Israeli National Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir issued new inflammatory statements, calling for West Bank villages to be dealt with in the same military manner used in the town of Beit Hanoun in the Gaza Strip. These statements came in the wake of violent armed confrontations that erupted near the town of Tel and the 'Havat Gilad' settlement in Nablus Governorate, leading to casualties and injuries on both sides.

Ben Gvir affirmed that he would submit an official request to issue military orders for the destruction of homes belonging to Palestinians who participate in operations or provide support to those he described as 'terrorists'. The extremist minister stressed the necessity of making Palestinians pay a heavy price, in the form of losing land and property, for every injury or death among settlers.

On the ground, the Palestinian Ministry of Health announced the martyrdom of 4 and the injury of 4 others with varying degrees of wounds, describing the condition of 3 of them as extremely critical, during the confrontations witnessed in the town of Tel, southwest of Nablus. This toll comes amidst an escalation in the pace of attacks carried out by settlers under the protection of occupation forces in various contact areas in the West Bank.

In contrast, Israeli medical sources reported the killing of one settler and the injury of three others with varying degrees of wounds due to the armed attack that occurred near the 'Havat Gilad' outpost. The sources indicated that the clash was violent and involved the use of firearms, necessitating rapid intervention by army forces stationed in the area.

Accounts of the beginning of the incident varied, with Israeli media claiming that a group of Palestinians attacked settlers who were hiking in the area, snatched a pistol from one of them, and used it to open fire. This account claims that the attack was sudden and targeted 'civilians' in an open area near the settlement outpost.

For its part, local Palestinian sources confirmed that the incident began with an attack by extremist settlers on the outskirts of the village of Tel, which prompted residents to confront them and defend their homes. The sources explained that settler attacks have been repeated recently under the pretext of 'hiking', which are in fact attempts to impose a new settlement reality on the village's lands.

Media reports quoted settlers as saying that the violent clash occurred near the mosque of the village of Tel, where direct hand-to-hand confrontations erupted before the situation escalated to the use of weapons. The Hebrew website 'Ynet' indicated that the area witnessed a state of widespread chaos before the arrival of Israeli army reinforcements to the scene.

Following the incident, the Israeli army announced in an official statement the dispatch of additional units and intensive military reinforcements to the Tel area and the vicinity of the 'Havat Gilad' settlement. Occupation forces began extensive search operations to pursue those they described as the perpetrators who withdrew from the clash site.

Occupation authorities imposed a strict security cordon on the entire city of Nablus, in addition to closing the entrances to the town of Tel and preventing entry or exit. Soldiers set up mobile and fixed military checkpoints on main and secondary roads, completely obstructing the movement of Palestinian citizens in the northern region of the West Bank.

A state of extreme tension prevails in Nablus Governorate, amidst fears of settlers launching retaliatory attacks against surrounding Palestinian villages and towns. These fears come in light of the political cover provided by the right-wing Israeli government, specifically Ben Gvir's statements that explicitly call for the demolition of homes and displacement.

Local sources reported that occupation forces raided several homes in the town of Tel and carried out search operations and destruction of property, coinciding with intensive reconnaissance aircraft flying over the area. Palestinian popular activities demand the necessity of providing international protection for unarmed civilians in the face of the aggression of settlers and the occupation army.

Observers believe that Ben Gvir's statements regarding 'Beit Hanoun' represent a dangerous escalation that paves the way for large-scale destruction operations in the West Bank, similar to what is happening in the Gaza Strip. Analysts warn that adopting such policies will lead to an uncontrollable explosion of the situation in all occupied territories.

In conclusion of the developments, occupation forces continue their siege of Nablus city, while Palestinian families prepare to mourn the four martyrs amidst calls for a general strike and popular anger. The field situation remains prone to further escalation in light of the continued official Israeli incitement against the Palestinian presence in the West Bank.

West Bank villages must be treated as Beit Hanoun was treated, and for every Jew killed, the enemy must bear the loss of land and homes.

US President Donald Trump announced, via his 'Truth Social' platform, his preliminary approval for a civilian nuclear cooperation agreement between the US Department of Energy and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Trump clarified that this direction comes within the framework of strengthening the strategic partnership between Washington and Riyadh, with a focus on developing the peaceful energy sector in the region.

Trump stressed in his statements that this agreement will be strictly limited to non-military uses, and no nuclear material enrichment operations will be permitted on Saudi territory under it. He indicated that these standards are consistent with similar agreements concluded by the United States with other countries in the region, such as the United Arab Emirates, to ensure the highest levels of safety and oversight.

In a move reflecting his administration's political orientations, the US President definitively linked the completion of this file to Saudi Arabia's accession to the 'Abraham Accords'. Trump described these agreements as having achieved great and respected success, considering them the fundamental pillar upon which any major understandings in the Middle East must be based in the coming period.

Informed sources confirmed that the current US position does not oppose the construction of civilian nuclear facilities as long as they adhere to non-enrichment protocols, which opens the door for broad technical cooperation between the two countries. However, the political condition related to regional normalization remains the primary obstacle or key to implementing this ambitious nuclear project on the ground.

It is worth noting that this announcement comes at a sensitive time when the region is witnessing major diplomatic shifts, as Washington seeks to expand the circle of countries involved in the regional peace process. The link between nuclear technology and political files represents a clear pressure tool by Trump to ensure comprehensive strategic gains in the Arab-Israeli relations file.

The approval of the civilian nuclear deal is entirely contingent on Saudi Arabia's accession to the Abraham Accords.

International press reports revealed the Islamic Republic of Iran's rejection of an official American proposal aimed at a ceasefire, which was conveyed by Iraqi Prime Minister Ali Al-Zaidi during his recent visit to Tehran. This move comes amid escalating military and field tensions between Washington and Tehran, as the US administration seeks to contain the explosive situation in the region through direct diplomatic channels.

Informed sources stated that the proposal presented by Al-Zaidi represents the first initiative drafted by Washington unilaterally, without the traditional intervention of mediators who usually present consensual formulas. These moves followed a visit by the Iraqi Prime Minister to the United States, during which he met with President Donald Trump and senior national security officials at the White House, reflecting an increasing American reliance on Baghdad as a reliable communication channel.

During his visit to the Iranian capital, Al-Zaidi held a series of high-level meetings, including with Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian, Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, and Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi. The Iraqi delegation discussed opportunities to de-escalate military tensions, but the Iranian side expressed deep reservations about the content of the American paper currently on the table for discussion.

Sources confirmed that Tehran showed no interest in a temporary ceasefire that does not address the fundamental issues affecting its national security, primarily the issue of control over the Strait of Hormuz. The Iranian leadership believes that any political settlement that does not include clear understandings regarding navigation and sovereignty in the strait remains incomplete and does not meet its strategic aspirations in the region.

In the first official comment on these developments, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi clarified that the Iraqi Prime Minister had indeed conveyed his impressions of the situation in Washington. However, Araghchi stressed that his country does not suffer from a lack of communication channels or mediators, indicating that the real obstacle lies in what he described as the 'illogical' American behavior.

The head of Iranian diplomacy considered that the current crisis is not about the means of conveying messages, but rather about the content of the commitments that Washington is willing to implement. He pointed out that 'greed and the pursuit of hegemony' on the part of the US administration is what hinders reaching real understandings that would end the current military conflict.

Iran's interpretation of the American initiative indicates deep skepticism about Washington's seriousness in fulfilling any future commitments if negotiations resume. Sources believe that Tehran prefers to wait and observe American actions on the ground, especially in light of continued threats to target vital facilities and infrastructure within Iranian territory.

On the ground, sources revealed that the Iranian armed forces have developed comprehensive operational plans to deal with any potential American attack that might target energy or transportation centers. These plans include rapid response scenarios aimed at deterring the American side and preventing it from expanding the scope of its airstrikes, which recently targeted vital airports, bridges, and ports.

Tehran warned that it might resort to expanding the scope of the regional confrontation if its infrastructure suffers severe damage, including direct strikes against targets in Tel Aviv. Iranian threats also included the possibility of instructing its allies in Yemen, specifically the Houthi group, to close the Bab al-Mandab Strait to international navigation as a strategic pressure tool.

These developments come after weeks of mutual military escalation, where US forces carried out concentrated strikes targeting Iranian military bases and railways. In response, Tehran launched barrages of ballistic missiles and suicide drones towards US military sites in the region, raising international concern about the outbreak of a full-scale war.

Observers believe that Washington's reliance on Baghdad to convey messages reflects the Iraqi government's position as an ally that maintains balanced relations with both warring parties. Although Iraq is positioned to play an acceptable mediating role, the complexities of the unresolved issues between Tehran and Washington make Al-Zaidi's mission fraught with extreme difficulties.

In conclusion, it appears that communication channels remain open despite the sound of explosions, but the gap in ceasefire conditions remains very wide. The future of the Strait of Hormuz and mutual security guarantees remain the main stumbling block to any diplomatic breakthrough that could end the current round of escalation between the two powers.

The problem is not in conveying messages, as mediators exist and dialogue channels are open, but rather in the illogical, greedy, and hegemonic view of the United States.

The Minister of National Security in the Israeli occupation government, Itamar Ben Gvir, called for adopting a policy of comprehensive destruction targeting Palestinian cities and villages in the occupied West Bank. The extremist minister considered it necessary to emulate the military model used in the Gaza Strip, specifically what happened in the town of Beit Hanoun, and apply it to West Bank areas in response to operations carried out by the Palestinian resistance.

Ben Gvir affirmed in his recent statements that he would pressure the government to issue direct instructions to the occupation army to demolish Palestinian homes and confiscate vast areas of their lands. These demands come in the context of escalating incitement rhetoric adopted by the far-right, with the aim of imposing a new geographical and demographic reality through excessive military force and a policy of collective punishment.

The Israeli minister stressed the necessity of making Palestinians pay a heavy price, represented by the loss of their properties and real estate, when any attacks targeting settlers occur, indicating that land loss is the only deterrent from his point of view. These trends reflect a determination to expand the scope of targeting to include infrastructure and civilian structures in the West Bank, going beyond traditional military operations to systematic destruction.

These fascist calls coincide with the escalating pace of incursions carried out by the occupation army and settlers into holy sites and Palestinian towns, which portends a new wave of forced displacement. Observers believe that Ben Gvir seeks to exploit the current field tensions to pass major settlement projects and establish facts on the ground that would end any possibility of Palestinian sovereignty over the occupied territories.

“West Bank cities and villages should be treated as Beit Hanoun town in the Gaza Strip was treated, and I will demand direct orders to destroy homes and confiscate lands.”

The Palestinian Ministry of Health announced the martyrdom of four individuals and the critical injury of four other citizens, as a result of an aggression launched by the Israeli occupation army and groups of settlers on the village of Tell, located southwest of Nablus city. Medical teams confirmed that the martyrs are Farouk Adnan Ali Ramadan, Ibrahim Hussein Ali Ramadan, Jawad Hussein Ali Ramadan, and Imran Ahmed Ali Ramadan, who were directly targeted by occupation fire during the confrontations.

Local sources reported that the confrontations erupted after the villagers confronted a wide-scale attack carried out by settlers under heavy protection from occupation forces, targeting citizens' properties and agricultural lands. Occupation forces used live ammunition and tear gas extensively to secure the settlers' incursion, leading to this large number of casualties and injured individuals who were transferred to Rafidia Governmental Hospital for treatment.

In a related context, field sources revealed a qualitative shooting operation that coincided with the attack, where a young Palestinian managed to seize a weapon from one of the attacking settlers during a hand-to-hand clash. The young man used the seized weapon to fire at occupation forces and security personnel present near the 'Havat Gilad' settlement outpost established on citizens' lands west of Nablus, causing confusion among the aggressors.

For its part, Israeli media admitted the death of a settler who succumbed to his serious injuries, and the injury of three others with varying degrees of injuries, including a security officer and settlement guards. Hebrew reports described the incident as serious, noting that the operation took place at point-blank range after one of the armed individuals was disarmed, which necessitated a large mobilization of the occupation army in the area.

Following the operation, occupation forces imposed a comprehensive security cordon on Tell village and its surrounding areas, closing main and secondary entrances with earth mounds and concrete blocks. They also deployed additional special forces and military vehicles that stormed the outskirts of the town and began extensive search operations for the perpetrators, amidst sporadic confrontations with angry youths.

Nablus Governorate is experiencing a state of extreme tension, as national forces and popular movements called for general mobilization and to confront the escalating settler attacks. Residents warned of settlers' intention to carry out retaliatory attacks against isolated homes, affirming their continued steadfastness and defense of the village despite the heavy sacrifices made in recent hours.

Rafidia Governmental Hospital received a number of injuries resulting from the occupation forces' intensive firing of live ammunition at citizens who stood to defend their lands.

Washington Message

Washington – Said Ghraiqat – 24/7/2026

In a scene reflecting the growing division within the American political establishment regarding the war with Iran, the House of Representatives, on Thursday, voted in favor of a resolution calling on President Donald Trump to end the participation of American forces in military operations, while the Senate rejected a stronger bill that would have legally obliged the administration to stop the war. This contradiction highlights the extent of the disagreement between the two chambers, and at the same time reveals the delicate political balances that govern the Republican Party's handling of a war that has become one of the most rejected foreign conflicts in American public opinion.

The House of Representatives voted 214 to 208 in favor of the non-binding resolution, with the support of all Democrats and the joining of four Republicans: Thomas Massie, Tom Barrett, Warren Davidson, and Brian Fitzpatrick, in a clear political message calling on the administration to withdraw American forces from hostilities against Iran.

However, the resolution, despite its political importance, does not carry legal force that obliges the White House to implement it, which prompted Democrats to move the battle to the Senate, where a "joint resolution" with the force of law was introduced, but it failed by a vote of 49 to 47, after Republican Senator Susan Collins joined the Democrats, while other Republicans (almost all of them) voted against it, with the exception of four members who were absent from the vote.

This discrepancy reveals a striking paradox; a number of Republicans had previously publicly affirmed that the continuation of the war for more than sixty days requires congressional authorization under the War Powers Act, yet they simultaneously rejected the resolution that would have ended military operations. Among them were Senators Tom Tillis and John Curtis.

Tillis justified his position by saying that the sixty-day deadline began in July, not in February when the United States and Israel began their military strikes against Iran, considering that the administration did not officially describe what was happening as "war" until July 10. He added that Congress should grant formal authorization if operations continue after the legal deadline, in a reference to the Republicans' attempt to legitimize the war constitutionally rather than stop it.

This proposal reflects an attempt to balance constitutional considerations and political support for the president, as Tillis said that Congress can "help the president in an unpopular war by giving it legal legitimacy," a statement that reveals an awareness within the Republican Party of the growing popular opposition to the war, while at the same time being careful not to appear to be abandoning the president.

For their part, Democrats stressed that the goal of repeatedly introducing bills to end the war is not limited to trying to stop military operations, but also to record the positions of Republicans before the midterm elections, and to re-emphasize that the Constitution grants Congress, not the president, the authority to declare wars.

Gregory Meeks, the senior Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, said that the House vote reflects the beginning of Congress's response to the will of Americans, noting that about 70% of citizens oppose the war and consider it a "war of choice." He added that Democrats are considering using other constitutional tools, including the power to approve the budget, to pressure the administration to end military operations.

Meeks also announced his intention to introduce a resolution to prosecute the Trump administration for exceeding congressional powers in managing the war, to be put to a vote after the House returns from its summer recess, in a move that could open a new constitutional confrontation between the legislative and executive branches.

In contrast, Republicans, especially those representing swing districts, face increasing political pressure due to the economic repercussions of the war. Republican Representative Rob Briesehan acknowledged that voters link the war to rising fuel and fertilizer prices, but stressed that Iran should not possess nuclear weapons, while at the same time calling for a quick end to the crisis and the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz to ease economic pressures.

Despite these concerns, Briesehan chose to vote against the resolution to end the war, a position that reflects the dilemma many Republicans face between adhering to national security rhetoric and confronting voters concerned about the economic and political costs of the war.

This was not the first time Congress voted against the continuation of the war; the House of Representatives had previously approved a similar resolution in early June by a majority of 215 to 208, before the Senate also adopted the non-binding version, but the administration continued its military operations unchanged.

Democratic Party leaders affirm that the continued introduction of these resolutions aims to hold Republicans politically responsible for a war that, according to opinion polls, is one of the least popular wars in modern American history. Representative Pramila Jayapal said that even a large part of Trump's "MAGA" base is now looking suspiciously at the continuation of the war, considering that many of the president's supporters believed his promises to end "endless wars," not to enter new ones.

The votes in both chambers reflect the fact that the debate in Washington is no longer limited to the war with Iran, but has become about the limits of presidential power itself. For decades, the White House's powers to use military force without explicit congressional authorization have expanded, while lawmakers have often settled for delayed reactions. Today, Democrats are trying to reclaim this constitutional role, while many Republicans prefer to maintain the president's freedom of action, even while acknowledging that there are legal restrictions that should be respected.

The limited Republican division does not reflect a deep ideological disagreement as much as it reflects varying electoral calculations. Most of the Republicans who joined the Democrats represent more moderate constituencies or enjoy greater political independence, while most party members prefer not to directly challenge Trump. Therefore, the vote in the House of Representatives was a political protest message, but it did not reach the level of forming a Republican bloc capable of forcing actual change in the course of the war.

Public opinion is becoming increasingly important in this matter as the midterm elections approach, as opinion polls indicate that the majority of Americans oppose the continuation of the war, not only because of military losses, but also as a result of its economic repercussions on energy prices, inflation, and supply chains. Hence, Democrats are seeking to turn the war into a domestic electoral issue, while Republicans are trying to avoid appearing to support an open war, without abandoning support for the president or his foreign policies.

The voting results reveal that the future of the war may be determined politically more than militarily. If military operations continue without achieving clear objectives, and their popularity continues to decline, the White House may find itself facing increasing pressure from Congress when discussing the budget and funding the Department of Defense. At that point, federal spending tools and constitutional lawsuits may become more effective means than symbolic resolutions, forcing the administration to re-evaluate the cost of the war domestically before its calculations on the battlefields.

Today, Thursday, all eyes turn to the General Assembly Hall of the United Nations, where the six candidates for the position of Secretary-General will participate in a public debate, the first of its kind in this critical temporal context. This step comes one week before the official launch of the selection process, which is described as crucial for the future of the international organization, suffering from deep structural and financial crises.

The list of contenders includes prominent names from diverse political and diplomatic backgrounds: Michelle Bachelet of Chile, María Fernanda Espinosa of Ecuador, and Rafael Grossi of Argentina. Also participating in the race are Rebeca Grynspan of Costa Rica, Caroline Rodrigues-Birkett of Guyana, and Macky Sall of Senegal, all seeking to present their visions to the international community.

The debate is scheduled to last 90 minutes, during which candidates will answer questions posed by diplomats, UN staff, and civil society representatives. The event is being broadcast across international media platforms, enhancing the transparency of a process that has historically been conducted behind closed doors in the corridors of the Security Council.

General Assembly President Annalena Baerbock affirmed that this discussion represents a fundamental opportunity to understand the candidates' priorities and how they would deal with a fragmented world. She explained that the organization not only needs an administrative manager but also leadership with integrity and the ability to defend the UN Charter in the areas of peace and human rights.

The United Nations is currently facing increasing pressure, particularly from the US administration led by Donald Trump, which criticizes what it describes as uncontrolled spending and the inability to achieve tangible results. Washington demands that the organization return to its core pillar of maintaining international peace and security as a top priority above other issues.

Amidst these tensions, candidates are trying to balance strict American demands with the red lines set by other major powers in the Security Council. This diplomatic balancing act is a key to gaining the support of the five permanent member states, which hold veto power against any candidate not aligned with their interests.

Procedurally, the fifteen members of the Security Council will hold a closed session on July 30 to cast their initial opinions in a secret straw poll. This procedure aims to narrow down the names and identify the candidate who enjoys the greatest international consensus before being put forward to the General Assembly for official appointment.

International observers believe that the current race lacks the momentum seen in the 2016 campaign, which concluded with the selection of António Guterres. Analysts from the International Crisis Group noted that candidates are employing very cautious strategies to avoid angering major powers, making the competition appear less politically vibrant publicly.

Despite the caution, candidates in previous hearings emphasized the necessity of radical reforms to make the organization more effective in confronting global conflicts. The importance of the Secretary-General's role as a peacemaker and a driver of diplomatic efforts in conflict zones, where traditional tools have so far failed to address them, stands out.

Diplomatic reports indicate that the nomination market is still open to surprises, as many major capitals have not yet finalized their choices. While Rafael Grossi is seen as one of the frontrunners, the support enjoyed by Rebeca Grynspan and Rodrigues-Birkett makes the outcome by no means decided.

The geographical and gender aspects are not absent from the behind-the-scenes race, as Latin American countries demand their right to the position based on the non-binding custom of geographical rotation. At the same time, calls are growing for the necessity of breaking the male monopoly on the position and appointing a woman for the first time in the UN's eighty-year history.

In a notable development, media circles have circulated unofficial names that might enter the race at the last minute, including FIFA President Gianni Infantino. These leaks come at a sensitive time, as the winner is expected to officially assume duties at the beginning of 2027, ushering in a new era in international affairs management.

This public discussion will provide a rare opportunity to learn about the candidates' ideas, priorities, and vision for one of the most important positions in the world.

For 12 days, civilizations and cultures met in a warm atmosphere of love and brotherhood, as if they were an extended family under one roof, with the most prominent title being "China Gathers Us." Between serious work and lighthearted banter, participating delegations from different countries and continents learned about each other's cultures, just as they witnessed the progress and perfection achieved by the People's Republic of China with great effort for its ancient civilization. At the heart of this was the Palestinian issue, present through effective solidarity and genuine support, achieved through the efforts of the International Liaison Department of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China, which exerted all its efforts to make the exploratory visit to think tanks a success. We will discuss the Chinese experience in a later article, including real observations from the mission to lift about 800 million people out of poverty as part of President Xi Jinping's plan. The ability of the International Liaison Department to bring us together under one theme and various meetings is a success story in itself. In this context, I cannot forget Comrade Sebastien from the French Party of Progress and Renaissance, who was a sincere defender and supporter of the Palestinian cause with his words and feelings, and Comrade Martha from the Spanish Communist Party, who wore the Palestinian Keffiyeh throughout the visit, and Peter from Kenya, director of the Institute for African Studies, who was a friend of Palestine. It was a journey through which we got to know each other, and it brought together brothers in China who affirmed that it is possible to have dialogue and cooperation between civilizations, not conflict. Free peoples always show solidarity with each other's causes and defend them. Comrade Nibaz from the Communist Party of Iraqi Kurdistan was a man with a cause, just as we exchange views and soar in the clear skies of China, which, with 65 nationalities, has managed to unite behind the leadership of the Chinese Communist Party to build a modern society, while our Arab and Islamic nation remains fragmented and shattered, even in defending the Palestinian cause, which all of them consider a priority and their central issue. This forum truly represented a profound vision that transcends geographical boundaries, summarizing the pivotal role it plays in bringing peoples and cultures closer together. Through its strategic initiatives such as the "Belt and Road," Beijing has transformed into a global meeting point that promotes commercial, technological, and human exchange between East and West. Today, thanks to this visit, we gained new comrades from Indonesia, defenders of our people's cause. Ahmed Zuhri pursued us with questions about Palestine and its people, and from the Maldives, support continues, expressed by Azam Wajeeh, who sent us official positions regarding our people's cause and wrote with great love for Palestine, which he wishes to visit. From the farthest corners of the earth in Australia, Comrade Lima opened the doors of the Australian Communist Party's magazine to us, to be a window for public opinion in Australia. From the descendants of Mandela, partners in the struggle against racial discrimination, Comrade Sekou said, "Palestine is free, and we are with it in its struggle against apartheid." In contrast, the development taking place in China leaves you bewildered about where to start and how to end your writing, as the details are many and progress is rapid, and the leadership seeks development. Secretary-General Comrade Xi Jinping inspects the conditions of the provinces, searching for the poor to develop the country and move the condition of the people from poverty to prosperity, while our poor still block streets or stand in front of government headquarters to make their voices and suffering heard. There is another experience that seeks to be transferred in a way that suits the characteristics of other countries. China does not impose its vision in a globalization mold to imitate it and impose its hegemony, but rather gives you an experience and tells you, "Apply from it what you wish, and we will help you." Whoever can bring these cultures together under one roof and create interaction among them, "China Gathers Us" summarizes a realistic truth that common global challenges require collective action and continuous integration. China's endeavors towards building a "community with a shared future for humanity" open wide horizons towards a more interconnected, just, and prosperous world, where efforts are combined to ensure a better and brighter future for coming generations. I do not hide the admiration for the precision of the organization and the spirit of the collective team that was present in every step, paragraph, and whisper from the comrades in the Chinese Communist Party, the host. From the smiles of the translator, Comrade Salem, who accompanied us on our journey, to the organized atmosphere and the orchestra conductor of the organization, to Qasim, the son of the wonderful city of Ningxia, who showed actual solidarity and love for Palestine, you are here as a guest of the Chinese Communist Party, a beehive playing a symphony with its most beautiful melodies. You only feel that you are with friends you have known for years. In every region we visited, from Gansu to Beijing to Ningxia to the neighboring villages, you feel as if you are in Palestine. It is the intimate friendship that unites the two peoples and countries. Yes, China deserves to lead today's world, which seeks a vision based on cooperation, mutual benefit, a culture of dialogue, and respect for others. Most importantly, it is not a consumer culture and exploitative patterns, but an advanced civilized model that still adheres to its values and culture. When talking about this visit, everything needs more detail than words can convey. We left China with a feeling that it had not left us, and we became a group from around the world who see and write with global eyes. To be fair, my smoking companion, Jean from the Turkish Homeland Party, was also among those who accompanied me on this visit and was loyal to Palestine, and Gopal from Nepal, my brother and friend, whose cheerful spirit I miss, and Sumaya from Angola, who wore the flag of Palestine, confirming that victory is near. Truly, "those whose hearts are united walk together, and those whose paths are united cooperate until success." At its center stands His Excellency Ambassador Sun Chen, Director of the Office of the People's Republic of China to the State of Palestine, at the reception ceremony on the occasion of the 105th anniversary of the founding of the Chinese Communist Party and his assumption of the new position in Palestine, which confirms the depth and continuity of historical relations between Palestine and China. He also expressed a mutual feeling that we felt in China and he feels in Palestine, saying: "Despite the thousands of miles between China and Palestine, I did not feel like a stranger for a moment. Since my arrival two weeks ago to assume my duties, whenever I spoke with Palestinian friends, I felt a familiarity as if we were old friends meeting again." A clear discourse that confirms China's continued support for the Palestinian people, so that the two peoples remain close brothers and loyal partners who exchange trust and support. This is the greatness of China and the strength of its discourse. *Member of the Political Bureau of the Palestinian Popular Struggle Front

Informed sources revealed that major Israeli banks are moving to terminate correspondent banking relationships with Palestinian financial institutions in the coming months, a step that threatens to deepen the economic crisis in the Palestinian territories. According to officials, 'Discount Bank' intends to cut its ties on September 1st, followed by 'Bank Hapoalim' in early October, justifying this with legal concerns related to terrorism financing and money laundering in the absence of a sustainable Israeli government solution.

Governor of the Palestinian Monetary Authority, Yahya Shanar, warned of catastrophic repercussions of this decision, noting that the two banks manage financial transfers estimated at about 51 billion shekels ($16.6 billion) annually. Shanar explained that 90% of Palestinian trade, which includes essential goods such as food, fuel, and medicine, relies entirely on these banking channels passing through Israel, stressing that their disruption will lead to the collapse of supply chains and paralysis of government operations.

These developments come amid pressure exerted by Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich, who controls the tax and banking exemption mechanism. Despite international assurances from the United States and Britain that the Palestinian financial system complies with international standards for combating money laundering, Israeli banks express concern about exposure to international lawsuits unless permanent legal guarantees are provided by the Israeli government, which puts the Palestinian economy before its toughest test in decades.

These channels are a cornerstone of the infrastructure that supports our trade, business sector, and the livelihoods of millions, and their disruption will have severe consequences for the entire region.

US President Donald Trump announced that Iran and the Houthi group would face a violent military response, following the group's announcement of targeting two Saudi oil tankers in the Red Sea. Trump affirmed that Washington would hold Tehran directly responsible for any future attacks carried out by the group, describing them as proxies working on behalf of the Iranian regime.

These field developments led to severe disruptions in energy markets, with Brent crude prices jumping to over $100 per barrel, an increase of 6%. These threats come after the collapse of a temporary truce, followed by the US military carrying out airstrikes inside Iran, and Tehran responding by targeting US bases in Jordan and Kuwait, thus expanding the conflict to vital shipping lanes.

For his part, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio stated that pressure on Tehran would escalate nightly until it agrees to a new deal, noting that Iran is incurring heavy losses due to the current confrontation. In a related context, security sources confirmed that the tanker 'Incelia' caught fire after a missile attack near Jazan port, while the Jordanian army announced it intercepted Iranian missiles and drones that penetrated its airspace.

These Houthi attacks raise international concerns about the closure of the Bab al-Mandab Strait, a key artery for global trade and energy. US officials warned that imposing a naval blockade on Saudi exports could drag the region into an all-out war, at a time when Trump threatened to target Iranian infrastructure, including power stations and bridges, for every attack on ships in international waters.

If they do that again, the United States will hold Iran responsible, because the Houthis are a proxy force for Iran, and a very harsh military punishment will be inflicted upon them.

Media sources have revealed details of an extensive investigative report addressing the cyber and intelligence operation carried out by Israel in Lebanon in mid-September 2024, which became known in the media as the 'Buttons Operation'. The investigation sheds light on one of the most mysterious operations in contemporary security history, in which thousands of booby-trapped wireless communication devices were used, leading to over 3,500 casualties, including martyrs and injured.

The investigative work was based on a meticulous tracing of company records and field data in several countries to reconstruct the complex planning network managed by Israeli intelligence. Financial documents showed that 'PAC Consulting', the company contracted by Hezbollah to supply the devices, was merely a front managed by a single person, part of a system of shell companies specifically established to pass the booby-trapped shipments into the party's supply chain.

The investigation includes the first televised testimony from a leading Hezbollah official, who recounts the details of purchasing the devices and the inspection mechanisms they underwent before distribution, confirming that the first shipments entered Lebanese territory before the events of October 7th. The official also revealed the existence of thousands of additional devices that were en route to Lebanon via Turkish territory during the war, and which also contained carefully concealed explosive materials.

On the technical front, the investigation provided a precise engineering breakdown explaining how explosive materials were integrated into the batteries of the pager devices in a way that allowed them to bypass traditional inspection procedures and explosive detection devices. This analysis relied on examining original samples and evidence from devices that did not explode, revealing a high level of professionalism in manufacturing and technical camouflage employed by intelligence agencies to carry out the attack.

Finally, the investigation discussed the legal ramifications of this operation with the help of experts in international humanitarian law, who indicated that the indiscriminate nature of the attack could classify it as a war crime. The criminal responsibility that might pursue the network of intermediaries and companies that contributed to the manufacturing and transport of these devices was also reviewed, emphasizing that the use of civilian tools as explosive traps represents a blatant violation of international norms and conventions.

The operation may amount to a war crime according to analyses by international humanitarian law experts who tracked the manufacturing and marketing process of the booby-trapped devices.

A global observatory specializing in hunger monitoring has issued strong warnings about the deteriorating humanitarian situation in the Gaza Strip, confirming that more than two-thirds of the population are at risk of falling into the grip of severe hunger before the end of this year. This sharp decline comes as a result of international relief agencies reducing humanitarian aid flows, driven by a severe funding shortage and restrictions on access.

The latest assessment from the Integrated Food Security Phase Classification (IPC) clarified that the limited gains made in reducing acute malnutrition levels, especially among children, are now threatened with complete erosion. These improvements had occurred after a temporary increase in food supplies and nutrition services following the ceasefire in October 2025, but the current reality indicates a serious setback.

The technical report indicated that food consumption remains below the minimum required levels for most Palestinian families in the Strip, which has driven some families to take desperate measures. Field teams observed some citizens resorting to begging or searching for food scraps in landfills to secure their daily sustenance in the absence of alternatives.

Statistical data indicates that about 1.2 million people, equivalent to 59% of Gaza's population, faced hunger levels classified as 'crisis' or worse during the period from mid-April to the end of June 2026. Among these, about 212,000 people live in an extreme food emergency that directly threatens their lives.

International experts expect the number of people suffering from acute food insecurity to rise to more than 1.4 million people by next December. This means that about 67% of the total population of the Strip will be under the burden of severe hunger if the pace of aid shortages and current military operations continues.

The vast majority of the Strip's population relies entirely on external humanitarian aid after nearly two years of the genocidal war waged by the occupation forces. This ongoing war has destroyed the economic infrastructure and displaced most of the population, making self-reliance impossible under the current circumstances.

The IPC had previously indicated a decline in famine conditions in some areas, but it reiterated that this progress is very fragile and vulnerable to collapse. With the beginning of the decrease in the volume of incoming aid, the features of a deeper crisis began to emerge, threatening the most vulnerable groups in Palestinian society within the besieged Strip.

Supplementary nutrition programs for sensitive groups have been directly affected, with the number of pregnant and lactating women benefiting from these programs halved. The number of beneficiaries decreased to only 6,000 women between January and May of this year, portending a health catastrophe for future generations.

The international report attributes the reasons for these reductions to significant funding gaps in UN organizations, in addition to the state of security uncertainty. Relief organizations face extreme difficulties in accessing various areas of the Strip, which hinders the fair and sustainable distribution of available food and medical supplies.

For its part, the Israeli occupation authorities continued to reject the findings of international reports, describing them as 'biased'. Despite acknowledging a food shortage in previous periods, they consistently deny pursuing a systematic starvation policy, claiming that they allow sufficient quantities of aid to enter through the crossings they control.

In a related context, relief organizations warned of a comprehensive and unprecedented collapse of water and sanitation networks within the Strip, which exacerbates the hunger crisis by spreading diseases. Potable water is no longer available as a public service but has become an arduous task requiring risk and waiting for long hours in extended queues.

Legally, the independent international commission of inquiry of the United Nations confirmed that Israeli practices in Gaza amount to genocide. The commission clarified that turning daily survival into a continuous battle for bread and medicine is part of a broader strategy to destroy the means of life for Palestinians.

On the ground, medical sources in the Gaza Strip reported a terrifying increase in the number of victims of the ongoing Israeli aggression since October 7, 2023. The Ministry of Health recorded the martyrdom of 73,311 citizens and the injury of 173,924 others, a toll that reflects the immense human devastation inflicted on the Strip during the months of war.

Food consumption remains insufficient for most families in the Gaza Strip, and some are resorting to searching for food in garbage to survive.

The US Central Command (CENTCOM) announced a new round of intensive airstrikes against military targets inside Iranian territory early Friday. These military operations are part of a continuous series of attacks for the thirteenth consecutive night, amid an unprecedented escalation between Washington and Tehran in the region.

Military sources explained that the raids began at 6:45 PM Eastern Time, targeting sites belonging to the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps. Official statements indicated that the purpose of this move is to undermine Tehran's ability to threaten international commercial navigation in vital waterways.

On the ground, media sources reported hearing violent explosions shaking several areas in southern and southwestern Iran, coinciding with the American announcement. These explosions were concentrated in the city of Ahvaz, where eyewitnesses reported flames rising from specific locations after hearing intense aircraft sounds.

In the strategic Strait of Hormuz region, local reports confirmed explosions in the vicinity of the village of Mesen on Qeshm Island. Sources indicated that at least two missiles targeted points near the island, which directly overlooks the most important waterway for global oil trade, raising a state of alert in the region.

The attacks also targeted the coastal city of Bandar Abbas, where a powerful explosion was heard in the western part of the city early today. Iranian authorities have not yet disclosed the exact human or material losses resulting from this new round of concentrated aerial bombardment.

This field escalation comes just two days after strong threats issued by US President Donald Trump against the Iranian leadership. Trump threatened to directly target vital infrastructure in Iran, including bridges and power generation stations, if attacks on commercial vessels continued.

Washington had accused Tehran of being behind a series of attacks using drones and missiles targeting its military bases and facilities in neighboring countries. The United States views these airstrikes as a necessary response to deter Iranian activities it describes as destabilizing the regional stability.

It is worth noting that the current state of tension comes after the collapse of a memorandum of understanding signed between the two parties last June, which aimed to stop the fighting and begin comprehensive negotiations. However, the US President announced on July 8 that the ceasefire had ended, accusing Iran of violating the agreement by targeting oil tankers.

The United States insists on the necessity of ensuring absolute freedom of navigation through the Strait of Hormuz without any interference from Iranian forces. In contrast, Tehran rejects these pressures and insists on imposing its own regulatory mechanism for passage through the waterway, which lies within its territorial waters and southern coasts.

Reports indicate that the current confrontations could escalate into a wider conflict in the absence of any effective diplomatic communication channels between the two countries at present. International powers are watching with concern the repercussions of this escalation on global energy prices and the security of waterways in the Gulf region.

As of now, the US Central Command has not released technical details about the type of aircraft involved or the precise targets destroyed during last night's raids. The US Department of Defense (Pentagon) is expected to issue a detailed report in the coming hours clarifying the results of the ongoing air operations for nearly two weeks.

These strikes represent the thirteenth consecutive night of air operations, and their goal is to hold Iran accountable and limit the threats posed by the Revolutionary Guard to navigation.

The election of Khalil al-Hayya as head of the Political Bureau of the Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas) comes at a pivotal historical moment, as he assumes leadership more than 20 months after the martyrdom of his predecessor, Yahya Sinwar, in October 2024. This choice represents an important turning point in the movement's trajectory, especially since al-Hayya is considered part of the field-oriented current linked to the interior, reflecting a desire to maintain the momentum of the resistance despite field and political complexities.

The new leadership faces enormous challenges imposed by the repercussions of the ongoing Israeli aggression on the Gaza Strip and the changing balance of power in the region. Observers believe that al-Hayya came at a time when the movement needs a delicate balance between military action and international political maneuvering, especially with the decline of some traditional sources of power due to the long war and the widespread destruction of infrastructure.

Informed sources revealed that al-Hayya's election came after competition with Khaled Meshaal, with a narrow margin of votes, indicating the presence of multiple intellectual currents within the movement. However, al-Hayya's victory reinforces the continuity of the internal approach, while giving him theoretical space to conduct structural reviews that may be necessary to face the next stage, which requires greater political flexibility.

Al-Hayya outlined six strategic priorities for his term, foremost among them being a comprehensive cessation of aggression and a complete Israeli withdrawal from the Gaza Strip. He also stressed the need to provide urgent relief and ensure a dignified life for the residents, while thwarting forced displacement plans and immediately commencing reconstruction efforts and the release of prisoners from occupation jails.

Regarding the Palestinian internal front, national unity stands out as a top priority for al-Hayya, as he seeks to rebuild the institutions of the Palestine Liberation Organization on democratic foundations. This approach aims to create a united front capable of confronting political challenges, especially with the approaching legislative elections scheduled for November 2026, which raise questions about the extent of the movement's participation.

On the international level, al-Hayya seeks to strengthen the movement's relations with the Arab and Islamic surroundings, and to pressure for the activation of the role of sister countries to stop the war of extermination. His plan also includes activating international accountability to protect Palestinians and hold perpetrators of war crimes accountable, indicating a desire to use legal and diplomatic tools alongside field work.

Academics and political analysts believe that al-Hayya's inaugural speech was characterized by maintaining the movement's unity and avoiding openly raising contentious issues. Despite significant changes in the political landscape, al-Hayya did not explicitly refer to radical reviews, preferring to focus on constants that ensure the cohesion of organizational bases amid increasing external pressures.

The arms file remains the most prominent and complex challenge facing the new leadership, as the movement considers it a red line that cannot be crossed under any circumstances. With increasing regional and international pressures regarding the disarmament of Gaza, al-Hayya is likely to resort to a collective leadership approach and consult advisory bodies to distribute the responsibility of making fateful decisions in this regard.

Reports indicate a disparity in the movement's popular support, as it was significantly affected in Gaza due to the high humanitarian cost of the war, while it saw a rise in the West Bank. This disparity imposes on al-Hayya the necessity of re-weaving the relationship with the Palestinian public and listening to their aspirations, to ensure the restoration of popular and national legitimacy in the face of attempts at political exclusion.

Ultimately, experts agree that the most urgent task facing Khalil al-Hayya is to extricate the Gaza Strip from its current catastrophe and achieve genuine partnerships with national factions. Restoring credibility to the Palestinian national project requires a vision that transcends narrow partisan interests and focuses on strengthening popular steadfastness in the face of extremist Israeli policies targeting the Palestinian presence.

The six priorities announced by al-Hayya are a comprehensive cessation of aggression, relief and reconstruction, and achieving Palestinian national unity.

The village of Tel, located north of the occupied West Bank, witnessed fierce field confrontations, after residents and revolutionary youth confronted a provocative incursion carried out by groups of extremist settlers. Field sources reported that the confrontations erupted at the doorstep of the village mosque, where settlers attempted to carry out attacks against properties and holy sites under tight security protection.

During the direct clashes, popular resistance fighters managed to ambush the security official of the 'Havat Gilad' settlement and completely disarm him of his personal weapon. News from the area indicated that the seized weapon was immediately used to retaliate against the attackers, resulting in the injury of the security officer and two settlers with injuries described as minor to moderate.

Following the incident, Israeli occupation forces imposed a comprehensive security cordon on Tel village and the vicinity of Nablus city, declaring the area a closed military zone. Occupation vehicles closed main entrances and vital intersections, completely obstructing the movement of Palestinian citizens amidst a state of extreme tension that prevailed in the area.

The occupation army deployed massive military reinforcements, including special units and armored vehicles, to secure the evacuation of the injured settlers and transport them to hospitals inside the Green Line. Occupation forces also launched extensive search operations in the hills surrounding the village in search of the young men who managed to withdraw after successfully carrying out the weapon seizure operation.

These developments come amid an escalation in the pace of attacks carried out by armed settler gangs against Palestinian villages and towns in the West Bank. Observers believe that this confrontation reflects a development in the methods of popular Palestinian response to attempts to impose settlement realities by force, and confirms the failure of the security system to protect settlers during their provocative incursions.

Revolutionary youth succeeded in seizing the weapon of the security official of Havat Gilad settlement and using it to retaliate against the attackers.

The British government emphasized the utmost readiness of its armed forces in the face of any security threats, affirming its ability to protect the United Kingdom's territory and its interests abroad. This announcement comes in response to warnings issued by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, which threatened to target British bases if American bombers were allowed to launch from them to carry out military missions.

Government sources clarified that London is following an integrated and multi-layered defensive strategy, which includes air and missile defense systems, and relies on close coordination between the Royal Navy, Army, and Royal Air Force. The sources indicated that these movements are being carried out in cooperation with allies in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) to ensure a rapid response to any emergency around the clock.

In a related context, the new British Prime Minister, Andy Burnham, had confirmed last week the continuation of a military agreement that allows the United States to use British military facilities as part of what is known as 'collective self-defense'. These operations are primarily aimed at neutralizing missile threats targeting international shipping in the Strait of Hormuz.

Despite the tone of military preparedness, the government spokesperson affirmed that the British approach is based on adherence to international law and the protection of the people and national interests, while seeking to avoid sliding into a widespread regional conflict in the region.

Our armed forces are ready to maintain the security of the United Kingdom and protect it from any type of attack, whether on our territory or from abroad.

Two Palestinian young men were martyred by Israeli occupation forces' bullets this Thursday morning, during confrontations that erupted in the town of Beit Furik, located east of Nablus city in the northern occupied West Bank. Local sources reported that the martyrs are Mahmoud Hussein Nasrallah Hanani and Mohammed Samer Milatat, who were directly targeted by occupation soldiers with live ammunition, leading to fatal injuries from which they died on the spot.

Official sources in the General Authority for Civil Affairs stated that the occupation authorities officially informed them of the detention of the bodies of the two martyrs, Hanani and Milatat, refusing to hand them over to their families or to Palestinian medical teams. This step comes within the framework of the occupation's systematic policy of detaining the bodies of martyrs, which human rights organizations consider a blatant violation of international and humanitarian norms and a collective punishment for the victims' families.

Regarding the details of the incident, Hebrew reports claimed that the two young men attempted to carry out a stabbing operation targeting Israeli occupation army personnel stationed near the town, which soldiers used as a justification for firing heavily at them. Eyewitnesses confirmed that occupation forces imposed a strict security cordon around the area and prevented Palestinian Red Crescent ambulances from reaching the injured to provide first aid, leaving them to bleed to death.

Nablus Governorate and its surrounding villages are witnessing a continuous escalation in the pace of Israeli incursions and attacks, with repeated incidents of field executions under flimsy security pretexts. Today's crime in Beit Furik joins a series of violations targeting the Palestinian presence in the West Bank, amid international silence regarding practices of deliberate killing and denial of medical care to the wounded.

It is worth noting that the policy of detaining bodies in 'occupation refrigerators' or what is known as cemeteries of numbers, continues to be a bleeding wound for Palestinians, as the occupation continues to use this issue as a political and security pressure card. National forces and human rights organizations demand urgent international intervention to pressure the occupation government to release the detained bodies and ensure the dignity of the martyrs in burial according to Islamic law.

The General Authority for Civil Affairs confirmed that the occupation authorities detained the bodies of the two martyrs after directly shooting them and preventing ambulance crews from performing their work.

The eastern region of Nablus city, north of the occupied West Bank, witnessed severe field tensions today, Thursday, resulting in the injury of Palestinian citizens by occupation army gunfire, in addition to an Israeli settler sustaining serious injuries. These developments followed the intrusion of settler groups into agricultural lands and the outbreak of violent clashes around Palestinian towns.

Israeli military sources claimed a stabbing operation targeted a settler near the 'Elon Moreh' settlement, established on citizens' lands east of Nablus. Consequently, the occupation army deployed large military reinforcements to the area and closed the entrances to several villages, while Israeli ambulance crews began transporting the injured settler for treatment.

For its part, Israeli media outlets quoted army sources as saying that two Palestinians were 'neutralized' on suspicion of carrying out the alleged attack. This narrative comes at a time when local Palestinian sources have questioned the occupation's motives, considering these claims to be aimed at covering up systematic settler attacks against villages and towns in the area.

Field sources reported that the incident coincided with a widespread attack carried out by settlers on lands located between the towns of Salem, Beit Furik, and Beit Dajan. The settlers set fire to large areas of agricultural fields, causing the flames to spread rapidly towards inhabited homes.

Residents of Beit Furik were forced to confront the attack and try to extinguish the fires that threatened their properties, but the occupation forces provided protection to the settlers and fired live and metal bullets at the Palestinians. Medical sources confirmed that the clashes resulted in direct injuries among citizens who tried to protect their homes from burning.

In a brief statement, the Palestinian Red Crescent Society announced that its teams dealt with two live bullet injuries in the abdomen during the ongoing incursion into Beit Furik. The injured were transferred to nearby hospitals for urgent treatment, and the condition of one of them was described as requiring immediate surgical intervention.

In a related context, anti-settlement activist Bashar Al-Qaryouti stated that settlers have adopted a policy of fabricating security narratives to justify incursions and abuses. He explained that what happened in Beit Furik is a clear attempt to legitimize the burning of homes and attacks on property under the guise of 'response' to alleged operations.

Field data indicates that settler attacks in the Nablus countryside have escalated unprecedentedly in recent months, including direct shooting, livestock theft, and crop destruction. These attacks often occur under the direct protection of occupation soldiers who intervene to suppress any Palestinian attempt at self-defense.

A state of anticipation and caution prevails in the eastern villages of Nablus for fear of renewed settler attacks during the night hours, especially in light of continuous incitement through social media platforms belonging to settler groups. Occupation forces continue to impose strict restrictions on the movement of citizens in the area, hindering the access of fire brigades and volunteers to affected areas.

Settlers fabricate a story about a stabbing operation to justify their incursion and burning of homes in the village of Beit Furik.

New York City Mayor, Zohran Mamdani, acknowledged that the city's law enforcement agencies do not possess the legal authority to execute the international arrest warrant issued against Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Mamdani clarified that these limitations would become evident if Netanyahu were to visit the city to participate in the United Nations General Assembly scheduled for next September.

Mamdani called on the federal administration in Washington to review its stance and join the International Criminal Court to ensure justice. He emphasized in his statements that individuals accused of grave violations and war crimes should not find safe haven in New York, demanding firm action to activate international judicial warrants.

From a legal perspective, international law experts confirmed that the mayor faces a wall of legislative complexities that prevent any local action against foreign officials. Experts pointed out that the United States, not being a party to the Rome Statute, does not automatically recognize the decisions of the International Criminal Court nor integrate them into its domestic legal system.

In this context, Alex Whiting, a former prosecutor at the International Criminal Court, explained that current US laws do not grant states or cities the authority to enforce international arrest warrants. He added that there are explicit federal statutes that restrict any cooperation with the Court, making any attempt at arrest by New York police illegal and beyond their granted powers.

The 'American Servicemembers' Protection Act' of 2002 stands out as one of the biggest legal obstacles, as this law prohibits all US government entities from providing support to the International Criminal Court. This legislation extends to preventing the extradition of any individuals to the Court, providing legal cover that protects foreign guests pursued by the Court from arrest on American soil.

For her part, Rebecca Ingber, a former State Department attorney, drew attention to the principle of sovereign immunity enjoyed by heads of government and ministers while in their official capacities. She affirmed that international law and American diplomatic custom protect these officials from prosecution or arrest during the performance of their official duties or representation of their countries in international forums.

The matter becomes more complex when discussing United Nations meetings, as the international organization has a headquarters agreement with Washington that guarantees freedom of movement and immunity for official envoys. This agreement prevents US authorities, whether federal or local, from interfering with representatives of member states as they travel to or from the organization's headquarters, regardless of the cases filed against them.

In 2024, the International Criminal Court issued arrest warrants against Netanyahu and his former defense minister Yoav Gallant, on charges of committing war crimes in the Gaza Strip. These accusations include the use of starvation as a weapon of war and the systematic targeting of civilians, accusations that Israel completely rejects and considers politicized and illegal.

Conversely, US President Donald Trump settled the political debate on this issue, confirming that his country would provide full protection to Netanyahu during his presence in the United States. Trump indicated in statements via social media platforms that Washington would under no circumstances allow the execution of International Criminal Court warrants, which he described as exceeding national sovereignty.

Experts concluded that any attempt to arrest Netanyahu in New York would require a radical change in US foreign policy and the repeal of decades-old federal laws. Based on current data, the international arrest warrant remains merely a legal document without executive effectiveness within US borders, ensuring Netanyahu's diplomatic participation without direct legal risks.

Officials accused of war crimes have no place in New York City, but we do not have the independent authority to enforce it.

US Secretary of State Marco Rubio launched a sharp attack on Tehran, accusing it of continuing to evade commitments and agreements made with Washington. Rubio explained during a press conference in the Philippine capital, Manila, that the Iranian side is currently incurring heavy losses as a result of its escalatory policies in the region.

The head of American diplomacy considered that Iran is trying to beg for a new agreement with the United States, whether through direct or indirect channels. He indicated that the opportunity to reach a deal is still available if 'Tehran comes to its senses' and stops its practices that led to the recent strikes.

Rubio stressed that the Iranians will pay a heavy price if they insist on continuing the state of war and confrontation. He added that many international parties speaking on behalf of Tehran are trying to communicate with Washington, but the problem lies in Iran's attempt to change the terms after every understanding.

Regarding the current American strategy, Rubio affirmed that President Donald Trump's administration adopts the principle of 'an eye for an eye' in dealing with threats. He expected that leaders in Tehran would change their positions in the coming days as a result of the continuous military and economic pressures they face.

The American minister touched on the issue of the Houthis in Yemen, considering that the group was far from direct confrontation before Iranian intervention. Rubio claimed that Tehran 'deceived' the Houthis and pushed them to target ships and Saudi interests to serve its own agenda in the Red Sea.

In contrast, the Iranian army responded with an official statement confirming that military operations in the region would not stop. The Iranian military command linked the halt of its strikes to the cessation of American attacks targeting Iranian territory and coastal areas of the sea.

Official sources quoted the spokesman for the Iranian army, Mohammed Akrami Nia, as saying that the armed forces are ready for all possible scenarios. He affirmed that retaliatory attacks would continue as long as the United States continued to target the country's vital infrastructure.

Reports from Tehran indicate that Iranian officials have formulated two equations to respond to recent American threats. The first equation is that any targeting of Iranian facilities will be immediately met with a strike on vital energy facilities throughout the region.

The second equation relates to the Strait of Hormuz, where Tehran insists that the waterway will not be opened to international navigation except according to arrangements in which it participates. This response comes after American threats to strike power stations and bridges inside Iran if ships in the strait are targeted.

On the diplomatic front, sources reported that international mediators are awaiting an Iranian response to a Qatari-Pakistani proposal for de-escalation. The proposal aims to bring the parties back to the negotiating table and halt the accelerating military escalation that threatens global energy security.

Tehran adheres to the previous memorandum of understanding as a basic reference for any future dialogue with the American administration. Iran also continues its consultations with the Sultanate of Oman regarding the management of the Strait of Hormuz, emphasizing that any security arrangements there must be made in full coordination with it.

The region is experiencing a state of anticipation amid the exchange of harsh military and political messages between Washington and Tehran. While diplomatic moves continue behind the scenes, the field remains the judge, given the insistence of both sides on establishing new deterrence equations.

President Donald Trump's policy is based on the principle of an eye for an eye, and Iran will pay a heavy price for continuing the war.

US President Donald Trump issued a stern warning to Tehran and the Houthi group in Yemen, affirming that Washington will not tolerate the continued targeting of oil tankers in international waterways. Trump clarified via his 'Truth Social' platform that the United States now considers Iran the primary party responsible for these actions, describing the group as merely an executive tool for Iranian policies in the region.

The US President stressed that any future attacks will be met with 'major military punishment' affecting both Iranian territory and Houthi-affiliated sites. These statements come at a time when the Red Sea region is witnessing unprecedented tension following the use of missiles and drones to strike commercial vessels, raising international concerns about disruptions to global energy supplies.

For its part, the European Commission has entered the crisis, with Foreign Policy Chief Kaja Kallas demanding an immediate halt to all activities that endanger the lives of seafarers and international navigation. Kallas stated in an official declaration that Houthi threats to impose a naval blockade represent a dangerous escalation that directly threatens regional and international stability.

In the same context, the French government expressed its grave concern over the targeting of Saudi oil tankers, describing these attacks as irresponsible behavior aimed at exacerbating the situation. The spokesperson for the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs affirmed that his country is closely monitoring developments on the ground, calling on all parties to exercise restraint and avoid sliding into a comprehensive confrontation.

The Houthi group had previously announced the execution of military operations targeting Saudi ships, claiming that this comes within the context of imposing a naval blockade in response to regional issues. Observers believe that this move aims to create a new choke point in international navigation, adding to the existing tensions in the Strait of Hormuz, thereby putting the global economy at risk.

In an analysis of the political scene, sources reported that the group is suffering from suffocating economic and living crises in the areas under its control, which pushes it towards external escalation to export its internal crises. The sources clarified that the recent moves are not separate from the Iranian agenda, which seeks to alleviate international pressure on it by mobilizing its proxies in the region.

Political readings also indicated that the Houthis have become regionally and internationally isolated due to their refusal to engage in political settlement paths previously proposed. Experts believe that the group lacks independent political decision-making, as its military movements are dictated by direct instructions from the Iranian Revolutionary Guard to serve Tehran's interests in its conflict with Washington.

Despite calls for de-escalation issued by the Omani Ministry of Foreign Affairs, field indicators suggest a complex situation given the group's insistence on expanding the circle of conflict. Reports confirm that Saudi Arabia and the region's countries refuse to succumb to the blackmail policy practiced by Iran's proxies, relying on broad international support that rejects any harm to the security of waterways.

It is worth noting that these developments come amid a deadlock in the political solution in Yemen since the failure to sign the roadmap at the end of 2023. Anticipation remains the order of the day, awaiting the nature of the potential American response and the international community's ability to curb the Houthi escalation, which now threatens the lifeline of global trade in an unprecedented manner.

The United States will hold Iran responsible, considering the Houthis as its affiliated entity, and will impose major military punishment on Tehran and the Houthis if the attacks continue.

Eyes in the Lebanese capital, Beirut, are focused on the practical outcomes of President Joseph Aoun's visit to Washington, where he held a summit with his American counterpart, Donald Trump, at the White House. These talks come at a sensitive time when Lebanon is banking on a breakthrough in thorny sovereign issues, most notably strengthening the capabilities of the Lebanese Army and ensuring the withdrawal of Israeli forces from border areas.

During the joint press conference, US President Donald Trump pledged to provide the necessary support to Lebanon, noting that this country has suffered from marginalization and mistreatment for many decades. Trump affirmed that his administration would work to ensure Lebanon regains its international standing and respect, in a clear indication of Washington's desire to play a pivotal role in the stability of the Lebanese state.

For his part, President Joseph Aoun focused on the pivotal role of the military institution, considering it the sole guarantor to prevent the collapse of the state and extend its authority over all territories. Aoun stressed the necessity of continued and developed American military support, especially in light of the enormous tasks entrusted to the army in the coming phase to secure the southern borders.

Through this visit, the Lebanese state seeks to activate the 'framework agreement' sponsored by Washington, which aims to end the Israeli military presence in the still-occupied points. The proposed path involves strengthening the deployment of Lebanese Army units in the South, in exchange for obtaining American political and military cover that guarantees the implementation of the ceasefire provisions.

Observers believe that the success of this visit depends on the American administration's ability to exert effective pressure on the Israeli side to complete the field withdrawal. While positive political statements continue, the field in South Lebanon continues to witness tensions and violations that hinder the full implementation of the agreements concluded between the concerned parties.

In the context of political analyses, experts considered the visit a serious attempt to restore the Lebanese state's presence in international forums and manage its sovereign files away from the influence of factions. They pointed out that the message from Washington confirms that official dealings will be confined to legitimate state institutions, foremost among them the presidency and the army.

On the domestic front, major challenges arise concerning Hezbollah's weapons and the extent to which local forces align with the path led by President Aoun in Washington. While some see the visit as a historic opportunity for salvation, others express concern that the new understandings could lead to a clash with forces that refuse to engage in the American project for the region.

Political analyst Ghassan Rifi pointed out that the Lebanese demands carried by Aoun are clear, consisting of a comprehensive ceasefire and the immediate start of reconstruction operations. He added that the ball is now in the American court to prove the seriousness of the promises made by Trump, especially in light of the ongoing sporadic Israeli military operations in the South.

In a different reading, analyst Alain Sarkis believes that the visit is the most important since the Taif Agreement, as it restores credibility to official Lebanese diplomacy in managing major crises. He explained that the increasing American interest reflects an international desire not to leave Lebanon to face its fate alone amidst successive economic and security crises.

Informed sources indicate that the next phase may witness a flow of military and logistical aid to the Lebanese Army to enable its widespread deployment south of the Litani River. This deployment is a fundamental condition within international understandings to ensure long-term stability on the northern borders of the occupied territories and prevent renewed confrontations.

On the other hand, analyst George Aakouri placed the visit within the framework of major regional transformations that followed the events of October 7, pointing to a shift in the balance of power in the region. He considered that the international community is looking for a new formula for stability based on strengthening national armies and reducing the role of non-state actors in security files.

The Lebanese government has already begun taking field steps coinciding with the visit, with the Prime Minister touring southern towns such as 'Zawtar Al-Gharbiya' to inspect the situation. These moves aim to send positive signals to the international community about the state's seriousness in assuming its security and administrative responsibilities in border areas.

Despite cautious optimism, a gap remains between political pledges and implementation on the ground, as Lebanese citizens monitor the extent of Israel's commitment to withdraw from disputed points. These points are considered the real test of Washington's influence on the Tel Aviv government in implementing the commitments made during the summit.

In conclusion, Joseph Aoun's visit to Washington represents a turning point in bilateral relations, through which Lebanon seeks to secure international cover to protect it from regional tug-of-war. The coming days will have the final say in translating Trump's promises into a tangible reality that the Lebanese citizen feels in their security and the stability of their country.

Without the Lebanese Armed Forces, everything will collapse, and they are the primary pillar for extending state authority.

Washington Message Washington – Said Arikat - 23/7/2026 A new poll conducted by the "Center for Critical Issues" at the University of Maryland, in cooperation with the "Ipsos" institution, under the supervision of Professor Shibley Telhami, showed that the majority of Americans support an immediate end to the war on Iran, even if all the goals announced by the administration of President Donald Trump are not achieved, with a clear preference for diplomatic means over military options in dealing with the Iranian nuclear file. The poll, conducted between July 17 and 20, 2026, on a sample of 1019 adults in the United States, with a margin of error of ±3.4 percentage points, included a wide range of questions related to the war, its legitimacy, its repercussions, and the future of American policy towards Iran. The results of the poll coincided with reports published by American media outlets known for their proximity to Israeli circles, stating that President Donald Trump informed Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that the United States is preparing to intensify its strikes against Iran, with an expanded use of heavy bunker-buster bombs, foremost among them the "Daisy Cutter" bomb (BLU-82), which weighs about 15,000 pounds and is known for its great destructive power against tunnels and deep fortifications. This coincidence highlights a striking paradox, as it comes at a time when the poll results reveal growing opposition among the American public to the continuation of the war, and the rejection by the majority of Americans of expanding military operations, in favor of ending the conflict and returning to the diplomatic path to address differences with Iran. Majority Supports Ending the War The poll reported that 52% of Americans believe it is necessary to end the war immediately and not conduct any additional military operations against Iran, unless American forces are directly attacked, while seeking to achieve any remaining goals through diplomatic means. The results show a clear partisan division; 76% of Democrats and 65% of Independents supported this position, compared to only 23% of Republicans. In contrast, 24% of participants believed that the United States should continue military operations whenever the administration believes its goals have not yet been achieved, a position supported by 55% of Republicans. The pollsters noted that the question did not specify particular goals for the war, given the changing justifications of the American administration in recent months, but rather spoke generally about "any unachieved goals." Rejection of Force to Prevent Iran from Acquiring Nuclear Weapons Despite continued concern about Iran's nuclear program, the poll showed a decline in support for using military force to achieve this goal. Only 20% of Americans said that the United States should prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons "even if it requires war," while 19% preferred preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons without using military force. At the same time, 22% of respondents called for making the Middle East a nuclear-weapon-free zone, including both Iran and Israel, while 10% believed that mutual deterrence between Iran and Israel might be sufficient to avoid military confrontation. Widespread Skepticism About the Legitimacy of the War The results showed that the American public does not grant the war broad legal cover. Only 25% of participants considered the war legal under American law, compared to 40% who said it was illegal, while about a third of participants expressed having no specific opinion. As for international law, the percentage of those who considered the war legal dropped to only 19%, compared to 39% who believed it violated international law, while 40% said they did not know. Partisan divisions are clearly evident in this issue, with Republicans tending to consider the war legal, while most Democrats and Independents opposed it. Support for Reparations to Iran The poll revealed that 29% of Americans believe that the United States should take responsibility for providing some form of compensation to Iran for the damages it suffered as a result of the war, compared to 43% who rejected this, while more than a quarter of participants did not decide their position. Support for reparations rises to more than half among those who believe the war is illegal under American or international law, and is also supported by nearly half of Democrats, compared to limited support among Republicans. War Harmed American Interests Most participants agreed that the war had negative effects on the United States. 58% said that the war's impact on American interests was more negative than positive, compared to only 12% who believed it served American interests. This negative view included the majority of Democrats and Independents, and even a third of Republicans, reflecting a decline in confidence in the usefulness of the war across different political orientations. No Victor in the War In their assessment of the war's trajectory, only 15% said that the United States had won or was making progress towards victory, while 13% considered Iran to be the party gaining ground. The largest percentage, 40%, believed that neither party could be considered victorious so far, while a fifth of participants said they did not know. The pollsters believe that these results reflect a general sense of frustration with the war's outcomes, and a lack of public conviction that military operations have achieved clear strategic gains. The poll results reveal a significant shift in the American public mood, as the discussion is no longer about how to achieve war goals, but rather about the necessity of ending it in the first place. The public, according to the results, no longer links the continuation of military operations to achieving the Trump administration's goals, but rather prefers to move to the diplomatic path even if some goals remain unachieved. This shift reflects growing fatigue from foreign wars, and a decline in the American voter's willingness to grant successive administrations an open mandate to use military force. A striking political paradox emerges in the poll results; while many Americans do not oppose the principle of preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, the majority rejects resorting to war to achieve this goal. This indicates a widening gap between official rhetoric that links regional security to military solutions, and public opinion that now prefers deterrence, diplomacy, and international agreements. Furthermore, the support of a significant segment for the idea of a nuclear-weapon-free Middle East, including both Israel and Iran, reflects a change in the way the region's security is viewed. Perhaps the most striking aspect of the poll results is the willingness of a significant percentage of Americans to discuss the United States' responsibility to compensate Iran for war damages, an issue that rarely receives widespread support in American public opinion polls. This position does not merely reflect a negative assessment of the war's outcomes, but rather indicates the emergence of ethical and legal considerations among segments of public opinion, especially among Democrats and Independents, who believe that the legitimacy of using force must also be linked to bearing its political and humanitarian consequences.

Hundreds of extremist settlers stormed the courtyards of the blessed Al-Aqsa Mosque this Thursday morning, under tight security protection from the Israeli occupation forces. The intruders carried out extensive provocative tours throughout the mosque, coinciding with what is called the 'anniversary of the Temple's destruction,' amidst Zionist calls to intensify their presence within the Noble Sanctuary.

Sources in Jerusalem Governorate confirmed that the number of intruders exceeded 1300 settlers within a few hours, with groups continuing to flow through the Mughrabi Gate. The sources clarified that the occupation police provided unprecedented facilities to the intruders, allowing the number of individuals in a single group to reach approximately 150 settlers at one time.

The mosque courtyards witnessed the public performance of Talmudic rituals, including what is known as 'epic prostration' in the eastern area, and the wearing of religious 'tefillin' scrolls. The settlers also chanted hymns and prayers loudly, and engaged in provocative singing and dancing, which sparked intense anger among the steadfast Palestinians.

Prominent Israeli political figures participated in these incursions, including Knesset member from the Likud party, 'Amit Halevi.' This official participation reflects government support for policies aimed at changing the status quo in Al-Aqsa Mosque, and attempts to impose temporal and spatial division in a realistic and coercive manner.

In contrast, the occupation forces transformed the Old City and the vicinity of Al-Aqsa Mosque into a military barracks, imposing a complete closure and strict restrictions on the entry of Palestinian worshippers. The occupation authorities deployed their elements heavily at the gates and in the squares to secure the settlers' routes, while preventing hundreds of young men from reaching the mosque to perform prayers.

Field sources reported that the occupation forces severely beat a number of citizens and worshippers who tried to confront the incursions or be present in the vicinity of the mosque. Only a very limited number of worshippers were able to perform dawn prayers inside the mosque, due to the military restrictions that began in the late hours of the night.

The Jerusalem Governorate warned of the danger of plans led by extremist 'Temple' groups, which aim to mobilize more than 5,000 settlers to storm the mosque during this day. The Governorate stressed that all these measures aim to obliterate the Arab and Islamic identity of the holy city, affirming that Al-Aqsa, in its entire area, does not accept division or partnership.

The blessed Al-Aqsa Mosque, with its full area of 144 dunams, is an exclusive Islamic right, and all occupation measures to change its identity are null and void.

Palestinians may discover, for the first time, that legislative elections are not decided on polling day, but by the days preceding it. The politician who succeeds in the 2026 elections will not necessarily be the best orator, nor the most present in the media, nor even the one with the longest struggle history, but rather that man or woman who possesses a rare talent in Palestinian politics... alliance making. For decades, we have been accustomed to measuring a politician's strength by the number of their supporters, but the upcoming elections will impose a completely different standard. The true leader will not be one who merely gathers supporters, but one who transforms rivals into partners. And here begins the real story. Everyone is preoccupied with the traditional question: How many seats will Fatah get? And how many will Hamas get? And who will be third? But the question I see as more important is: Who will lead the national alternative? This is not just a battle between Fatah and Hamas, as these two movements have established organizations and known electoral bases. The battle that will determine the future of Palestinian political life is the one taking place within the camp of independents and new national forces. There are dozens of respected national figures, academics, trade unionists, businessmen, and youth who possess competence and a desire for change. But the question is not: How many are there? The question is: Can they become one project? The electoral threshold has created a new political reality. A list that cannot reach tens of thousands of votes will not enter the Legislative Council, regardless of the caliber of its members. This means that the era of lists based on one person, a group of friends, or social prestige is nearing its end. We have entered the era of alliances. But the problem is that some politicians are still thinking with yesterday's mindset. They all talk about unity... but they disagree at the first question: Who will head the list? And here, politics transforms from a national project into a personal project. The arrangement of names becomes more important than the arrangement of priorities. And leadership becomes a goal, after it was a means to serve the cause. The most dangerous threat to the national alternative is not the strength of traditional parties, but the weakness of the culture of partnership among the forces of change themselves. Fatah will not lose because it knows who leads it. And Hamas will not lose because it knows who leads it. As for the independents, they may lose because each one of them wants to lead everyone. And this is not an organizational crisis... but a crisis of political culture. That is why I believe that the upcoming elections will not only produce a new Legislative Council, but will also produce three models of politicians. The first... the statesman. He is the one who realizes that the success of the national project is more important than his personal position, and that compromise is sometimes the highest degree of leadership. The second... the man of the old era. Who still believes that politics revolves around the leader, and that heading a small list is better than being a partner in a large project. As for the third... the opportunist politician. Who moves between alliances according to calculations of profit and loss, not according to a vision or program. And I think that Palestinians have become more capable of distinguishing between these models. Society has changed. And people's priorities have changed. And slogans alone are no longer enough. People want someone who answers questions about work, education, health, economy, reconstruction, fighting corruption, and building institutions that deserve the citizen's trust. The issue is no longer just who leads the Legislative Council... but who leads the idea of the national alternative. The alternative that is not based only on rejecting reality, but on presenting a political and economic project capable of building a modern state, a productive economy, strong institutions, and a real national partnership. Therefore, the weeks preceding the registration of lists will be more important than polling day itself. There, in the discussion rooms, the alternative will be born... or it will die before seeing the light. And there, the true alliance makers will emerge. Those who understand that politics is not the art of triumphing over partners, but the art of triumphing with them. And when history writes the story of these elections, it will not dwell much on the number of seats each list obtained. Rather, it will ask one question: Did the Palestinian elite succeed in transitioning from a culture of leadership to a culture of partnership? For Palestinian experience has taught us that division has always been the shortest path to defeat. And perhaps the 2026 elections will teach us a new lesson: that the national alternative does not fall because it is weak... but falls when it fails to unite. And then the question will not be: Who won the elections? But: Who missed the historic opportunity to build the alternative that Palestinians have long awaited?

Khoury: We call on the world and churches to intervene urgently to stop these serious violations. Ramallah - Bethlehem - "Al-Quds" dot com - Israel is making every effort to end the Christian presence in the Palestinian territories, as Christians have been a fundamental component of the Palestinian people throughout history. Jesus Christ was born in Palestine, lived there, and died on its soil, and thus their presence expresses an advanced state of struggle inherited by Christians from Jesus Christ, glory be to Him. In a rapidly recurring scene, the Christian presence in the Holy Land, the cradle of Christianity, is declining under the weight of a systematic settlement policy affecting the city of Bethlehem, the capital of Christmas, and Jerusalem, the cradle of the three religions, through a series of deliberate Israeli measures. Official Palestinian sources had confirmed that Israel continues to destroy the demographic and historical fabric of Christians by approving the construction of new settlement units, tightening the noose on Christian church institutions in Jerusalem, and imposing exorbitant taxes on them to the extent that the Church of the Holy Sepulchre was closed, but with concerted efforts, the Israeli decision was recently canceled, in practices described as "silent ethnic cleansing" aimed at uprooting Christians from their historical roots. In a report prepared by journalist Wasel Al-Khatib, the Presidential Higher Committee for Church Affairs in Palestine stated: The occupation authorities approved the construction of new settlement units in Bethlehem Governorate, as part of a wide settlement wave that included the West Bank, where the establishment and legalization of 34 new settlements were approved last April, distributed among various governorates, especially Bethlehem, Jerusalem, and Hebron. The targeting of the Christian presence was not limited to settlement expansion and economic pressures but extended to include the Old City of Jerusalem, especially the Jaffa Gate area, the Christian Quarter, and the Armenian Quarter, where attempts to restrict residents, institutions, and churches are escalating, as part of policies aimed at weakening the historical Christian presence and changing the demographic and cultural character of the Holy City. Church properties, citizens, and clergy are also subjected to a continuous series of assaults and provocations, in addition to attempts to seize historical properties surrounding Jaffa Gate, which constitutes a direct threat to the Christian heritage in Jerusalem. Restrictions on freedom of worship and access to holy sites continue, by limiting the participation of believers in the Holy Fire celebrations and imposing restrictions on worshipers' access to the Church of the Holy Sepulchre during holidays, which deprives thousands of Palestinian Christians of practicing their religious rituals freely on their holiest occasions. This was accompanied by the continued obstacles faced by Palestinian Christians and Muslims in obtaining the necessary permits to access Jerusalem, which affects one of the fundamental rights guaranteed by international law, namely freedom of worship. In the same context, Israeli policies impose increasing restrictions on granting visas to clergy and workers in church institutions, in addition to the complexities associated with family reunification procedures for Palestinian families, which leads to a reduction in the Christian presence in Palestine and limits the ability of churches to perform their spiritual, humanitarian, educational, and social mission. The churches confirm that these measures contribute to pushing more Christian families to emigrate, threatening the continuity of the historical Christian presence in the Holy Land. This targeting also includes repeated attacks on Christian clergy, and incidents of desecration and vandalism affecting churches, cemeteries, and monasteries, in addition to violations targeting Islamic and Christian holy sites alike, foremost among them the blessed Al-Aqsa Mosque, amid escalating incursions, attacks, and measures affecting the historical and legal status of holy sites in Jerusalem, which constitutes a violation of freedom of worship and relevant international law and agreements. In his comment on this, Dr. Ramzi Khoury, Head of the Presidential Higher Committee for Church Affairs, described these policies as an "open war on the Christian presence," stressing that "Bethlehem, the birthplace of Jesus Christ, has become besieged by more than 150 military checkpoints and settlement outposts, depriving the city of its Arab Palestinian identity and severing its people's connection to their land." Khoury added that "settlement in Bethlehem is no longer just expansion, but has become a deliberate policy to change geographical and demographic features, with the aim of separating the city from its Palestinian surroundings and isolating it from Jerusalem, threatening to turn this historical city into an isolated enclave, with no place for its Christian people who have been an integral part of its fabric for two thousand years." In Jerusalem, the Presidential Higher Committee for Church Affairs revealed a serious escalation in the tightening of restrictions on the Orthodox Patriarchate and all churches in Jerusalem, by imposing unjust and exorbitant taxes (Arnona) on their properties, including freezing the accounts of patriarchates and seizing church funds, amid measures considered a blatant violation of the historical and legal status quo of churches in the Holy City. Khoury pointed out that "these unjust taxes, which were imposed suddenly, come as part of a broader campaign targeting churches, and also include freezing the accounts of the Patriarchate, and seizing the properties of the Armenian Church, which are measures not aimed at collecting money, but at burdening Christian institutions and pushing them to leave Jerusalem." The Head of the Presidential Higher Committee for Church Affairs affirmed that "what is happening is a systematic targeting of the churches' ability to withstand the occupation policies, which aim to Judaize Jerusalem and change its Arab, Christian, and Islamic identity." He added: "We call on the international community and churches around the world to intervene urgently to stop these serious violations that affect freedom of worship and the Christian presence in the holiest cities in the world." The concerns of the Presidential Committee are based on historical and demographic data, confirming that the Christian presence in historical Palestine has suffered a significant decline as a result of the occupation. The committee had previously stated that Christians constituted about 12.5% of the population of historical Palestine before the Nakba in 1948, but their percentage today does not exceed 1.2%, a decline whose causes the committee described as "a direct result of Israeli ethnic cleansing, forced displacement, land confiscation, and systematic repression." Reports indicate that the city of Bethlehem, where Christians constituted an overwhelming majority of its population, is witnessing a continuous decline in their numbers today, due to the pressure of settlements and military checkpoints that isolate the city and make life there unbearable, pushing many Christian families to emigrate in search of a safe future for their children. In this context, Khoury called on the international community, especially global churches, the Security Council, and the United Nations, to assume their responsibilities towards protecting the Christian presence in Palestine and stopping the "settlement aggression" in Jerusalem and Bethlehem. He stressed that "defending the Christian presence in Palestine is not just a local matter, but a global humanitarian, ethical, and legal issue." These developments come at a time when the West Bank is witnessing an unprecedented escalation in settlement operations, as the Israeli organization "Peace Now" revealed that the recent decision to legalize 34 new settlement outposts, including outposts in Bethlehem, is the largest of its kind in years, and aims to "create an integrated geographical settlement continuum that connects settlements, divides the West Bank into isolated cantons, and eliminates any chance of establishing a viable Palestinian state."

What is happening in the Middle East is not an existential conflict between powers seeking to eliminate each other, but rather a struggle to manage the balance of power, governed by unannounced rules of engagement that are reviewed and adjusted whenever strategic interests dictate. Escalation and de-escalation, war and truce, are not ends in themselves, but rather tools to redraw the boundaries of influence and prevent any imbalance in the power dynamic that could lead to the dominance of one party. The experiences of past decades have proven that major and regional powers, no matter how intense the confrontation between them, understand the red lines that should not be crossed. Conflict is managed more than it is resolved, and its rhythms are controlled to prevent a comprehensive explosion that could spiral out of control and threaten everyone's interests. Therefore, the rules of engagement change whenever field realities change or political priorities shift, and the goal remains to maintain a balance that allows for the continuation of influence, not its termination. Amidst this equation, the Arab region transforms into the main theater for this conflict. It is not the maker of the game's rules, but often its arena, most affected by its outcomes. Prolonged crises, recurring wars, and sharp polarizations keep the Arab world preoccupied with managing its internal crises, limiting its ability to build an independent political, economic, or security project. Hence, the real danger does not lie in the victory of this or that axis, but in the continued absence of an Arab actor capable of producing a common strategic vision. When the Arab project is absent, the available option becomes reliance on this or that party, instead of Arabs being an independent party in the regional and international balance equation. The region does not need to align itself in the struggle for influence, as much as it needs to redefine its interests and formulate its own project. Countries that do not make the rules of the game will remain governed by rules set by others, and will pay the price from their security, stability, and development. Perhaps the most bitter truth is that the ongoing conflict is not for the region, but over it. Unless Arabs possess political will and a unified strategic vision, they will remain an arena for the division of influence, not partners in its creation, and one side of the millstone will never be a substitute for an independent Arab project that creates balance, protects interests, and restores Arabs to their position as an actor, not an object.

News Analysis

By: Said Arikat, July 21, 2026

Washington – Wars rarely begin with a single decision. More often, they arise from a series of decisions not made, warnings ignored, and opportunities deliberately squandered. David Kirkpatrick's striking investigation in The New Yorker, published on July 20, offers perhaps the clearest explanation yet of how the United States failed to curb the Israeli war on Gaza, and how this failure ultimately contributed to dragging Washington into the ongoing war with Iran.

Based on classified documents and interviews with senior officials, Kirkpatrick dismantles the comforting narrative that President Joe Biden's administration lacked leverage over Israel. The evidence suggests the exact opposite; the administration possessed extraordinary influence but repeatedly chose not to use it.

The pivotal document in Kirkpatrick's investigation is a confidential letter delivered by Mirjana Spoljaric, President of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), to President Joe Biden on March 5, 2024. The ICRC, as the guardian of the Geneva Conventions, rarely addresses heads of state directly in such firm language.

Spoljaric warned that Israeli conduct had become "incompatible" with the laws of armed conflict and condemned the denial of ICRC access to Palestinian detainees. According to Kirkpatrick, Israel's suspension of legal dialogue with the ICRC placed it in the company of North Korea and Eritrea.

More importantly, she called on Biden to halt the transfer of weapons unsuitable for use in densely populated areas, warning that abandoning "minimum standards of humanity" would constitute a moral failure that history would not forgive.

This appeal came at a time when the U.S. administration possessed broad legal authority to act. Biden had already issued a policy prohibiting the transfer of U.S. weapons if it was "more likely than not" that they would be used to commit war crimes. The "Leahy Law" also prohibits providing assistance to military units credibly implicated in gross violations of human rights. Furthermore, "National Security Memorandum 20" obligated Secretary of State Antony Blinken to certify Israel's compliance with international humanitarian law, failing which military aid could be suspended.

The legal framework was already in place. But, according to Kirkpatrick, what followed was not an application of these safeguards, but a systematic effort to circumvent them whenever they conflicted with Washington's political commitment to Israel.

Years later, senior officials admit that the administration repeatedly allowed itself to be exploited. Former National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan said: "We should have put more pressure on Israel to take a different approach." Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin likened Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to a gambler "playing with house money," meaning money he wouldn't personally lose.

Israeli officials constantly reassured Washington that the war would end in "another two weeks," a phrase that became a joke within the administration after Ron Dermer jokingly replaced it with "fortnight." Each new promise delayed confrontation with Israel as casualties mounted.

Even Biden's widely publicized decision to suspend shipments of 2,000-pound bombs turned out to be largely symbolic. Kirkpatrick notes that the administration quietly continued to send 500-pound bombs separately, effectively undermining the decision.

The repercussions of this policy were not limited to Gaza. More than seventy thousand Palestinians, mostly civilians, were killed, vast areas of the Strip were destroyed, and most of the population was displaced.

But Kirkpatrick also explains that the U.S. administration's strategy contributed to accelerating the expansion of the conflict at the regional level. Fearing that any public disagreement with Israel would be interpreted as encouragement for Iran and Hezbollah, the White House continued to provide near-unconditional support to Israel, even as Netanyahu expanded the confrontation through operations in Damascus, Tehran, and Beirut.

Deputy National Security Advisor Jon Finer internally warned that this situation created a classic case of "moral hazard," as unconditional American support encouraged Israel to escalate, which Washington claimed it sought to prevent.

Philip Gordon, then National Security Advisor to Vice President Kamala Harris, summarized the problem by saying that Israeli leaders knew that "the United States would defend them no matter what."

This belief proved critically important. U.S. forces twice helped intercept large-scale Iranian attacks on Israel, reducing Israeli losses and solidifying the conviction among Israeli leadership that Washington would ultimately bear the cost of any escalation.

According to Kirkpatrick, Biden's advisors warned the incoming administration led by Donald Trump that Iran was in a strategically vulnerable position, and that Israel would likely seek to exploit this opportunity.

Those warnings became reality. When President Donald Trump later ordered U.S. forces to participate in strikes targeting Iranian nuclear facilities, and then in a surprise joint attack on Iran months later, those decisions were merely an extension of years of accumulated precedents.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio's explanation that Washington acted because Israeli operations would have dragged the United States into the conflict anyway embodies the logic of successive U.S. administrations that chose to follow, rather than guide, Israeli strategy.

Perhaps the most disturbing aspect of Kirkpatrick's investigation is not its revelation of misconduct, but its demonstration of how self-deception became normalized within decision-making institutions.

The State Department's review of National Security Memorandum 20 turned into what one official described as a "complete whitewash," while another considered it an act of bad faith.

Legal objections were raised within the administration, then softened, and ultimately neutralized through careful wording.

Similarly, the application of the "Leahy Law" to suspend aid to an Israeli base accused of mistreating Palestinian detainees stalled because Blinken believed a ceasefire was imminent. However, the ceasefire never materialized, and the recommendation remained unsigned, before Israeli authorities closed the file months later.

Ultimately, Kirkpatrick's investigation is not so much about Israel as it is about the nature of foreign policy decision-making in the United States. It reveals an establishment that confused access to allies with influence over them, loyalty with strategy, and restraint with weakness.

Time and again, Washington postponed difficult decisions, hoping that tomorrow would solve the problems it refused to confront today. But each postponement deepened the humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza and narrowed the strategic options available to the United States itself.

By the time successive U.S. administrations confronted Iran directly, they were no longer shaping the course of events, but reacting to them.

History will judge this period not only by the devastation in Gaza or the regional war now engulfing the region, but also by the lost opportunities that made it all possible.

The United States possessed sufficient influence to change the course of events, but repeatedly chose not to use it. This was not merely a policy failure, but a moral failure with far-reaching strategic consequences.

The most important lesson from Kirkpatrick's investigation is that granting unconditional support does not prevent broader wars; it makes them more likely. When a superpower refrains from using its influence in the service of accountability, it ultimately loses its credibility and its ability to influence the course of history.

Today marks the eightieth anniversary of one of the bloodiest events in the history of the city of Jerusalem during the British Mandate period, when the armed Zionist 'Irgun' organization targeted the King David Hotel. The operation, which took place on July 22, 1946, targeted the southern wing of the building, which served as a vital administrative and military center for the British authorities in Palestine.

The operation began before noon that day with the arrival of a stolen truck at the hotel's service entrance, from which Zionist elements disguised as Arab workers disembarked for camouflage. The perpetrators transported large metal containers intended for milk transport, but they were filled with hundreds of kilograms of highly explosive materials, and placed them at strategic points within the basement.

At 12:37 PM, a violent explosion shook the foundations of the Holy City, leading to the complete collapse of six floors of the hotel's southwestern wing. The force of the explosion ripped out large parts of the building's historic stone facade, turning government and military offices into a pile of rubble in a matter of moments.

This operation resulted in the deaths of 91 people of different nationalities and religions, the largest proportion of whom were Arabs, with 41 martyrs among them. The list of victims also included 28 Britons and 17 Jews, most of whom were civilian employees and workers who were in the hotel at the moment of the catastrophe, in addition to a number of military personnel.

The King David Hotel, which opened in the 1930s, is an architectural and political symbol in Jerusalem, where British authorities seized large parts of it to convert them into official headquarters. These areas included the government secretariat offices, army command, and intelligence agencies, while other parts remained open to guests and diplomats, making the building a complex and sensitive target.

The attack came in the context of a sharp military escalation between armed Zionist organizations and Britain, after a period of cooperation between 'Irgun', 'Lehi', and 'Haganah'. These organizations aimed, through what was called the 'Hebrew Resistance Movement', to exert armed pressure on London to force it to change its policy towards Zionist immigration and the settlement project in Palestine.

Historical reports indicate that elements of the group engaged in an armed clash with British forces moments before the bombing, after their cover was blown in the service area. Despite the death of a number of attackers and the activation of the alarm bell, the group managed to withdraw, leaving behind the timed explosives that later caused immense destruction.

After the massacre, the 'Irgun' organization quickly claimed responsibility, but tried to absolve itself of the large number of victims by claiming to have sent prior warnings for evacuation. The organization claimed that it made phone calls to the hotel management, the French consulate, and the 'Palestine Post' newspaper to give civilians a chance to leave before the explosion.

In contrast, British authorities strongly denied that any official warning reached the officials who had the authority to issue evacuation orders at that time. The official British narrative confirmed that the attack was sudden and intended to inflict the greatest possible human and material losses among the administrative and military staff.

Documents and testimonies that emerged in later decades revealed that warning calls did indeed occur, but they arrived only a few minutes before the large explosion. Historical sources suggest that the hotel management did not take the reports seriously due to the large number of false threats during that period, and the exclusion of targeting a building that included Jews.

Analytical studies of the event revealed that both the Zionist and British narratives contained exaggerations and contradictions aimed at evading moral and political responsibility for the bloodshed. While there is no evidence that Britain deliberately ignored the warnings, it remains a fact that 'Irgun' planned and carried out the bombing in a building teeming with civilians and unarmed employees.

The King David Hotel bombing marked a crucial turning point in the relationship between armed Zionist organizations, leading to the fracturing of the 'Hebrew Resistance Movement' and the cessation of joint coordination. The operation sparked widespread international and internal condemnation, prompting the Jewish Agency to try to distance itself from the bloody methods employed by 'Irgun'.

On the political front, the bombing dealt a severe blow to the prestige of the British Mandate in Palestine, proving the authorities' inability to protect their most important centers of governance in the heart of Jerusalem. Although this event was not the sole reason for Britain's later departure, it accelerated the pace of reconsideration of the feasibility of remaining in a volatile region.

Today, eighty years later, the King David Hotel remains a witness to one of the most horrific pages of early Zionist terrorism in the city of Jerusalem. The names of the 91 victims, especially the Palestinians among them, remain a constant reminder of the heavy price paid by the indigenous people in the face of the armed gangs that later established the occupation state.

The final toll settled at 91 dead, including 41 Arabs, 28 Britons, and 17 Jews, in one of the deadliest operations during the Mandate period.

Media sources have reported an inclination by US President Donald Trump to support the nomination of Gianni Infantino, President of the International Federation of Association Football (FIFA), for the position of Secretary-General of the United Nations. This move is based on the strong relationship that has developed between the two men in recent years, especially with the United States' involvement in preparations to host the World Cup finals, which has enhanced mutual trust between the White House and the leadership of the world's highest football organization.

Press reports indicated that Trump views Infantino as a successful administrator who has proven his ability to lead an international organization comprising over 200 national associations, which he sees as sufficient qualification to manage the affairs of the United Nations, which includes 193 member states. This proposal comes shortly after a symbolic gesture by Infantino, who awarded the US President the newly established 'FIFA Peace Award,' a move observers considered evidence of the growing political harmony between the two parties.

Despite this presumed support, Infantino's path to New York faces complex legal and diplomatic challenges, as the mechanism for selecting the UN Secretary-General requires a direct recommendation from the UN Security Council. The candidate needs to obtain the approval of a majority of the 15 Council members, provided that none of the five permanent member states use their veto power, before moving to the final voting stage in the UN General Assembly.

In a related context, the FIFA president faces internal and European pressures that could hinder his political ambitions, as 72 members of the European Parliament have called for official investigations into his role in disciplinary cases related to players in the US national team. Accusations against Infantino of succumbing to political pressure during major tournaments are increasing, which has prompted human rights organizations to file official complaints with the FIFA Ethics Committee to investigate a breach of the principle of neutrality.

For his part, Javier Tebas, president of the Spanish League, launched a sharp attack on Infantino, demanding his departure from his current position, accusing him of spreading lies and harming the interests of global football. These criticisms add to the intensity of the debate surrounding Infantino's personality and his suitability for an international position that requires broad consensus and complete neutrality in addressing complex geopolitical disputes away from the football fields.

In addition to political obstacles, financial disparities emerge as a barrier that could make the UN position less attractive to Infantino, as he currently earns an annual salary of up to $6 million from FIFA. In contrast, the UN Secretary-General's salary does not exceed $500,000 annually, which raises questions about the realism of this transition given the significant disparity in financial benefits between the two sports and political organizations.

Trump sees Infantino as an internationally respected figure with experience in managing a major global organization, which qualifies him to deal with UN member states.