yemen, and Iran, to conspiring against Egypt, Turkey, and Algeria.

Sixth, the lack of hesitation in violating international law, international humanitarian law, and international resolutions, and even attacking international institutions, foremost among them UNRWA and United Nations institutions, in parallel with waging war on international humanitarian institutions to prevent them from contributing to supporting the humanitarian needs of the Palestinian people.

Seventh, the tearing up (and liquidation) of the Oslo Accords, and all international agreements with the Palestinians, and stripping the Palestinian Authority of its authority, powers, and capabilities, and attempting to completely separate the Gaza Strip from the West Bank, and the systematic destruction, through settlement and repression, of the possibility of an independent Palestinian state.

All these dangerous facts cannot be dealt with by continuing to cling to the approach of betting on compromises and negotiations that Israel rejects, and the Oslo Accord that is dead, and lingering in the depths of a past that has vanished... Perhaps the most strange thing is the attempt to impose what is called the violated "international legitimacy," and the commitments (and agreements) of the Palestinian Authority, which Israel has undermined, on the rest of the Palestinian forces, and making that commitment a condition for participation in Palestinian elections.

Nor can, on the external level in relations with powers and states, the methods of the past continue to be used in an era where state policies are entirely managed on the basis of interests, and in the near complete absence of ideologies and principles among most states, especially Western ones. Is there clearer evidence of this than the death of international law in Gaza and elsewhere, and the attempts by US President Trump, in partnership with Israel, to abolish the United Nations and its institutions and replace them.

The Palestinian people and their living forces do not have the luxury of waiting, hesitation, or lingering in the methods of the past, as they face an existential threat in the literal sense of the word, and it is not enough to describe the situations and challenges, instead of developing an effective strategic program and action plan to confront them. Despite the enormous losses suffered by the Palestinian people as a result of crimes of genocide and collective punishment, and the desecration and terrorism of the settler-colonists, they possess three elements of strength that their adversaries cannot liquidate.

First, a steadfast human presence on the land of Palestine in all its parts, which is an active presence, stubbornly adhering to the justice of its cause and its rights to return, full freedom, and self-determination.

Second, an unprecedented massive popular solidarity movement, which has made its cause a matter of consensus as the foremost humanitarian issue of our era, inheriting the struggle and humanitarian status of the Algerian struggle against settler-colonialism, the Vietnamese struggle against imperialist aggression, and the South African struggle against racism and apartheid.

Third, a rich history of struggle extending over more than a hundred years against settler-colonialism, occupation, and the racist apartheid system, and a stubborn youth determination to reject humiliation, subservience, and excessive compromises, and boundless devotion to the values of justice, dignity, and national struggle. However, what Palestinians lack is consensus on an alternative national struggle strategy for what has failed, one capable of unifying the Palestinian struggle to change the balance of power in favor of the Palestinian people.

Through various movements, initiatives, and numerous dialogues, the National Initiative has crystallized six elements for a strategy that can be adopted, discussed, developed, or enriched and modified, to be what can be called the six pillars of the Palestinian national struggle for the next stage, and their summary:- First, a strategy to support the steadfastness of the Palestinian people and their survival on the land of Palestine by all means, and to adopt the components and elements of this steadfastness, starting with supporting the Palestinian people in the Gaza Strip in repairing what the occupation has destroyed and rebuilding it, and passing through the West Bank and supporting its people, especially the residents of villages and camps, to stand firm in the face of the colonial onslaught, or by supporting the active Palestinian presence within. The majority of the eight million forcibly displaced Palestinians abroad can play a major role in supporting this steadfastness, and this will be, as in the past, an embodiment of their participation in the national struggle of their people.
Second, resisting the occupation's measures and oppression in all forms, and there is no doubt that the pattern of popular resistance that previously reached its peak in the First Intifada, the ships breaking the siege, and the demonstrations of return and breaking the siege will be the most likely to spread and have an impact in the next stage.

Third, escalating the international solidarity movement, including the boycott movement, imposing sanctions, and divesting investments, which will transform international solidarity into an effective material force in the balance of power.

Fourth, the unity of the struggle of the components of the Palestinian people and their work inside, in the occupied territories, and abroad within a strategy of building, steadfastness, and changing the balance of power in favor of the Palestinian people.

Fifth, penetrating the ranks of the adversary and its supporters in countries and movements, which proves its effectiveness and feasibility, as we have seen from the shifts in American public opinion specifically during the war of extermination on the Gaza Strip.

Sixth, crystallizing a unified national leadership for the struggle on a national, militant, resistance strategy against the liquidation project and the fascist onslaught. This will not be achieved by statements and meetings whose results are not implemented, or fleeting alliances, but by actual participation in the field of struggle and its tasks. It is necessary here to draw lessons from what happened with the marginalization of the Palestine Liberation Organization, and its containment within the components of the Authority that the occupation violated, and after it has been definitively proven impossible to build a real and independent authority under occupation.

What the Palestinian people need from their militants, cadres, and energies is not to be preoccupied again with conflict and division over an authority under occupation, but to rebuild and strengthen their national liberation movement and harness energies for that, and to give young generations hope and a correct and honest vision to engage in the national struggle.

When "Walter Russell Mead," one of the most important current strategic thinkers in the United States, was asked about the significance of the disputes between Washington and Tel Aviv in light of the Israeli war on Gaza, Lebanon, and Iran, he emphasized the essence of the utilitarian American-Israeli relations, stating: "American-Israeli strategic interests have never been as aligned as they are now... America wants Israel to be strong and not to be defeated in Gaza, Lebanon, or Iran... It does not give Israel weapons for war out of good or evil, but because it wants Israel to win and remain strong!"
There is no doubt that Israel is working in the Middle East on behalf of the United States, but the matter does not stop at agency. Israel seeks much more than that. Recently, Israel joined a US-led alliance called "Pax Silica." According to the US State Department, it is an economic security alliance designed for the age of artificial intelligence, and it includes a number of countries that control advanced technological production sectors. Simply put, the mission of this group is to shape and define the upcoming global economic and security policy. US officials liken it to the current "G7" group that leads global economic and security policies throughout the twentieth century and to this day. I expect that in the very near future, G7 meetings will disappear, and Pax Silica will replace it in economic leadership. By joining this alliance, Israel ensures itself a seat at the table that organizes the global economic scene, thereby solidifying its political future within the framework of the American ally and what that entails in overcoming any obstacles or sanctions as an occupying state. In addition, the "Pax Silica" alliance divides the world into two parts: allies and clients. Allies are the infrastructures (leading technologically participating countries) that will enjoy close, integrated, financial, security, and of course political relations with each other, while clients are the rest of the countries that buy products. Since Israel has become part of these cross-border infrastructures, it aims to strengthen its presence as a regional power without the need for neighbors and the requirements of normalization!
Each country in the Pax Silica alliance is entrusted with a mission that ensures integration and coordination with the other countries in the group. Israel is the financial investment base. Two days ago, an agreement was reached between Washington and Tel Aviv to establish a global technology center covering an area of 16,000 dunams, leased for 99 years under American management and investment, with Israeli partnership. It is scheduled to be built in the vicinity of the Gaza envelope and the Negev under the name "Fort Foundry One" for the development of artificial intelligence applications and the manufacture of electronic chips and semiconductors for military and civilian purposes. And because these advanced industries require enormous energy and electricity needs, the agreement spoke about the possibility of establishing a nuclear reactor!
And they are still dedicating pages of analysis to disputes between the two countries, and we are still chanting outdated slogans...

The Israeli electoral scene is witnessing a period of escalating tension with the renewed discussion about the possibility of Arab parties uniting into a single list. This possibility is met within the Israeli political establishment with increasing concern that goes beyond narrow electoral calculations to a structural apprehension about a change in the rules of the political game established by the right-wing in recent years. The mere proposal of this scenario as a realistic possibility reflects the extent of the transformation in the position of Palestinians inside Israel, from a containable political margin to a bloc capable of disrupting the balances of power.
In this context, the actions of the far-right emerge, foremost among them Itamar Ben-Gvir's efforts to pass bills in the Knesset that practically aim to curb any possibility of forming a unified Arab list or reduce its expected impact. These initiatives are not separate from the right-wing's realization that its parliamentary strength has become hostage to narrow margins and that any increase in Arab representation could undermine its ability to form a stable government or impose its political agenda without obstacles.
The upcoming period is poised to witness a comprehensive mobilization by the Israeli right-wing, politically and media-wise, in an attempt to frighten the Israeli public about the repercussions of what it calls the danger of Arab influence on the future of governance. The conflict is no longer just between right and left camps but has become centered on who possesses the ability to tip the scales within a political system suffering from successive crises in stability and legitimacy.
Opinion polls circulating within Israel reflect the importance of this factor, indicating that the unification of Arab parties could raise their parliamentary representation to around fourteen seats. This number is not only measured by its quantity but by its ability to disrupt traditional governance scenarios and impose new equations during moments of forming government coalitions, which explains this early tension within the right-wing camp and its repeated attempts to change the rules of the game before reaching the ballot boxes.
However, the ability to translate this numerical weight into actual political influence remains conditional on internal factors related to the nature of the relationship between the components of the Arab parties themselves and their ability to overcome ideological differences and narrow electoral compromises. It also remains dependent on their ability to withstand Israeli pressures that will seek by all means to dismantle any unifying path or empty it of its political content.
In contrast, the escalation of inflammatory right-wing rhetoric against the idea of unification reveals a deeper battle concerning the status of Palestinians inside Israel and their role within the Israeli political system. The coming days are likely to turn into an arena for noisy debate about what is called in Israeli discourse the danger of the Palestinian inside, a description that reflects an existential anxiety about this public transforming into a political actor capable of influencing the directions of governance and breaking the monopoly on decision-making.
Ultimately, the ongoing debate about the unification of Arab parties cannot be separated from the structural crisis that the Israeli political system itself is experiencing. The narrower the margins of maneuver for the right-wing, the greater its tendency towards exclusionary legislation and racist incitement as tools to manage the imbalance instead of addressing it. Therefore, any step towards genuine Arab unity will not be just a fleeting electoral event but a pivotal station in reshaping the boundaries of the political conflict within Israel and the nature of Palestinian participation in it.

No sooner is one knot untied than the wolf conjures another, in an unending series of traps and high obstacles strewn along the long path of pretexts; that path, which every time the observer thinks he has reached its end, appears to him as if he is at its beginning.
After handing over the last corpse, and after much evasion, there is nothing left in the magician's bag to deceive his disciples from the followers of "Smotrich" and "Ben Gvir." These who seemed as if cold water had been poured on them as they watched "the King" how he succumbed to "Trump's" demands to open the crossing, breaking his promises he made to them to ensure the cohesion of his tottering coalition.
Today, the wolf returns to his old records and ancient "no's," inaugurating his election campaign with them, at a time when protests demanding his departure are escalating. And while he tries in vain to win over his audience, opinion polls indicate that his allies; the kingmakers in his balance, will not cross the threshold of decision, and the public that was deceived for so long has finally realized that the magician's tricks have run out, and that what is left in his bag is nothing but a mirage and grasping at wind.

Estimates indicate that about 50 patients will leave daily.

The two-state solution is not being abolished, but rather left to die without a funeral announcement. This is not a rhetorical phrase, but an accurate description of how the Palestinian issue is being managed today, especially under what is called the “Trump Peace Council,” which is presented as a new international framework, while in practice it is an intense expression of the conflict's transition from the political arena to the administrative arena, and from the logic of solutions to the logic of management.

The approach of the so-called Peace Council is not limited to managing the post-war phase, but is deeply rooted in economic perceptions circulating within American decision-making circles that view Gaza as an area capable of being reshaped from scratch, not a political society with the right to self-determination. In these perceptions, the Palestinian issue is reduced to a long-term reconstruction matter managed by investment contracts extending for decades, during which sovereignty is suspended in the name of stability, and political rights are postponed indefinitely under the pretext of “rehabilitating society” and “de-radicalization.” The conflict here is no longer a conflict over land and rights, but a problem of managing a population that can be temporarily relocated, redistributed, and subjected to externally imposed educational and legal models, while guardianship is presented as a transitional necessity, and occupation is redefined as investment, and control as partnership.

In this council, Gaza does not appear as part of a Palestinian national geography linked to the West Bank in the path of establishing an independent state, but as a separate area managed independently of any comprehensive political horizon. Gaza here is not a question of sovereignty or the right to self-determination, but a file of reconstruction, security, stability, and investment. In this sense, the Trump Council does not come to replace the two-state solution, but to make it irrelevant without officially announcing its demise. The old solution is left on the shelf, while a new approach is built that bypasses the idea of a state from its very foundation.

What is most clear is that this approach reflects President Trump's mindset: he does not see the Palestinian Authority as an official decision-making body, nor does he believe that Palestinians are capable of giving up their rights. In Trump's view, Palestinian demands based on the application of international legitimacy – such as the right to self-determination, the right of return, and the cessation of settlements – are considered too many demands, and that Palestinians will not bear the burden of any concessions. Therefore, a direct solution has become undesirable. The result: imposing ready-made solutions and managing the reality on the ground without consulting the Palestinians, which is an entirely new approach in the history of the conflict, placing Palestinians outside the equation and transforming the Authority into a silent observer rather than an influential party.

What is happening in Gaza today is not an exception, but a model for managing a devastated land outside international law, without a binding international reference, and with a single political will that has the right to interpret, amend, and veto. When the President of the United States becomes the ultimate reference for the “peace” charter, the idea of international legitimacy is negated, and replaced by the logic of power and deal-making. It is precisely here that the two-state solution is fatally wounded, because this solution, however fragile, assumed the existence of an international system that recognizes the occupation, the rights of the people under it, and a clear negotiation path leading to its termination.

The Trump Council does not even recognize these assumptions. It deals with the conflict as if it were a local governance crisis in a troubled region, not a national liberation issue. Therefore, questions are raised such as: Who governs Gaza? Who oversees security? Who funds reconstruction? While the fundamental question is excluded: What is the legal and political status of Gaza within occupied Palestine? This deliberate displacement of politics is the latest form of burying the two-state solution, not by rejecting it, but by ignoring it.

More dangerously, this path intersects with Israel's interests as never before. Israel, which openly rejects the two-state solution, does not need to announce this rejection today, as long as reality is being reshaped in a way that makes the solution impossible without noise. Separating Gaza from the West Bank, transforming the former into an internationally managed entity, and accelerating the swallowing of the latter by settlements, are all steps that produce a new reality that does not require negotiations, but rather long-term management. In this reality, talk of a Palestinian state becomes closer to a linguistic exercise than to a political project.

In addition, there is a very important Palestinian factor: the Palestinian Authority has not yet realized the extent of the danger, and has mostly contented itself with silent disapproval or indirect blessing for its exclusion from the equation. This silence or practical absence allows the United States and Israel to gradually reshape Palestinian reality without strong confrontation from any Palestinian party. Some believe that the Authority thinks it currently lacks the ability to influence due to its focus on ending the war and humanitarian suffering in Gaza, which makes its position less effective and increases the fragility of its political presence.

In this scenario, the two-state solution is left in a state of clinical death. No one declares it over, because such an announcement forces a confrontation with the next question: What is the alternative? And no one is prepared to bear the cost of this question. A single state with equal rights is rejected by Israel because it ends the Jewish character of the state. The continuation of the occupation in its traditional form is morally and politically costly. Therefore, the easier option is to manage Palestinians without sovereignty, granting them extended autonomy here, international administration there, and economic projects that alleviate tension without touching the core of the conflict.

Gaza, in this context, transforms into a laboratory for post-sovereignty management. If the formula of international administration without sovereignty succeeds, and if reconstruction can be separated from politics, and resistance contained without a radical solution, then the model becomes generalizable. Then the two-state solution will no longer even be a problem, but merely a memory from a previous era when the world spoke of international law with greater seriousness.

The real dilemma is that the absence of alternatives does not mean the correctness of the current path. Letting the solution die slowly does not abolish the conflict, but changes its form and prolongs its duration. And what is presented today as realistic peace may tomorrow turn into a permanent management of an open crisis, without horizon and without end. At this moment, the question is not whether the two-state solution has ended, but whether the international system itself is capable of producing any solution that transcends the logic of naked power.

Under the Trump Council, and a managed, not liberated, Gaza, it seems the world has chosen the easier path: silently burying grand solutions, and postponing the confrontation with reality indefinitely.

The project is a 'cover for forced displacement'.

The occupation's 'unannounced' goal of these projects goes beyond improving infrastructure, as it aims to remove all obstacles.

Any talk of launching a reconstruction process in Gaza before disarmament 'will not happen'.

Occupation estimates indicate that President Trump's administration may set a final deadline of no more than two months to complete this step.

The Palestinian Prisoners' Club condemned these legislative trends, describing them as a "full-fledged war crime."

Mladenov, with his previous experience as UN Coordinator for the peace process, is seen as a pivotal figure capable of communicating with all parties.

The occupation supports US President Donald Trump's plan to end the war in the Gaza Strip.

US President Donald Trump said on Monday that Hamas played a direct role in helping Israel locate and recover the body of the last Israeli hostage held in the Gaza Strip, a remarkable statement that broke the traditional pattern of American rhetoric towards the movement, and came loaded with political messages that went beyond the humanitarian event itself. Trump considered this cooperation, which he described as "rare," proof that communication with adversaries is possible when interests intersect, but at the same time stressed that this step must be completed by disarming Hamas as a crucial condition for any future for Gaza.

In an interview with the American website Axios, Trump said that Hamas "worked hard" to facilitate the recovery of the remains, indicating direct or indirect coordination between it and the Israeli side. He added that this incident constitutes practical evidence that the movement is capable of adhering to specific understandings when it wishes to do so, before linking this behavior to the necessity of moving to what he described as the "next stage," meaning the dismantling of the movement's military structure. Trump said in a firm tone: "Now is the time for disarmament, as they promised."

Trump's statements came after the Israeli army announced the recovery of the remains of Israeli police Staff Sergeant Ran Gvili, during a special operation carried out in Gaza City based on recent intelligence information. While official Israeli statements focused on military and intelligence efforts, Trump's statements seemed different in tone, as he unusually highlighted Hamas's role in facilitating the operation, which observers considered an attempt to reframe the political scene surrounding the post-ceasefire phase.

In a subsequent briefing, a senior American official reinforced President Trump's narrative, confirming that Hamas was "very cooperative" during the recovery operation, and that it adhered to arrangements agreed upon within the framework of the ceasefire. The official criticized what he described as the "political hysteria" that surrounded the hostage file, considering that field cooperation, however limited, led to tangible results that cannot be denied.

The official explained that the recovery operation took place through a "coordination cell" supported by the United States, established at the beginning of the ceasefire in October 2025, and included Israel and regional mediators, including Egypt, Qatar, and Turkey. The Trump administration presented this mechanism as a model of "hard pragmatism" that allows for the achievement of specific goals even in the midst of open conflicts.

Jared Kushner, Trump's son-in-law and senior advisor, also pointed to the multinational nature of this coordination, praising the role of the United States, Israel, and regional countries, in addition to what he called "the cooperation of local residents in Gaza," in facilitating the return of the bodies of all deceased hostages. American officials considered the operation a diplomatic and logistical success, despite the secrecy surrounding its details.

The American administration acknowledged that it was not certain of the possibility of recovering all hostages, and that it was prepared to move forward with Trump's broader plan for Gaza even if some remained missing. An American official said that the recent success spared the administration highly sensitive political and moral decisions.

However, the core of Trump's discourse, according to officials, revolves around disarming Hamas. The administration has repeatedly affirmed that the reconstruction and stability of Gaza are conditional on the dismantling of armed groups. An American official indicated that the twenty-point American plan includes the possibility of granting amnesty to Hamas fighters who agree to disarm.

The Israeli occupation government welcomed the principle of "amnesty for disarmament," despite the internal criticism it provoked, while Hamas reiterated its public rejection of any harm to its weapons. However, American officials confirm that the movement signed broader understandings that include this clause, warning that Trump may resort to "other measures" if there is no compliance.

The American administration says it is working with Israel and regional mediators, including Turkey, on an organized disarmament program, in parallel with arrangements to reopen the Rafah crossing, support the formation of a local Palestinian security force, and activate the Peace Council recently launched by Trump to oversee post-war arrangements.

According to informed sources, the recovery of the last hostage's remains was not just the end of a thorny humanitarian file for Trump, but rather turned into a political card in which he sees evidence that pressure can yield cooperation, provided that it ultimately leads to a radical change in Gaza's security reality.

Trump's statements reveal a new American approach based on investing any pragmatic behavior by Hamas to transform it into a broader political entry point, not as recognition of the movement, but as an additional pressure tool. Focusing on Hamas's cooperation in a sensitive humanitarian file gives Washington room to justify more stringent demands later, foremost among them disarmament, while presenting this to public opinion as a logical and gradual path, not as a unilateral imposition.

In contrast, this discourse raises questions about the limits of American pragmatism, and whether Washington is overstating a limited incident as an indicator of Hamas's readiness for strategic change. The recent history of the conflict suggests that tactical cooperation does not necessarily mean a deep political transformation, which makes Trump's bet on disarmament a real test of the ability of American pressure to re-engineer the scene in Gaza.

Estimates of the reopening of the Rafah border crossing, which is considered the main lifeline for the Gaza Strip.

A paradox that reveals a 'disparity in the value of a human being' even in their death.

While the Israeli right declares its pursuit to kill the idea of a Palestinian state in the name of security, it overlooks a dangerous paradox: denying this state not only threatens Palestinians but also leaves Israel's own existence without historical closure, suspended in an open conflict with no clear end.

In repeated statements from the leaders of the ruling Israeli right, a discourse is entrenched that explicitly rejects any political horizon leading to the establishment of a Palestinian state, portraying this option as an existential and security threat to Israel. This discourse, which links preventing a Palestinian state with promoting settlements as a “security belt,” invokes the Gaza experience as a model used to justify the complete closure of any future settlement. However, what appears on the surface to be an expression of security resolve, in its essence reveals a mixture of ideological deviation and strategic shortsightedness, as it reflects a conscious desire to erase any political horizon for Palestinians, without realizing that this path does not provide security, but rather keeps Israel in a state of constant anxiety and an incomplete political and historical existence.

After more than seventy years of conflict, the existence of Palestinians has become a political and historical reality that cannot be bypassed or erased from the equation. Just as the idea of a Jewish state, which seemed like a surreal dream at the beginning of the last century, became a reality due to international transformations and political power, the idea of a Palestinian state, in turn, is no longer a slogan or an illusion, but has become a reality that is entrenched despite all attempts at denial. Denying this reality does not abolish it, but rather increases its complexity and postpones the moment of explosion.

What the Israeli right is proposing today in the West Bank does not represent a security project or conflict management, but rather an open recipe for endless conflicts. The image it seeks to entrench is based on settlements scattered among Palestinian cities and villages, which over decades transform into adjacent and intertwined population centers, requiring continuous and exhausting security measures. This model does not produce stability, but rather generates constant friction, making every street and village a potential flashpoint. It is a continuous fuel for a low-intensity but long-term conflict that drains everyone and does not lead to a decisive outcome.

Insisting on denying the Palestinian state is like trying to burn the only bridge to a stable future. Refusing to recognize Palestinian national rights does not achieve security, nor does it end the conflict; rather, it guarantees its continuation for additional decades. Palestinians exist on the ground, and their continued presence is part of the geographical and historical reality, and any attempt to cancel this reality means a long-term drain on Israel itself, transforming it into an incomplete entity, suspended on the whims of history, and vulnerable to political and demographic fluctuations.

The great paradox lies in the fact that rejecting a Palestinian state is, in essence, a rejection of solidifying the occupation state itself. Recognizing a Palestinian state could have constituted a moment of historical closure for the conflict file, and a final seal on the issue of existence and legitimacy. As for keeping the issue open, it keeps the state itself open to doubt and questioning, as if it has not yet succeeded in transitioning from a project of power to a stable, definitive state, despite the gains it has made in land, support, and international recognition. Political greed, and the desire for more, turns what has been achieved into a burden, and makes the entire project seem doomed to failure not because of loss, but because of the inability to be content.

At the heart of this dilemma, the issue is not about the Palestinian state as a security or political “concession,” but as an indispensable moment of historical closure. States are not measured only by their ability to impose power, but by their ability to end their foundational conflicts and establish their legitimacy within a final and recognized framework. A state that refuses to end its conflict and keeps its existence suspended on managing an open dispute remains, in reality, an incomplete project, not a stable state. From this perspective, denying the Palestinian state not only postpones the resolution of the conflict but also postpones the completion of the Israeli state itself, keeping it in a constant state of testing legitimacy and existence, instead of moving to the stage of a historically closed, definitive state.

The pretext of “security” is often raised to justify this rejection, a pretext almost all political factions in Israel agree upon. However, this claim loses much of its validity when subjected to cold political logic. Security can be ensured, to a high degree, through the establishment of a fully demilitarized Palestinian state, subject to strict international oversight and clear security conditions. Such a solution is neither imaginary nor out of reach; it is within grasp, and Israel possesses the military and technological capabilities to prevent the Palestinian state from becoming any threat. Moreover, any future violation could then be dealt with within a specific legal and political framework, and might be used as a pretext for occupation or annexation measures, instead of remaining in a state of open conflict with no horizon.

I will not try to convince Israelis with this logic, as a wide segment of them adopted it in previous stages, seeing it as the safest way to end the conflict, which led to agreements like Oslo. As for the right, it chose to entrench itself in extremism that leads to the unknown and gambles with its future. History has often deceived the powerful; overconfidence in power, and a feeling of permanent superiority, often lead to ruin. With the increasing complexity of the conflict over time, it has become clear that nothing is guaranteed, especially in light of the rapid changes in the international scene, which portend structural shifts in the global order, foremost among them unconventional American behavior, which increases the fragility of unilateral bets.

The discourse of the ruling Israeli right, which appears on the surface to be an expression of strength and confidence, reveals in its essence the absurdity of a thought that believes security is built by oppression, and that the future can be secured by killing the Palestinian dream. Reality says the exact opposite. Every attempt to eliminate Palestinians means prolonging the conflict, and at the same time means keeping the occupation state suspended, incomplete, as if it is still in the experimental stage and not in the stage of final stability. In the end, it seems that whoever tries to kill the dream of Palestinians is shooting himself in the foot, and in the future of his state, and history does not forgive those who refuse to acknowledge reality when it becomes inevitable.

The "UpScrolled" app is currently emerging as one of the most popular TikTok alternatives globally, especially amidst concerns about TikTok's new US privacy terms.             

"UpScrolled" was founded by Issam Hijazi, a Palestinian-Australian tech expert and CEO of "Recursive Methods Pty," the app's developer, based in Australia.

Launched in 2025, "UpScrolled" is currently gaining increasing attention as a potential alternative to mainstream social media platforms. The discussion about the app is not limited to TikTok's change of ownership in the United States, but also includes its distinguished position and the interest of early users, according to a report by the American magazine "Newsweek," reviewed by "Al Arabiya Business."

The app was developed with the support of the "Tech for Palestine" incubator and private funding from Hijazi and a small group of investors.

Hijazi stated in a press release: "UpScrolled is the foundation for a digital ecosystem that puts control back into the hands of the people – not corporations."

He added: "It's more than just an alternative to Meta, X, or TikTok – it's a reimagining of what social media should be: a space where creators, communities, and businesses thrive independently, with real control, transparency, and accountability."

Before founding "Recursive Methods," Hijazi worked as a consultant for "Loyal" fund, an investment fund based in Toronto, Canada. Prior to that, he served as Head of Data Management Solutions at "Quantexa," a company based in London, according to his LinkedIn profile.

The current interest in the "UpScrolled" app is reflected in its app store rankings; it currently ranks sixth among social media apps, surpassing platforms like Discord, indicating a large number of downloads and early user engagement.

"UpScrolled" states on its website: "It's time to scroll differently. Shadow-banned elsewhere? Not here. UpScrolled is the social platform where every voice gets equal power. No hidden bans. No algorithmic games. No favoritism for those who pay."

The app's homepage includes options for posting text, images, and videos.

On the X platform, users are announcing their move to "UpScrolled" in protest against the control of major tech companies.

The continued closure of border crossings poses a severe and direct threat to the lives of thousands of injured and sick people.

The martyrs fell outside the areas of military deployment of the occupation forces, while three other citizens were injured as a result of the same assault.

The mechanism for operating the Rafah border crossing has been settled after a long period of anticipation.

News Analysis

Researcher Mitchell Plitnick, writing in the progressive "Mondoweiss" website, indicated that the Middle East today stands at an extremely dangerous historical crossroads, where chronic crises intersect with international policies that only exacerbate them. While global political and economic elites were preoccupied with the Davos Economic Forum, the region was silently sliding towards a boiling point that could redraw its political and security maps. Behind the American rhetoric of "isolation" and reduced foreign engagement, Washington continues to play the main driver of crises, often in partnership with Israel, and at the expense of the stability and future of the region's peoples.

From Palestine to Syria, and from Iran to Yemen and Sudan, conflicts are no longer separate or geographically confined. They are a single network of intertwined tensions, fueled by erratic American intervention, systematic Israeli aggression, and an international inability to impose any just political horizon. In this scenario, the question becomes not whether the situation will explode, but where and when the biggest explosion will occur, according to the author.

Palestine: "Peace" Without Palestinians

In Davos, Donald Trump presided over the launch of what was called the "Peace Council," in a move that seemed more like a political maneuver than a genuine initiative. The council's founding charter made no mention of Gaza, Palestine, or even Israel, reflecting the nature of the project: redefining the conflict by ignoring it, not resolving it. Practically, the council became a tool to provide political cover for attempts to impose coercive arrangements on Gaza, under the guise of an "executive administration" overseeing the subjugation of the population and the looting of land.

Jared Kushner's vision for Gaza, presented in Davos, reduces the strip to a luxury real estate project for the wealthy, with no regard for the national identity or political rights of Palestinians. Despite the absence of an announced plan for displacement, it is difficult to imagine a place for Palestinians other than as a marginal workforce in their homeland. At the same time, Israel continues its preparations for a new military operation in Gaza, awaiting the American green light, benefiting from the absence of any serious negotiation path on fundamental issues, foremost among them disarmament in exchange for a real political horizon.

In the occupied West Bank, the scene is complemented by a widespread Israeli attack on Hebron, the largest since the Second Intifada. This attack aims not only to tighten security control but also to re-engineer settler violence by "institutionalizing" it and transferring it from settler chaos to official security frameworks. This coincides with dangerous religious provocations, from the Ibrahimi Mosque to the Al-Aqsa Mosque, suggesting a deliberate attempt to provoke a comprehensive Palestinian response that justifies a wider wave of repression.

Iran: Playing with Fire

On the other side of the region, eyes are turning to Iran, where the risk of an internal explosion with catastrophic regional repercussions looms. Recent protests, violently suppressed, opened the door to mutual accusations of foreign interference, especially from the United States and Israel. Despite the difficulty of verifying these narratives amid information blackouts, recent history confirms Israel's extensive intelligence network within Iran and its capacity for subversive action.

According to the author, the paradox is that the overthrow of the Islamic Republic, if it occurs, will not necessarily lead to a more stable or Western-aligned system. On the contrary, a scenario of vacuum and chaos—similar to Libya or Syria—seems more likely, given the absence of organized political forces capable of filling the void. This partly explains the reservations of some Arab leaders about Netanyahu's rush towards a comprehensive confrontation with Tehran, as they recognize the cost of an Iranian collapse for the entire region.

Syria: Unification by Force and Underlying Fragility

In Syria, the new government is making progress in regaining control of territory, with implicit support from Washington, and at the expense of the Syrian Democratic Forces. This shift has left the Kurds in shock, after years of partnership with the United States in fighting ISIS. Although Damascus has issued decrees to reassure the Kurds and protect their cultural rights, the loss of Rojava represents a devastating blow to the project of self-rule and puts the fragile ceasefire at risk.

In the south, the Israeli occupation stands out as a primary disruptive factor to any Syrian stability. Israel does not hide its opposition to a unified and strong Syria, but it tries to manage this rejection cautiously, through political pressure in Washington, or through calculated military movements that could ignite new fronts.

Intertwined Conflicts: One Region, Multiple Crises

The repercussions of these crises also extend to Iraq, where any escalation in Syria or Iran raises immediate concerns, especially in Kurdish areas. The fate of thousands of ISIS detainees in northern Syria remains a ticking time bomb, which could explode if current security arrangements collapse. In the south, tensions between Saudi Arabia and the UAE in Yemen and Sudan reflect how Gulf proxy wars can destroy entire countries, amid international silence or complicity.

What is happening in the Middle East today is not a series of separate crises, but a logical consequence of a regional system governed by force, not law, and by deals, not justice. The United States, despite its hesitant rhetoric, remains the most influential player in igniting or extinguishing fires, but it often chooses the former option, either out of incapacity or self-interest. And Israel, the immediate beneficiary of the chaos, ignores the fact that the collapse of states around it will not create lasting security. The continuation of this path threatens not only the region but also portends a global cost, as the Middle East once again becomes the spark that ignites crises far beyond its borders.

In a new indication of escalating tensions in the Middle East, an Israeli report revealed that both Jordan and the UAE are prepared to provide political and logistical support for any potential American attack on Iran, at a time when American military and diplomatic movements in the region are accelerating. This leak comes amidst ambiguity surrounding the positions of other Western allies, most notably Britain, which appeared to be far from any clear commitment, especially after statements by US President Donald Trump downplaying the role of allies during the war in Afghanistan, raising questions about the future of Washington's traditional alliances.

The Israeli report in the newspaper "Israel Hayom," owned by Miriam Adelson, a supporter of US President Donald Trump who backed him with $100 million in his last election campaign, coincided with the arrival of the commander of the US Central Command (CENTCOM), Admiral Brad Cooper, in Israel, where he held intensive meetings with senior Israeli security officials. According to Israeli security sources, the level of military coordination between the two sides reached an unprecedented degree, including plans for exchanging highly sensitive intelligence information, enhancing logistical cooperation, and linking air defense systems in preparation for confronting what is described as the "Iranian threat."

However, this escalatory scene does not receive regional consensus. Several Arab sources, including an Arab diplomat and a Gulf official, expressed grave concern about the repercussions of any American-Israeli strike on Iran. Gulf countries fear that their territories and military bases could become direct targets if a widespread confrontation erupts, especially in light of Tehran's explicit pledge to target American bases and Israel if attacked.

In this context, Saudi Arabia, Oman, and Qatar led intensive diplomatic efforts to dissuade Washington from pursuing the option of war, realizing that any military escalation could spiral out of control and redraw the map of fragile stability in the Gulf. The UAE's position remains ambiguous, as signals from Emirati officials and experts contradict between public caution and undeclared involvement in security arrangements led by Washington.

The escalation was not limited to political and military coordination but was practically translated by President Trump's decision to amass a large military force in the Middle East. In striking statements, Trump said that "a large force is heading towards Iran," emphasizing that its purpose is to prepare "for any contingency," without ruling out the option of using it. This buildup includes the aircraft carrier group "USS Abraham Lincoln," a squadron of F-15 fighters, in addition to advanced air defense systems.

This buildup brings to mind the scenario of last June, when Trump ordered the deployment of similar military assets before Israel launched a widespread war against Iran. Although the US military was, according to informed sources, on high alert to carry out direct strikes against Iran earlier this month, Trump backed down from issuing the order, after a growing conviction—reinforced by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu—that the strike would not lead to the overthrow of the Iranian regime and could drag Washington into a long and complex confrontation.

Nevertheless, strengthening the military presence gives the US administration broader options, whether to launch a more comprehensive attack or to contain any potential Iranian response. Washington realizes that any confrontation will not be without cost, especially given Iran's missile capabilities, which proved effective during the recent escalation, when several missiles fell inside Israel.

In parallel with the military escalation, the White House continues its economic war against Tehran. The US Treasury Department announced new sanctions on nine ships suspected of transporting sanctioned Iranian oil, in a move aimed at choking off vital revenue sources for the Islamic Republic. Washington also expanded its measures to include the seizure of Venezuelan oil tankers, sending a clear message that sanctions have become a parallel tool of war to weapons.

This American escalation reflects a mixture of deterrence and showmanship, more than it reflects a clear strategy. Washington is amassing power to send a political message to Iran and its allies, but at the same time, it recognizes the limits of military force in overthrowing entrenched regimes. This contradiction reproduces the policy of "brinkmanship," which may achieve short-term tactical gains but leaves the region hostage to miscalculation and unintended slide into a comprehensive war.

Experts believe that the most dangerous aspect of the current scene is the fragility and contradiction of regional positions. While some countries are pushed towards a security alignment with Washington, others are working to curb escalation for fear of an explosion. This division weakens any collective effort to contain the crisis and turns the region into a testing ground for conflicting international wills, where the security of small and medium-sized countries becomes merely a detail in the calculations of major powers.