The US Central Command (CENTCOM) announced a new wave of air and missile strikes against military targets inside Iranian territory, for the twelfth consecutive night. Military sources clarified that the attacks began at 5:30 PM Eastern Time, targeting strategic sites belonging to the Revolutionary Guard and the Iranian army.

Sources confirmed that these operations are directly aimed at reducing Tehran's ability to threaten international navigation and commercial vessels in vital waterways in the region. These military movements come amid unprecedented escalating tension, as Washington seeks to impose a new deterrence equation to prevent the targeting of civilian tankers in regional waters.

On the Iranian side, official media reported hearing violent explosions shaking the city of Sirik in the south of the country, in addition to similar explosions in the city of Ramshir in Khuzestan province (Ahvaz). Iranian authorities have not yet issued a detailed statement clarifying the extent of human or material losses resulting from this new wave of bombardment.

In a related context, local sources in the coastal city of Bushehr stated that at least two explosions occurred in the vicinity of the city, which includes nuclear and vital facilities. The governor of Bushehr later indicated in statements that one of the missiles directly targeted a power generation plant located in the area surrounding the Bushehr nuclear power plant, raising concerns about the safety of energy infrastructure.

CENTCOM clarified that the list of targets hit by the bombardment included advanced military operations centers and offensive naval capabilities, in addition to aircraft hangars and facilities designated for storing drones. The strikes also targeted logistical infrastructure used by Iranian forces in managing their regional operations and securing their military supplies.

Washington justified this widespread military escalation with claims that Iran had attacked more than 30 commercial vessels during the past three months while they were transiting the Strait of Hormuz. CENTCOM considered these Iranian attacks to be a direct threat to the global economy and energy security, necessitating a firm military response to undermine these offensive capabilities.

Despite the intensity of the airstrikes, American sources confirmed that the Strait of Hormuz remains open to commercial shipping and international tankers under the protection of joint forces. Military data indicated that since early May, the United States has contributed to facilitating the passage of approximately 900 commercial vessels carrying nearly 450 million barrels of crude oil.

In contrast, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard warned against international vessels resorting to using alternative routes within the Strait of Hormuz, considering that such steps could lead to dire and unexpected consequences. Tehran insists on its right to supervise navigation in the strait, which Washington rejects and considers mere baseless claims on the ground.

The region is witnessing a state of open attrition between the two sides, as Tehran periodically responds by targeting military bases and facilities it claims are linked to the United States in neighboring countries. These developments come hours after CENTCOM announced the completion of the eleventh wave of strikes, indicating an accelerating pace of direct confrontation that could escalate into a broader regional conflict.

International circles are watching this continuous escalation with great concern, amidst the absence of any indications of an imminent de-escalation between Washington and Tehran, given each side's insistence on its position. While American missiles continue to target Iranian depth, questions remain about the extent to which these strikes can achieve their strategic objectives without sliding into an all-out war.

The mission will continue to further degrade Iran's ability to threaten civilian mariners and commercial vessels transiting regional waters.

International tensions are escalating as US President Donald Trump renews his threats to target Iran's "Jabal Al-Faas" facility, a heavily fortified nuclear site located deep underground. These statements come at a sensitive time, as estimates suggest that Tehran may have moved vital parts of its nuclear program to this site to avoid airstrikes.

The "Jabal Al-Faas" facility is considered one of the most mysterious sites in Iran, located more than 100 meters deep under the "Kuh Kolang Ghaz La" mountain in the center of the country. This strategic depth makes it an extremely complex target for any traditional destruction attempt, whether through airstrikes or direct military operations.

Construction work at this site began in 2020, when Tehran informed the International Atomic Energy Agency that the purpose of the facility was to assemble centrifuges. However, recent satellite images indicate the presence of extensive tunnel complexes and reinforced concrete entrances, raising suspicions about the nature of the actual activity there.

Informed sources reported that intelligence agencies are monitoring intense movements within the facility, especially after the attacks on the Natanz, Isfahan, and Fordow reactors in June 2025. It is believed that Iran is seeking to protect its stockpile of highly enriched uranium, estimated at about a thousand pounds, by depositing it in these fortified tunnels.

For his part, President Trump downplayed reports of the completion of the transfer of advanced centrifuges, noting that there is no conclusive evidence yet. But he affirmed at the same time that the United States is closely monitoring the situation and will not hesitate to take military action if necessary to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon.

In contrast, the Iranian Foreign Ministry quickly denied these allegations, describing the American threats as an attempt to justify acts of sabotage and aggression. The Foreign Ministry spokesman stressed that the site does not contain any secret nuclear activity, emphasizing that the Iranian program is entirely dedicated to peaceful purposes and power generation.

Military experts believe that targeting "Jabal Al-Faas" represents a significant technical challenge due to the nature of the mountainous terrain and the concrete fortifications protecting the entrances. Even in the event of powerful strikes, the damage may be limited to disrupting ventilation and supply systems without reaching the core of the deeply buried facility.

The pace of work at the facility has increased significantly over the past year, which analysts explain as an Iranian reaction to previous attacks that destroyed parts of the Natanz complex. It appears that Tehran is working to accelerate the construction of new centrifuges within this site to ensure the continuity of its program away from scrutiny and threats.

Technical reports indicate that the facility relies on a complex infrastructure that includes advanced cooling and heating systems to ensure the efficient operation of centrifuges. These systems, despite their protection, remain potential weak points that can be targeted to disrupt operations inside the mountain without the need to penetrate hard rock.

The United States and Israel consider Iran's reaching an advanced stage of enrichment at a site like "Jabal Al-Faas" a red line that cannot be crossed. Western circles fear that this facility could become a secret center for producing the nuclear fuel needed to develop warheads in record time.

Sources confirmed that Iran has strengthened security measures around the site, including planting explosives in access corridors and closing some vital tunnels. These steps aim to impede any attempt at ground infiltration or sabotage operations from within, increasing the difficulty of the intelligence mission.

Despite the significant damage to Iran's nuclear program in previous bombing rounds, international assessments indicate that essential parts of it remain. The fate of highly enriched uranium remains Washington's biggest concern, as it seeks either to force Tehran to dispose of it or destroy it in place.

Researchers at international institutions believe that the American ability to destroy tunnel entrances may disrupt work for years, but it will not erase the knowledge and technical capabilities that Iran has acquired. The military option remains on the table as a political pressure tool, despite the significant risks of a comprehensive regional confrontation.

Iran continues to assert its right to possess nuclear technology to meet its electricity needs and provide oil for export. With continued mutual threats, "Jabal Al-Faas" remains a focal point in the hidden and overt conflict between Tehran and its international adversaries, awaiting the outcome of future moves.

We will likely strike that area very soon. And they won't be able to do anything about it.

Hundreds of extremist settlers stormed the courtyards of the blessed Al-Aqsa Mosque in the occupied city of Jerusalem this Thursday morning, under tight security protection from the Israeli occupation forces. These incursions were led by Knesset member Amit Halevi of the Likud party, coinciding with the commemoration of what is called the 'anniversary of the destruction of the Temple,' amidst intensified military measures affecting the vicinity of the Old City and the gates of the Mosque.

Settler groups carried out extensive provocative tours throughout the Mosque, deliberately performing public Talmudic rituals, including what is known as 'epic prostration' in the eastern area. The intruders also chanted prayers and religious hymns loudly, and some wore 'tefillin' in a clear challenge to the feelings of worshippers and the status quo in the holy Haram al-Sharif.

Sources from the Jerusalem Governorate reported that the number of intruders exceeded 1,300 settlers during the morning tour alone, with groups continuing to flow through the Mughrabi Gate, which was opened early. The sources indicated that the occupation police provided unprecedented facilities to the intruders, by increasing the number of individuals in each group to about 150 people to ensure the speed and intensity of the incursion.

In the context of restricting Palestinians, occupation forces imposed strict restrictions, preventing hundreds of worshippers from reaching Al-Aqsa Mosque to perform prayers. Field reports stated that very limited numbers were able to perform dawn prayers inside the Mosque, due to the military checkpoints spread in the alleys of old Jerusalem and at the main entrances to the Mosque.

The Al-Aqsa Mosque courtyards witnessed direct assaults by occupation police elements on citizens and worshippers present, with cases of assault by beating recorded to clear paths for settlers. These developments come after National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir appeared in video clips during his participation in previous incursions, reflecting official governmental support for these violations.

Extremist 'Temple' groups seek through these gatherings to break previous records, having launched intensive calls to their supporters aimed at reaching 5,000 intruders during today's hours. These movements, according to observers, aim to establish a new reality within Al-Aqsa Mosque and divide it temporally and spatially by imposing Jewish rituals as a fait accompli under armed protection.

Local sources confirmed that occupation forces raised the state of alert in the city of Jerusalem and transformed the Old City into a military barracks to secure settler marches. These incursions coincide with strenuous Israeli efforts to change the historical and legal status quo in Al-Aqsa, amidst Palestinian warnings of an explosion of the situation as a result of the continuation of these systematic provocations.

Occupation forces continue to impose strict measures at the gates of Al-Aqsa Mosque and in the vicinity of the Old City, preventing large numbers of worshippers from reaching the Mosque.

The gangs of foreign settlers continue their rampage and organized terrorism, supported by the occupation government and its army, which provides all support and protection for these gangs that attack families, steal land and what is on it, and seize fields and orchards throughout the Palestinian West Bank from north to south. Day after day, we see an increase in the pace of assaults, killing, confiscation, oppression, and persecution that is beyond description and imagination, because what the settlers do is too heinous to be written, narrated, or told. In the face of all that happens, the Palestinian tries to survive to protect his property as much as he can, for he is unarmed of all means of self-defense, and he also finds no one to defend him and prevent the evil of the settlers and their practices. In the face of the occupation's arrogance, the Palestinian is forbidden from defending himself, as soldiers stand armed with equipment and weapons to protect settler terrorism and their criminal operations.A bitter reality and shameful global silence in the face of all that is happening, for there is no ugliness more hideous than the behavior of the settlers who steal the property of citizens who have nothing but patience and steadfastness, and who try to ward off the dangers lurking around them as a result of the systematic policy supported by the poles of the far right. In the race for the Knesset to win votes, the pace of threats has increased from the likes of Ben Gvir, Smotrich, and others who use Palestinian blood and their right to their land as a means to win voters' votes in a hateful election campaign, based on promises, threats, encroachment, annexation, and Judaization.The world that sees and witnesses settler terrorism and contents itself with condemnation and denunciation is a world complicit in the crime, because duty dictates that it intervene to protect the people of the land from what these foreigners are doing. These settlers are escalating their attacks and continuing their rampage, beating and killing anyone who stands to protect their home, family, and field. Why does the world remain silent time after time and stand helpless to apply international law and international resolutions that consider settlements illegal and unlawful? And when can the international community intervene to uphold truth and justice, and implement all resolutions issued by the Security Council to prosecute and hold accountable the perpetrators for the crimes they have committed and are committing?The continuation of this absolute silence will only lead to further escalation and violations, and it will remain a stain on the forehead of the international community unless it is accompanied by practical positions and measures and decisive and urgent intervention to put an end to these crimes while providing protection for the Palestinian people.

In a time of genocidal war that targets not only the Palestinian individual but also extends to memory, identity, narrative, and culture, the awarding of the “Maxim Gorky Medal for Literature” by the International Community of Writers' Unions, headquartered in Russia, to three of the most prominent Palestinian writers and founders of Palestinian culture in the occupied territories—Dr. As'ad Al-As'ad, Dr. Al-Mutawakkil Taha, and Dr. Samir Shehadeh Al-Tamimi—acquires a national and cultural significance that transcends the honoring of three creators to the honoring of Palestinian culture itself, as one of the most important fields of national struggle.The celebration by the General Union of Palestinian Writers and Authors of the honorees confirms that loyalty to creators is loyalty to the free word, to resistant culture, and to a generation that carried the pen as a fighter carries his banner, and confronted imprisonment, persecution, and policies of erasure and elimination with their creativity and their firm belief in their people's right to freedom and life.This honor is not merely a celebration of great literary names, but an international recognition of the status of Palestinian culture, and of the historical role played by the Palestinian writer and intellectual in defending national identity, preserving collective memory, and confronting the Zionist narrative that has sought, and still seeks, to falsify history and deny the existence and rights of the Palestinian people.Today, while Gaza is subjected to a comprehensive genocidal war, accompanied by cultural genocide targeting universities, schools, libraries, publishing houses, cultural centers, and creators, and the assassination of writers and creators, foremost among them the friend, the martyred poet Salim Al-Naffar, who perished in the genocidal war with his family, the importance of the free word increases, and the Palestinian writer and intellectual becomes the first brigade in the battle of consciousness, the faithful guardian of national identity, and the primary defender of the Palestinian narrative in the face of attempts at uprooting, distortion, and elimination.The Palestinian experience has proven that the occupation did not fear the rifle alone, but feared the poem, the novel, the play, and the article, because they preserve memory, document truth, and empower the people to tell their own story. Therefore, honoring As'ad Al-As'ad, Al-Mutawakkil Taha, and Samir Shehadeh is an honor for an entire generation of creators who made culture an advanced form of resistance, and established Palestine's presence in the human conscience.Greetings to these knights for this well-deserved recognition, and greetings to the General Union of Palestinian Writers and Authors for this loyal initiative, and to the International Community of Writers' Unions for this honor, which confirms that Palestinian culture, despite the genocidal war and cultural genocide, is still alive, capable of reaching the world, and that the free word will remain, as it always has been, one of the most important weapons of the Palestinian people in defending their identity, their narrative, and their right to freedom and independence.

Washington MessageWashington – Said Arikat – 23/7/2026News AnalysisThe United States and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia signed a civilian nuclear agreement described by both sides as a pivotal milestone in their strategic relations. It opens the door for the development of Saudi Arabia's peaceful nuclear program using American technology, with the potential to enable the Kingdom in the future to enrich uranium within regulatory frameworks and safeguards related to safety and nuclear non-proliferation. The US Department of Energy stated that the agreement will boost US nuclear technology exports, create thousands of jobs, and serve the economic and security interests of both countries, emphasizing that the cooperation will adhere to the highest standards of nuclear safety and security.The agreement spans thirty years and is estimated to be worth tens of billions of dollars. It allows American companies to build and operate civilian nuclear facilities within the Kingdom and stipulates a joint US-Saudi study to assess the possibility of uranium enrichment within Saudi territory. If Washington approves after the study is completed, an American facility for nuclear fuel production could be established within the Kingdom. However, the agreement stipulates that if the United States refuses to grant Riyadh the right to enrichment, Saudi Arabia will not pursue the project independently or in cooperation with any other foreign party for ten years.The agreement is scheduled to be submitted to the US Congress, where it is expected to spark a broad political debate regarding regulatory safeguards and inspection mechanisms, despite Republicans holding a majority in both the House and Senate. This gives President Donald Trump's administration a significant opportunity to secure its approval.The agreement holds particular importance because it represents a shift in US nuclear policy towards its allies in the Middle East. Unlike the nuclear agreement signed by the United States with the UAE in 2009, which included what was known as the "gold standard" based on Abu Dhabi's permanent renunciation of uranium enrichment and nuclear fuel reprocessing, the new agreement leaves the door open for Saudi Arabia to acquire this capability in the future after completing the joint study and obtaining American approval. This is a notable change in Washington's approach to nuclear energy programs in the region.This shift has generated widespread interest among nuclear non-proliferation experts, who believe that the issue is not about building civilian nuclear reactors as much as it is about possessing the nuclear fuel cycle, which provides any country with expertise and infrastructure that can be developed in the future if the security or political environment changes. Even with full adherence to international safeguards, possessing enrichment technology remains one of the most sensitive elements of nuclear programs due to its long-term strategic dimensions.The agreement acquires an additional political dimension due to the timing of its announcement. It comes as the United States continues its military operations against Iran, under the pretext of preventing it from acquiring uranium enrichment capabilities that could lead to the production of a nuclear weapon, at a time when the Trump administration is requesting additional financial appropriations from Congress to fund the military campaign, whose cost has significantly increased. This timing raises questions about how Washington reconciles its refusal for Iran to possess uranium enrichment capabilities with its approval of an agreement that may allow Saudi Arabia to possess similar capabilities in the future, albeit under international supervision and safeguards.Although American officials emphasize the difference between the two cases, arguing that the Saudi program will be subject to strict American and international oversight, while Washington accuses Iran of seeking to use its nuclear program for military purposes, this explanation does not prevent accusations of double standards from emerging. This narrative is expected to be exploited politically and diplomatically by Tehran in the coming period.The controversy is not limited to Iran alone, as Israel also views the agreement with caution, fearing that granting Saudi Arabia the possibility of uranium enrichment could break one of the fundamental principles upon which nuclear non-proliferation policy in the Middle East has been based, and encourage other countries in the region to demand similar rights. A number of former Israeli officials and experts believe that the danger lies not in the current Saudi program, but in the nuclear infrastructure that could become available in the future if political or security circumstances change.It is noteworthy that the agreement makes no mention of linking nuclear cooperation to the issue of Saudi-Israeli normalization, contrary to what successive US administrations have sought, which considered nuclear cooperation as part of a broader package that included achieving a breakthrough in the normalization file. The absence of this condition reflects a shift in US policy priorities, which now appear more interested in strengthening its strategic partnership with Riyadh in the face of growing Chinese and Russian influence, even without progress in Saudi-Israeli relations.In contrast, the agreement has economic dimensions no less important than its political ones. It offers American companies huge opportunities in nuclear reactor construction, engineering, technology, operation, maintenance, and training over three decades. It also enhances the United States' ability to regain some of its position in the global nuclear energy market, which has seen a significant expansion of Russian and Chinese roles in recent years, especially in the Middle East, Asia, and Africa.The US Congress is likely to be the next testing ground for the agreement, where debate is expected to focus on regulatory safeguards, inspection mechanisms, and the future of enrichment rights, more than on the principle of nuclear cooperation itself. If the Trump administration succeeds in passing the agreement, it could establish a new phase in US-Saudi relations and redraw the security and energy equations in the Gulf for decades to come. However, at the same time, it will continue to face a political test in Washington's ability to convince the international community that granting Saudi Arabia what it refuses to grant Iran does not represent a contradiction in its principles, but rather reflects a difference in the nature of relations, safeguards, and international commitments of each country.

In short, the "Memorandum of Understanding" was cooked over a hot fire, under the pressure of urgency, so that each of the adversaries could achieve their goal; by overlooking ambiguous phrases in the stray texts in the gray area of the ambiguous memorandum, before the dish burned, and the pot exploded, scattering sparks in a way that portends its expansion, after the train went off the rails about ten days after its hasty signing.Under the pressure of the desire to share transit fees in the strait with Tehran, the master of the White House did not stop at the details, and allowed the passage of ambiguous texts to entice the adversary to accept them, while bad intentions remained hidden in the folds of diplomatic phrases, whose sharp edges the Pakistani and Qatari mediators painstakingly tried to smooth out, before the experiment collapsed, and everyone drowned in the hot waters of the strait.The situation is heading towards escalation again, fueled by Trump's statements, who is never satisfied, and does not like swimming in the Arabian Sea, before imposing his exorbitant fees like a pirate collecting tributes, and does not care about the suffering of those passing through and waiting.On the reserve bench, Netanyahu sits rubbing his hands, licking his lips for the moment to pounce on the prey, to export his internal crisis that is strangling him, to engage in war the moment it gets out of control, despite the caution shown by the two adversaries, which will not avert fate.

Israelis and Palestinians may soon have a rare opportunity to replace the politics of permanent war with leaderships carrying renewed democratic mandates

On October 27, Israelis are scheduled to elect a new Knesset. One month later, Palestinians are supposed to elect a legislature for the first time in 20 years. The votes will take place separately, under very different conditions, but they should be understood as parts of one diplomatic moment.Israel’s election will be the first since October 7, 2023, and the wars that followed. It will become a referendum on Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu: on the failures preceding October 7, the conduct of the war, the direction of Israeli democracy, and whether he should continue to lead the country.The Palestinian election, assuming it takes place, could begin the overdue reconstruction of Palestinian political legitimacy.Neither vote will automatically produce peace. Elections can strengthen extremists as easily as moderates. But together they create a possibility absent for years: Israeli and Palestinian leaderships emerging simultaneously with renewed public mandates.More than a referendum on NetanyahuThe Israeli campaign will be dominated by one question: Should Netanyahu remain prime minister?That matters, but it is not enough. The deeper question is whether Israel will elect a government capable of translating military power into political strategy.Israel has repeatedly demonstrated its military power. What it has failed to do is define a sustainable political destination. Tactical successes have brought Israel back to the same reality: control over millions of Palestinians, expanding settlements, recurring violence, and stronger extremists on both sides.Gadi Eisenkot, as a former IDF chief of staff, brings military experience, personal credibility, and a reputation for seriousness. He may be able to tell Israelis things that are otherwise too easily dismissed when coming from civilian peace advocates.An Eisenkot government would have to answer fundamental questions: Does Israel accept Palestinian self-determination and sovereignty? Will it end settlement expansion and confront violent settlers? Will it accept that Gaza, the West Bank, and Palestinian East Jerusalem must form one political territory?Eisenkot’s historic opportunity would not be to manage the conflict more professionally. It would be to reject the premise that it can be managed indefinitely. Palestinian freedom is not a reward for terrorism. It is an Israeli security interest. Israel will never have genuine security until Palestinians have freedom, and Palestinians will never achieve freedom until Israelis have security.Palestinians must restore legitimacyMahmoud Abbas was elected president in 2005, and the Palestinian Legislative Council was last elected in 2006. Since then, Palestinians have endured division, authoritarian government, institutional decay, corruption, occupation, and the devastation of Gaza.Palestinians cannot achieve national liberation through institutions that lack democratic legitimacy. Israel also cannot credibly complain that it has no Palestinian partner while obstructing the elections necessary to produce one.For the election to matter, Palestinians in Gaza, the West Bank, and East Jerusalem must participate as one national electorate. Israel must not determine which candidates are acceptable or prevent Palestinians in East Jerusalem from voting.Democratic participation also carries obligations. No movement should compete for authority through elections while maintaining an independent army capable of overruling the elected government.The principle must be: one authority, one law, and one legitimate security force.Political Islam should transform itself into political parties if those parties accept elections, pluralism, the authority of the elected government, and the end of independent armed action.Palestinians must also be able to choose new parties, younger leaders, women, independents, reformers, and critics of both Fatah and Hamas. For too long, Palestinian politics has been dominated by movements of the past.The extremists reinforce each otherIsraeli leaders say there is no Palestinian partner. Palestinian leaders say Israel understands only force. Hamas attacks strengthen the Israeli Right. Settlement expansion, settler violence, and occupation strengthen Palestinian rejectionism. Each side points to the extremism of the other to justify its own.When Israeli candidates reject Palestinian statehood, advocate annexation, or excuse settler violence, Palestinians hear confirmation that diplomacy is pointless. When Palestinian candidates glorify attacks on civilians or refuse to address Israel’s legitimacy, Israelis hear confirmation that withdrawal will bring another war.Candidates cannot negotiate a final agreement during an election campaign, but they can signal whether one is imaginable. Israeli candidates should say that Palestinian freedom and statehood are Israeli interests. Palestinian candidates should say that Israeli security and regional acceptance are Palestinian interests.Neither statement requires trust or agreement about history. It requires recognition that neither people is leaving and neither can defeat the other permanently.The destination must be clearThe United States, Europe, and Arab states should not intervene for particular candidates. They should intervene for a clear diplomatic destination.Previous peace processes began with transitional arrangements while leaving the final destination uncertain. Temporary Israeli security measures became permanent, while Palestinian obligations appeared to lead not to independence but to a more efficiently administered occupation.This time, the destination must be declared in advance: two sovereign states based on the 1967 borders with agreed land swaps; Jerusalem as the capital of both; a non-militarized Palestinian state with strong security institutions; an agreed refugee solution; an end to annexation and settlement expansion; and full regional peace and integration.What has been missing is not a conceptual solution. It is political leadership, effective implementation, and international determination.US President Donald Trump still has time to act. Washington should support two connected objectives: Israel’s security and regional integration, and Palestinian freedom, democracy, and statehood. It should work with Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Morocco, the Gulf states, Turkey, and Europe to build a regional structure.Israel should be offered normalization and regional integration. Palestine should receive sovereignty, reconstruction, and international guarantees.Peace cannot depend on trustI have spent decades speaking with Israelis and Palestinians, including people each side regards as enemies. One conclusion is inescapable: Peace cannot be built on trust alone.The answer is not to wait until Israelis and Palestinians believe in each other. It is to construct an agreement in which compliance is verified, violations carry predetermined consequences, security responsibilities are clear, and neither side can unilaterally block the other people’s national future.Palestinian violence must carry consequences. So must settlement construction, annexation, settler terrorism, and unlawful displacement. Obligations cannot apply only to the weaker party.For years, both peoples have been told there is no partner on the other side. The claim has become self-fulfilling.The elections could begin to reverse that process. But ballots alone will not do it.Israeli candidates must tell their public that Palestinian rights are compatible with Israeli security. Palestinian candidates must tell their public that Israeli security and recognition are compatible with Palestinian freedom. International powers must define the destination and show that peaceful political choices produce tangible results.The opportunity is not that Israelis and Palestinians will suddenly trust one another. They will not. The opportunity is that they may elect leaders who understand that neither freedom nor security can be achieved unilaterally, and that returning to politics after years of war is not a concession.It is the only way to prevent the next war.

By: Said Arikat

July 23, 2026

News analysis

Washington, D.C- Congress has once again demonstrated that when Israel is involved, the normal rules of democratic accountability in Washington often become secondary. On Wednesday, July 22, the House of Representatives narrowly approved the Fiscal Year 2027 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) by a vote of 216-212, with seven Republicans breaking with their party to oppose the measure and six Democrats joining Republicans in supporting it. Hidden inside the $1.15 trillion defense bill was Section 219, a provision that would permanently institutionalize military technology and industrial cooperation between the United States and Israel.

The significance of Section 219 extends far beyond another expansion of an existing alliance. The United States and Israel already maintain one of Washington’s closest military partnerships, including extensive cooperation on missile defense, intelligence sharing, cybersecurity, and weapons development. The new provision would establish a permanent U.S.-Israel Defense Technology Cooperation Initiative, requiring the Pentagon to coordinate bilateral research, development, testing, evaluation, and industrial cooperation. In effect, Congress would transform a long-standing policy relationship into a statutory commitment that future administrations may find increasingly difficult to revise.

That is why Representative Thomas Massie warned that the measure raises serious questions about American sovereignty and constitutional authority. His argument was not that the United States should abandon cooperation with Israel, but that a commitment of this magnitude should not be embedded in legislation without the level of scrutiny normally associated with major strategic agreements. Foreign policy requires flexibility, and future presidents should retain the ability to reassess alliances as global conditions change.

Instead, House leaders prevented that debate from taking place. Massie and Democratic Representative Ro Khanna introduced an amendment to remove Section 219, while Representative Anna Paulina Luna offered a separate amendment with the same objective. Neither proposal was allowed to receive a floor vote. Congress did not reject these amendments after deliberation; it denied lawmakers the opportunity to debate and vote on them altogether.

The decision reflects a broader pattern in Washington, where controversial foreign-policy commitments are frequently attached to must-pass legislation, making opposition politically difficult and limiting public scrutiny. If supporters of Section 219 were confident that the measure represented sound national security policy, they should have welcomed an open debate rather than relying on procedural barriers to protect it.

The Republican support for the provision is particularly revealing. Many of the same lawmakers who regularly invoke “America First,” warn against international constraints, and emphasize the importance of national sovereignty voted to permanently deepen integration between elements of America’s defense establishment and that of another country. The contradiction raises a fundamental question: if sovereignty is a core principle of American foreign policy, why does it appear to become less important when Israel is involved?

The six Democrats who supported the measure—Henry Cuellar, Don Davis, Jared Golden, Vicente Gonzalez, Adam Gray, and Marie Gluesenkamp Perez—also deserve scrutiny. Their votes placed them increasingly out of step with a Democratic electorate that has undergone a significant transformation in its views of Israel and U.S. policy in the Middle East.

Since the Gaza war began, Democratic voters have moved steadily toward support for conditioning military assistance to Israel, demanding greater accountability for civilian casualties, and questioning the assumption that American support for Israeli government policies should remain unconditional. Among younger Democrats, that shift has been especially pronounced. Yet these lawmakers chose to align themselves with Washington’s traditional foreign-policy establishment rather than with the direction of their own party’s voters.

The growing divide between public opinion and congressional action is becoming one of the defining features of the current debate over Israel. While voters increasingly question whether U.S. support should have limits, many lawmakers continue pursuing policies that make the relationship more permanent and less subject to democratic reconsideration.

The origins of Section 219 illustrate how such measures advance in Washington. The provision closely resembles the failed U.S.-Israel FUTURES Act, which did not move forward as standalone legislation but later resurfaced in modified form inside the NDAA. This legislative approach has become increasingly common: proposals that struggle to survive independent debate are incorporated into large bills where lawmakers face pressure to approve the broader package.

The influence of pro-Israel lobbying organizations is also part of this discussion. Groups such as AIPAC have every right to advocate policies they support, as do other political organizations representing different interests. The broader concern, however, is why legislation affecting the U.S.-Israel relationship so often receives extraordinary procedural protection in Congress, including limited debate, blocked amendments, and few opportunities for lawmakers to cast independent votes.

Representative Massie’s own political experience highlights the pressures surrounding this issue. After repeatedly challenging aspects of U.S. policy toward Israel and opposing certain military assistance measures, he faced a well-funded primary challenge backed by President Donald Trump and AIPAC. Regardless of one’s views of Massie, the episode sent a clear message to members of Congress: questioning long-standing assumptions about Israel carries significant political risks.

A healthy democracy requires the opposite. Foreign policy decisions should be subjected to debate, criticism, and periodic reassessment. Alliances are strongest when they rest on public support and transparent decision-making, not when they become insulated from scrutiny.

Supporters of Section 219 argue that it simply strengthens an important alliance. But the United States already provides Israel with extraordinary military assistance, intelligence cooperation, diplomatic backing, and advanced technology. The question before Congress is not whether Washington and Jerusalem should cooperate. They already do. The question is whether that cooperation should be transformed into a permanent institutional arrangement that limits the ability of future elected leaders to reconsider its scope.

The Senate now has an opportunity to restore some measure of democratic accountability by removing Section 219 from the NDAA or requiring a separate vote focused exclusively on the proposal. If permanent integration of American and Israeli defense industries truly serves U.S. interests, its supporters should defend that position openly before Congress and the American people.

Ultimately, the debate over Section 219 is about more than Israel. It is about whether American foreign policy will continue to be shaped through transparent democratic processes or whether certain relationships have become so politically protected that they escape ordinary scrutiny. The House vote on July 22 suggests that, at least for now, Congress has chosen protection over debate.

By a vote of 216-212, lawmakers did not simply authorize another year of defense spending. They advanced a measure that raises fundamental questions about sovereignty, accountability, and the ability of future generations of Americans to determine their own foreign policy.

The Iranian capital, Tehran, and wide areas of the country experienced a night of violent military escalation, as state television announced the activation of air defense systems to counter strikes targeting strategic locations. Local sources reported hearing strong explosions in the city of Bushehr, located in the southwest of the country, in addition to observing intense defensive activity in the northwest and southern regions.

In a swift field response, the Iranian army announced the execution of a military operation using drones targeting American military facilities at Camp Doha in Kuwait. This step comes as part of expanding the scope of direct confrontation between the two sides, raising the level of security tension in the Gulf region to unprecedented levels.

For its part, the American army confirmed the end of a new round of intense airstrikes that lasted for approximately 75 minutes, indicating that these attacks are part of a continuous series of operations for the eleventh consecutive night. The strikes focused on destroying military operations centers, naval facilities, aircraft hangars, and facilities designated for storing Revolutionary Guard drones.

Washington clarified that the primary goal of this escalation is to undermine Iranian military capabilities that pose a direct threat to international commercial navigation in the Strait of Hormuz. The United States considers crippling Iran's military logistical infrastructure necessary to protect the flow of energy and global trade through vital waterways in the region.

American targeting included the areas of Chabahar and Konarak in Sistan and Baluchestan province in southeastern Iran, in addition to the strategic city of Mahshahr in Khuzestan province. Widespread fires also broke out in the city of Behbahan due to the aerial bombardment, reflecting the intensity of the fire used in this round of conflict.

In the northwest, the city of Tabriz in East Azerbaijan province was subjected to airstrikes, with media sources confirming the targeting of a sensitive military site in the vicinity of the city. The attacks also hit the city of Sirik in Hormozgan province, indicating Washington's desire to cripple Iranian capabilities distributed along the coasts and border areas.

Military operations extended to include the western provinces, where the cities of Chavar and Abdanan in Ilam province, the city of Baneh in Kurdistan, and locations in Hamadan province were subjected to airstrikes. These areas are of great importance as they contain missile launch platforms and fortified military bases close to the Iraqi border.

Informed sources in Tehran indicated that the Iranian interpretation of current American moves goes beyond merely protecting navigation in the Strait of Hormuz, but rather sees it as an attempt to pressure the western geographical interior. Tehran believes that targeting areas adjacent to Iraq and Turkey aims to weaken the defensive structure that has been most vulnerable to targeting in recent weeks.

Concerns prevail within Iranian security circles that the ultimate goal of these raids is to create security gaps in the western border strip. Tehran fears that Washington will exploit these gaps to facilitate the infiltration of armed groups or carry out ground incursions, which poses a direct threat to the country's national security and internal stability.

In light of this escalation, the scene remains open to all possibilities, especially with the activation of air defenses in eastern, western, and northeastern Tehran for the first time since the confrontation began. A state of maximum alert continues among Iranian forces in anticipation of new waves of bombardment, amidst mutual warnings of a widening regional war.

American strikes targeted military operations centers, naval facilities, and aircraft hangars with the aim of undermining capabilities that threaten navigation in the Strait of Hormuz.

US Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced that the United States continues to keep the doors of diplomacy ajar to resolve the escalating conflict with Iran. Rubio clarified during his participation in a meeting with foreign ministers of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) in Manila that engaging in positive and constructive dialogue requires full commitment from Tehran to international pledges.

The US chief diplomat criticized what he described as the Iranian side's lack of seriousness in dealing with the proposed de-escalation paths so far. He pointed out that the failure to respect previous commitments led to dire consequences on the ground, stressing that Washington will not hesitate to take protective measures for its interests and the interests of its allies if Iranian procrastination continues.

Rubio revealed the existence of direct and indirect communication channels to discuss the possibility of de-escalating the current situation and avoiding the expansion of the confrontation. These statements come at a sensitive time when the region is witnessing intensive diplomatic moves to save the temporary ceasefire agreement, which appears to be facing the risk of complete collapse.

In the context of diplomatic efforts, informed sources reported that Tehran received a proposal from mediators for a ten-day ceasefire. This proposal aims to preserve the gains of the temporary agreement signed last June, which came to replace previous understandings reached in April of the same year.

On the regional mediation front, Iranian Interior Minister Eskandar Momeni visited the Pakistani capital, Islamabad, to convey messages related to the current situation. Tehran asked the Pakistani side to continue its efforts aimed at bridging views and preventing the region from sliding into a comprehensive and undesirable confrontation.

The US minister linked the political crisis with Iran to the safety of international navigation, stressing Washington's absolute rejection of any attempts to control the Strait of Hormuz. Rubio considered that imposing conditions or fees on ships passing through international waterways represents a dangerous precedent whose effects could extend to other regions such as Southeast Asia.

Rubio warned that allowing threats to commercial ships in waterways would disrupt global supply chains and energy security. He explained that ASEAN countries are among the most affected by these tensions due to their high dependence on oil and gas imports coming from the Middle East through the threatened waterways.

These warnings coincided with escalating threats in the Red Sea, where the Houthis announced a naval blockade on Saudi ports. These threats led to the rerouting of three giant oil tankers that were heading to China and India, as they preferred to pass through the Suez Canal instead of passing alongside the Yemeni coast.

Riyadh seeks to secure its oil exports by using pipelines that reach the port of Yanbu on the Red Sea to avoid the risks of the Strait of Hormuz. However, Houthi threats at the Bab al-Mandab Strait are narrowing the available alternatives, putting additional pressure on energy prices, which have recently seen significant increases.

In global markets, Brent crude prices jumped to over $91 per barrel due to fears of supply disruptions. Analysts believe that the continued tension in the Straits of Hormuz and Bab al-Mandab will lead to instability in the global economy, which has prompted ASEAN countries to express their grave concern.

On the ground, sources reported that the US Central Command continued its airstrikes on targets inside Iranian territory for the eleventh consecutive night. The strikes included areas in Tabriz, Sirik, and Chabahar, while Iranian authorities activated air defense systems in the capital, Tehran, to counter the attacks.

For his part, US President Donald Trump announced that the ongoing four-month conflict with Iran has resulted in the deaths of 18 American soldiers. Trump threatened to take decisive military action against the Houthis if they carry out their threats to completely close the Bab al-Mandab Strait to international navigation.

This escalation on the ground reflects the collapse of the memorandum of understanding for a cessation of hostilities signed last June, which brings the crisis back to square one. Diplomatic options appear limited given the wide divergence in positions between Washington and Tehran regarding the conditions for returning to the negotiating table and adhering to previous agreements.

ASEAN foreign ministers concluded their meeting by calling for the need to ensure the safe passage of ships and aircraft through the Strait of Hormuz without any obstacles. The ministers warned that any disruption to energy security would lead to severe economic repercussions for Southeast Asian countries, which are already suffering from regional conflicts in the South China Sea.

If they are serious about negotiations, we are serious, and if not, we will take the necessary measures to protect our interests and the interests of our allies.

"Peace Now": Establishment of 21 New Outposts in Area "B" Within Two and a Half Years • The Netanyahu-Smotrich-Ben Gvir government implemented a broader policy aimed at blurring the distinction between Area "B" and Area "C", destroying key provisions of the Oslo Accords, liquidating the two-state solution, and imposing a new settlement fait accompli. • Smotrich promotes his "decisive" plan to "flood" the West Bank with a million settlers and impose Israeli sovereignty over it. • Robinson: The policies of the Netanyahu government and Ministers Smotrich and Ben Gvir aim to make Palestine disappear physically, economically, culturally, and politically... • Settler terrorism has created settlement pastures, built new roads, seized water sources, and displaced Palestinian pastoral communities. • Settlers have isolated and controlled about 14% of the West Bank's area within two years. • The "Amana" settlement organization in Sheikh Jarrah, nominally banned in the United States and Britain for its role in supporting outposts linked to settler terrorism, has invested millions of dollars in establishing, expanding, and protecting these outposts. • Israel cancels the "two-state solution" and allows the expansion and strengthening of settlement outposts in the area. Jerusalem - Muhammad Abu Khdeir In an unprecedented development since the signing of the Oslo Accords, the Israeli occupation government, led by Benjamin Netanyahu, his Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich, and National Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir, has embarked on a systematic settlement policy that far exceeds the limits of the signed agreements, aiming to overturn the political and legal classifications of the West Bank. Settlements are no longer isolated outposts in Area "C"; rather, they have become a tool to blur the distinction between the areas classified under the Second Oslo Accord (1995), creating a new fait accompli that undermines any possibility of a contiguous and viable Palestinian state. What international and Israeli human rights reports document is not merely settlement violations, but a link in a comprehensive strategy aimed at "canceling the two-state solution" leading to "canceling the Palestinian Authority," in preparation for the full occupation of the West Bank and the displacement of its residents, in a clear colonial settlement project led by extremists in the Israeli government. Qualitative Shift in Settlement Policy: Area "B" a New Arena for Expansion 2024 marked a radical turning point in Israeli settlement policy, as the Settlement Watch team of the "Peace Now" movement documented the establishment of seven new settlement outposts deep in Area "B" for the first time since the signing of the Oslo Accords. By 2026, the total number rose to 21 outposts, distributed across multiple areas including the "Agreed Nature Reserve" east and south of Bethlehem, Ramallah areas, the southern Hebron hills, and Nablus. The danger of this development lies in its fundamental difference from previous cases that saw the extension of some existing settlements to the edges of Area "B". The new outposts were established deep in lands over which the Palestinian Authority had full civil jurisdiction, including planning and construction authority, in a grave violation of the Oslo Accord which grants Israel only security control over these areas. Former New Zealand Prime Minister Helen Clark and former Irish President Mary Robinson, in a statement by "The Elders" after a visit to the West Bank, affirmed that "the policies of the Netanyahu government, especially Ministers Smotrich and Ben Gvir, aim to make Palestine disappear physically, economically, culturally, and politically," noting that settlement expansion "constitutes annexation of land and undermines the chances of a two-state solution." Blurring Borders and Engineering a New Fait Accompli The objectives of this policy go beyond establishing the outposts themselves, to include a radical change in the legal and administrative structure of the West Bank, manifested in: Expanding the powers of the (Civil Administration/Israeli Military Rule of the West Bank): In July 2024, the Civil Administration was granted the authority to demolish Palestinian buildings within the "Agreed Nature Reserve," an authority previously held by the Palestinian Authority. Later, the Israeli Security Cabinet decided that enforcement authorities of the (Civil Administration/Israeli Military Rule of the West Bank) would operate in Areas "A" and "B" on issues of environmental protection, antiquities, and water resources. These decisions, according to "Peace Now" analysis, show a broader policy aimed at blurring the distinction between Area "B" and Area "C", and undermining key provisions of the Oslo Accords. Legislative Normalization of Annexation: Smotrich and Ben Gvir are working to translate this settlement project into legislation and laws. In July 2024, the Knesset overwhelmingly voted in favor of a resolution rejecting the establishment of a Palestinian state, which academic researchers described as a "major success for the government in setting the tone in the Knesset regarding Palestinian rights." Smotrich continues to promote his "decisive" plan aimed at "flooding" the West Bank with a million settlers and imposing full Israeli sovereignty over it. Organized Government Funding Mechanisms Investigations reveal complex funding mechanisms managed by the Israeli government to support these outposts, including: Budget for "Security Needs of Settlement Points": Approximately 54 million shekels are allocated annually to fund the construction of roads, solar panels, electric gates, vehicles, drones, cameras, and generators. Budget for "Monitoring Units": 30 million shekels are allocated annually to cover salaries and equipment for monitoring teams, including road construction, fence installation, cameras, and electric gates. Ministry of Agriculture Support: The Israeli Ministry of Agriculture granted approximately 3 million shekels between 2017 and 2024 as grazing grants for settlement outposts. "Amana" Foundation Investments: The Israeli settlement organization "Amana," which has been sanctioned by the United States and Britain for its role in supporting outposts linked to violence against Palestinians, has invested millions of shekels in establishing and maintaining these outposts. A report by "Peace Now" and "Kerem Navot" indicates that settlers use multiple methods to consolidate their control, including establishing settlement pastures, building new access roads totaling 116.4 kilometers, seizing water sources, and displacing Palestinian pastoral communities. These methods have enabled settlers to control about 14% of the West Bank's area, equivalent to 786,000 dunams. Forced Displacement and Property Seizure Palestinian villages and towns adjacent to these outposts have faced escalating pressures, including the displacement of families, the seizure of Palestinian family homes by settlers, as happened near the village of Beitillu northwest of Ramallah, and preventing Palestinians from accessing their agricultural lands and pastures in preparation for their theft and seizure, causing severe damage to the Palestinian agricultural economy. These activities constitute a clear violation of international law, specifically Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention which prohibits the occupying power from transferring parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies, Security Council Resolution 2334, and the International Court of Justice's opinion (July 2024) which declared the illegality of the prolonged Israeli occupation and called for the immediate evacuation of all settlements. Geopolitical and Strategic Repercussions 1. Liquidation of the Two-State Solution These settlement outposts pose a major obstacle to achieving the two-state solution, as they work to: Fragment geographical contiguity: The new outposts lead to the fragmentation of Palestinian lands and prevent communication between cities and villages. Change demographic composition: Settlement policies aim to change the demographics of targeted areas and forcibly displace Palestinians, weakening the chances of a contiguous and viable Palestinian state. Weaken the Palestinian Authority: Settlement expansion in Area "B" undermines Palestinian planning and construction authority, and weakens the national authority's standing in the eyes of its citizens. Risks of Escalation and Violence The commander of the Central Command in the Israeli army, Major General Avi Blot, warned that illegal settlement and settler violence represent a "dangerous phenomenon that threatens everyone's security," noting that "Jewish terrorism threatens everyone's security," and warned that this phenomenon harms Israel's international legitimacy and consumes the time and effort of army forces. Towards a Comprehensive Strategic Confrontation Field data and human rights analyses show that the phenomenon of establishing settlement outposts in Area "B" is not merely individual incidents, but part of a systematic Israeli government strategy led by Netanyahu, Smotrich, and Ben Gvir, aimed at undermining the Oslo Accord, liquidating the two-state solution, and imposing a new settlement fait accompli that erases the distinction between Palestinian areas in the West Bank. This policy, according to "Peace Now" estimates, has exceeded all limits that existed since 1993, and has taken control of lands that were under full Palestinian civil jurisdiction. Reports indicate that the Israeli government is investing hundreds of millions of dollars in supporting these outposts through complex funding mechanisms, with direct involvement of the Israeli army (Civil Administration/Israeli Military Rule of the West Bank) in facilitating these illegal activities. At the same time, these policies are accompanied by escalating settler terrorism campaigns, forced displacement of Palestinian families, and seizure of water sources and agricultural lands. The continuation of this phenomenon without effective deterrence threatens not only the future of the political solution based on the two-state principle, but also portends waves of violent escalation that could affect everyone, as senior Israeli military officials themselves have warned. The warnings of the United Nations and the international community, and the resolutions of the International Court of Justice, confirm that these policies constitute a clear violation of international law and an undermining of the Palestinian people's right to self-determination. Accordingly, human rights organizations call for: Effective international action: To stop Israeli government funding for settlement outposts, and exert real pressure on the occupation government to dismantle them and comply with international legitimacy resolutions. Strengthening Palestinian steadfastness: By supporting Palestinian communities threatened with displacement, providing international protection, and enabling them to remain on their lands. Reviving the political track: By setting a clear timetable for ending the occupation and establishing a Palestinian state, and restoring the Oslo Accord as a binding reference framework. Documentation and prosecution: By documenting violations and submitting them to international judicial bodies, and holding accountable those responsible for funding and supporting illegal settlement activities.

The fuel shortage crisis comes to pour more oil on the embers glowing under the ashes of accumulated crises, with no glimmer of hope on the horizon promising imminent solutions to soothe frayed nerves and console hearts aching from the daily loss of loved ones in Gaza and the West Bank, or those exhausted by heavy burdens, lack of resources and ingenuity, and dwindling job opportunities. This has led to the hardening of arteries in a rentier economy revolving around the occupation, becoming completely paralyzed once the "breastfeeding" stops due to geopolitical conditions and transformations.Crises do not disappear by being kept secret or by looking away, nor do hardships ease with good prayers alone, unless supported by diligent efforts and serious statements that are frank with people about their reality and the harsh conditions they endure, whose difficulty will not last, no matter how dark it gets, for permanence is impossible.In times of crisis, rumors spread like mushrooms after rain, which necessitates urgent and frank intervention, far from improvisation, to extinguish rumors with information, and curb the rush for vital and essential goods and materials.Some call for submitting proposals and holding seminars with the aim of "reforming the media," whether official or private, but true reform does not need all that chatter that brings no innovative solutions, nor establishes keen insight.Freedom, boldness, and initiative are the only "prescription" capable of ensuring breathing with healthy lungs, away from the constraints of censorship, for timely information is the seatbelt at sharp turns and sudden stops, and the first step to extinguishing a fire and containing the flames before they spread to dry tinder.

The Palestinian cause, especially the Gaza Strip, is going through one of its harshest and most complex moments; our people have paid exorbitant prices in blood, homes, and resources, and human suffering has reached a limit that can no longer bear further attrition. In such historical turning points, courage alone is not enough; rather, political wisdom, good assessment of outcomes, and the selection of tools and timings become an integral part of the concept of resistance and conflict management.From here, I address these words as advice to my brothers in the leadership of the Hamas movement, out of concern for the movement, the cause, and our afflicted people in the Gaza Strip, not from a position of outbidding or belittling the sacrifices of the resistors. The current stage necessitates a different political reading, based on what we can call the “jurisprudence of discouragement”; that is, discouraging the enemy, thwarting his plans, removing pretexts from his hands, and stripping him of the power cards he relies on to achieve his political goals.The intended meaning of discouragement here is not to abandon resistance or relinquish rights and constants; this is a far cry from the intended meaning. Rather, the intention is to discourage the enemy from achieving his goals, to close the doors of pretexts before him, to weaken the cohesion of his project, and to deprive him of the arena he wants to lure us into.This meaning has a known origin in the Prophet's biography. In the Battle of the Confederates (Ghazwat al-Ahzab), the companion Nu'aym ibn Mas'ud al-Ashja'i, may Allah be pleased with him, came to the Prophet, peace be upon him, after secretly embracing Islam, and the Prophet, peace be upon him, said to him: “You are but one man among us, so discourage them from us if you can, for war is deception.” The intended meaning of discouragement in this context was not to withdraw from confrontation or to abandon the Muslims, but rather to dismantle the alliance of the Confederates, thwart their plans, and sow doubt among the components of their camp, until their strength dissipated and they became unable to achieve their goal.Nu'aym ibn Mas'ud succeeded in his mission; he did not confront the Confederates with the force of arms, but rather used intellect and his knowledge of their contradictions, thus contributing to weakening trust between Quraish, Ghatafan, and Banu Qurayza. Here lies the essence of the lesson: not every battle is fought in the same way, and victory is not always dependent on the abundance of military action; thwarting the enemy's plan, depriving him of his pretexts, and disrupting his calculations may be more effective than entering into the confrontation he desires and dictates its terms.Netanyahu and the Need for Continued WarBenjamin Netanyahu has made war a tool in his political battle, and he tries to present himself to Israeli society as the security man capable of continuing the confrontation. At the same time, Netanyahu is entering elections scheduled for October 27, 2026, amidst escalating political competition and internal criticism related to his management of wars, security failures, and the divisions he has deepened within Israel.The continuation of the engagement in the manner Netanyahu desires gives him an opportunity to rearrange his ranks, restore the discourse of “existential threat,” and gather right-wing currents around him. Therefore, wisdom dictates that we do not give him the card he is looking for, and that we do not offer him the lifeline he clings to whenever political avenues narrow for him.The call to “hold your hands” for two or three months is not a call for surrender, nor for abandoning the option of resistance from the calculations of the Palestinian people, but rather a call for a strategic truce on our part, and for stopping the action that Netanyahu can exploit to justify new adventures or prolong his political life. It is a call to move the battle from the field he chooses to other fields where Palestinians are more capable of embarrassing and isolating him.Resistance is not just firing weapons, but a broad system of political, legal, media, popular, and diplomatic work. Good management of resistance means knowing when to advance, when to stand firm, and when to prevent our opponent from getting the battle he needs.The South African LessonPerhaps the South African experience offers one of the most prominent lessons in this field. The African National Congress realized that armed struggle, despite its importance in its historical context, would not alone be sufficient to overthrow the apartheid regime, and that the battle for legitimacy, global public opinion, and economic and political isolation was no less important than the internal confrontation.The African National Congress did not abandon its goals, nor did it compromise on the right of the majority to freedom and equality, but it succeeded in developing its struggle tools and transforming its cause into a global moral issue. The widespread internal resistance combined with international economic and cultural sanctions and the growing global anti-apartheid movement, along with changes in the international environment, all contributed to pushing the regime to negotiate, leading to the 1994 elections and the establishment of a non-racial democratic government.The African National Congress won the battle for legitimacy before taking the reins of power. The apartheid regime became the isolated and morally besieged party, while the discourse of Mandela and his comrades became a symbol of freedom, dignity, and justice. When negotiations began, the African National Congress did not enter them from a position of abandoning its history, but from the position of a liberation movement that succeeded in making the world adopt the essence of its cause.Then South Africa presented a model of transitional justice and national reconciliation, not as a concession of victims' rights, but as an attempt to transition from a racist system to a new state, and to break the cycle of open revenge, without denying the past or absolving moral responsibility for it.Of course, Palestine is not an exact replica of South Africa, and historical experiences cannot be transferred verbatim; but the fundamental lesson remains valid: liberation movements triumph when they skillfully combine the tools of resistance, understand international transformations, and succeed in making their discourse a discourse of justice, while pushing their opponent into a corner of moral and political isolation.The Battle for Public Opinion and International LegitimacyWestern public opinion has witnessed a significant shift towards the Palestinian cause in recent years, appearing in universities, unions, churches, and civil institutions, and reaching within American political institutions themselves. In July 2026, more than a hundred Democratic members of the US House of Representatives supported an amendment to stop military aid to Israel, despite its non-passage, indicating the widening debate within the Democratic Party about unconditional support for Israel.Moreover, South Africa's move before the International Court of Justice contributed to keeping the Gaza issue at the heart of global legal and moral debate, and several countries joined or announced their intention to intervene in the case. This confirms that the battle of law and legitimacy is not marginal, but has become one of the central arenas in confronting the policies of the occupation.What is required from the Palestinian side is to invest in this transformation, not to squander it; to enhance the image of the Palestinian people as a people seeking freedom, justice, and self-determination, not to allow Netanyahu to re-reduce the issue to his security narrative. The more the action that Netanyahu can exploit recedes, the more the images of destruction, displacement, and siege come to the fore, and the reality of the occupation and its policies appear before global public opinion.Here, the jurisprudence of discouragement becomes an integrated political strategy: discouraging the Israeli project from achieving its goals, drying up its pretexts, deepening its internal contradictions, isolating its extremist leadership, expanding the solidarity and boycott movement, and moving the issue from an area of accusation to an area of injustice, right, and justice.Hold Your Hands... And Do Not Give Up Your RightsI am not calling on the Hamas movement to lay down arms or declare abandonment of resistance, nor to make free concessions to the occupation. Rather, I call on it to manage power well, and to understand that power does not lie in its continuous use, but in knowing when, how, and why it is used.The policy of “holding your hands” at this stage may be more painful for Netanyahu than a limited military action that gives him the pretext he needs. Depriving him of the image of war, of the discourse of emergency, and of the ability to reassemble the right behind him, is a form of discouraging the enemy and bringing down his political project.We must allow contradictions within Israel to emerge, for the families of prisoners, the opposition, and the currents rejecting the continuation of the war to hold the government accountable, and for global public opinion to see the Palestinian scene away from the noise Netanyahu uses to escape his responsibilities.The duty of leadership in historical moments is not to respond to every provocation, but to choose the battle that serves its people. Not every abstention is a retreat, just as not every military action is necessarily an advance. Disciplined patience, when based on a clear vision, can be one of the most effective forms of resistance.My message to my brothers in the leadership of the Hamas movement is clear: Do not give Netanyahu a lifeline, and do not allow him to make Palestinian blood a bridge to his political survival. Discourage his project, remove his pretexts, and move the battle to the arena of legitimacy, justice, and global public opinion.I am not calling for an end to resistance, but for its good management; and I am not calling for abandoning the conflict, but for choosing its timing, arena, and tools. How many battles have their owners won with weapons and then lost with politics, and how many victories have been made by intellect before being decided on the battlefield.That is the jurisprudence of discouragement that I advocate: discouraging the enemy, not abandoning resistance, and bringing down Netanyahu's project by depriving him of the reasons for his survival, instead of offering him a lifeline with our own hands.

Lebanese President Joseph Aoun's visit to Washington is a significant political milestone, described by him during his meeting with US President Donald Trump at the White House as a historic visit. It is indeed considered one of the pivotal visits that could contribute to shaping the future political and economic landscape of Lebanon. This visit holds particular importance as it is the first by a Lebanese president to the White House since President Michel Suleiman's visit in 2009. President Trump's interest in the Lebanese file has reportedly increased, according to observers, after the role played by Massaad Boulos, the father of Michael Boulos, Tiffany Trump's husband, whom Trump appointed as an advisor for Middle East and African affairs. Boulos had contributed to mobilizing the votes of the Arab community, especially in Michigan, during the last US presidential elections, and also conveyed to Trump a picture of the Lebanese reality through his extensive connections with members of the Lebanese community. During his election campaign, Trump pledged to help Lebanon restore stability. It appears that the primary goal of this visit is to follow up on the implementation of the framework agreement between Lebanon and Israel, foremost among them being the exclusive control of weapons by the Lebanese state and strengthening the army's authority over all Lebanese territories. The visit also carries multiple political, security, and economic files, most notably the endeavor to enhance the independence of Lebanese decision-making and limit any external influence affecting the state's sovereignty, which reflects on the political, economic, and security scene, in addition to working on repositioning Lebanon regionally and internationally. This coincides with efforts aimed at the success of negotiations between Lebanon and Israel, which have witnessed significant complications since the outbreak of the October 7, 2023 war, Hezbollah's involvement in the confrontation in support of Hamas, and the launching of rockets from Lebanese territories towards Israel, which sparked wide controversy about the decision of war and peace and the role of the Lebanese state. The party's involvement also came within what was known as the "unity of fronts" axis, which includes Iranian-backed forces, among them the Houthi group in Yemen. Since then, the confrontation between Hezbollah and Israel has continued, amid Israeli military operations targeting the party's military infrastructure and leadership, most notably the "Pager" operation, in addition to the killing of the party's Secretary-General Hassan Nasrallah. These developments reflected on the cohesion of the resistance axis and weakened the interconnectedness of its components. These developments coincide with the US military escalation towards Iran during President Trump's era, in parallel with the Lebanese President's visit to Washington. In a broader context, the region is witnessing rapid transformations extending to several regional files, including Iraq, where US movements intersect with efforts to support state institutions and confront Iranian-backed armed factions, in addition to efforts to combat corruption and enhance stability. The US move in Lebanon comes within a broader vision that aims, according to this proposal, to strengthen the sovereignty of states, empower their institutions, and open up to their Arab and international surroundings. From this perspective, President Aoun's visit is seen as an opportunity to open a new chapter in Lebanon's history, by addressing thorny issues, most notably the exclusive control of weapons by the state and strengthening the role of the Lebanese army as the sole authority authorized to protect the country. Lebanon has suffered for decades from civil wars, foreign interventions, and internal divisions, which weakened state institutions and negatively affected the economy, banking sector, and security and political conditions, coinciding with the spread of corruption and the squandering of public funds, which led to a decline in Lebanon's position as a prominent economic and financial center in the region. The question remains: Will Lebanon turn the page on the past with all its crises, and enter a new phase with President Aoun's visit to Washington? The entire region is undergoing a re-drawing of political balances, in light of an American vision based on reducing Iranian influence in a number of Middle Eastern countries, including Syria, Iraq, and Lebanon, while pushing towards building more independent states open to their regional and global surroundings. President Trump's policy in the Middle East, according to this perception, is based on replacing armed conflicts with investment projects and economic partnerships that promote development and stability, in parallel with consolidating security and peace, thereby achieving mutual interests between the United States and the countries of the region. From this perspective, it focuses on strengthening state sovereignty and restricting the use of force to official institutions in countries such as Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon, while continuing military pressure on Iran. This phase is one of the most important for Lebanon, as it is linked to the state regaining its sovereign decision and strengthening its regional and international presence, in addition to implementing the framework agreement with Israel, and working to develop the capabilities of the Lebanese army and enable it to extend its authority over all Lebanese territories. On the economic front, the Lebanese President carries to Washington a very important file, which is the economic crisis that Lebanon is going through, and the need to attract foreign investments, and secure support for the reconstruction of areas damaged by the recent war, especially in southern Lebanon and the southern suburbs of Beirut. President Trump had affirmed his support for the "New Lebanon" project, based on consolidating sovereignty and strengthening the economy through broad partnerships with the United States and countries around the world. He also seeks to push for the success of direct negotiations between Lebanon and Israel, and the implementation of the framework agreement, in parallel with the deployment of the Lebanese army in a number of areas after the withdrawal of Israeli forces, including Zawtar al-Gharbiya and Srifa, as part of following up on the implementation of what was agreed upon during the Rome negotiations. During the meeting between the two presidents at the White House, Trump affirmed that Lebanon had been "treated very badly," and pledged that it would receive in the future "the respect it deserves." He also praised the Lebanese people, describing them as cultured and educated, who have provided the United States and the world with distinguished academics, doctors, lawyers, and competencies, stressing that the Lebanese have maintained their attachment to their homeland despite the crises and wars they have faced, and declaring his commitment to providing real support to help Lebanon overcome its crises. He also stressed that the issue of Hezbollah's weapons would be at the forefront of the issues he would work on with President Aoun, affirming that the world would notice the results that would be achieved in this regard. For his part, President Joseph Aoun expressed his thanks to President Trump, describing the visit as historic, and praising the common understandings achieved, especially regarding the framework agreement and efforts to end the state of hostility between Lebanon and Israel. He stressed that the time has come for Lebanon and the countries of the region to enjoy security and stability, noting that his vision intersects with President Trump's vision in achieving peace, while the latter in turn affirmed that their cooperation would aim to help Lebanon overcome its crises and achieve a more stable future. The hope remains that Lebanon will regain its historical position, and return as a beacon of culture and economy, and that Beirut will regain its presence as one of the most beautiful Arab capitals, based on the will of its people and its ability to rise again.

Settler attacks in the West Bank are no longer isolated incidents carried out by extremist groups; they have become an expression of a comprehensive political project led by the Israeli government. With the growing influence of settlement leaders in decision-making centers, field attacks now coincide with legislative and financial decisions aimed at completely changing the face of the region.

Journalistic sources revealed that the Ministerial Committee for National Security Affairs (the Cabinet) approved a massive budget of 1.3 billion shekels, equivalent to 370 million dollars, to boost settlement construction. This decision was kept secret for a period to avoid international pressure, especially from the American side, as the funding aims to establish new outposts and expand existing ones.

Data indicates that this budget will be allocated to building new settlement neighborhoods and developing advanced infrastructure that exclusively serves settlers. This move comes as part of a joint proposal submitted by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in cooperation with the Ministers of Finance and Settlement, confirming the government's adoption of the settlement project as a top priority.

The current government prides itself on being the most supportive of settlements in the history of the occupation, with the West Bank and occupied Jerusalem witnessing an unprecedented acceleration in construction activities since the end of 2022. Approximately 750,000 settlers currently reside in hundreds of settlements and outposts, which the United Nations considers a flagrant violation of international law.

Observers believe that the ascension of figures representing the settlement movement to sensitive ministerial positions has settled the debate about the relationship between the state and the settlers. Extensive powers in civil administration and planning have been transferred to Minister Bezalel Smotrich, granting settlers direct legal and administrative cover to implement their plans.

Sources reported that the overlap between military and civilian institutions in the West Bank has reached unprecedented levels, with the army protecting outposts funded by the Ministry of Finance. This integration aims to create geographical contiguity between settlement blocs, leading to the fragmentation of Palestinian lands and their transformation into isolated enclaves.

The occupation authorities are working to reshape the West Bank's infrastructure through a massive network of bypass roads aimed at connecting settlements to the occupied interior. Israeli symbols are also being imposed on vital areas and main intersections, in an attempt to erase Palestinian identity and change the visual and urban landscape of the region.

Israeli policies target the control of strategic natural resources, including mountain peaks, groundwater sources, and valleys. These operations have accelerated over the past two years to include thousands of dunams, depriving Palestinians of the most basic elements of economic and agricultural development in their areas.

In a related context, human rights activists warned that these measures constitute a blatant violation of Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, which prohibits the transfer of the occupying power's population to occupied territory. Israel also completely disregards Security Council Resolution 2334, which calls for an immediate halt to all settlement activities in the Palestinian territories.

Field reports indicate that Bedouin communities in Area C are subjected to a systematic campaign of forced displacement led by settler militias under army protection. Thousands of attacks have been documented, including property destruction and physical assault, leading to the evacuation of dozens of Palestinian residential communities from their historical locations.

Area C, which constitutes about 60% of the West Bank's area, is considered the main arena for demographic conflict, where Israel prevents Palestinians from building while granting settlers extensive facilities. This blatant discrimination aims to empty the land of its indigenous inhabitants in favor of rapid settlement expansion.

International and Israeli human rights organizations warned that what is happening is a process of 'de facto annexation' of the West Bank without official declaration, undermining any future opportunity for a Palestinian state. Investing in roads, electricity, and water for settlements reinforces the long-term Israeli presence and makes withdrawal almost impossible.

Palestinians fear that these policies will lead to a 'new Nakba' that will uproot thousands of families from their villages and towns, especially in the absence of international accountability. Settlement outposts, which were considered illegal even under Israeli law, are now being legalized and granted official government budgets.

The current situation in the West Bank reflects a radical shift in the occupation's strategy, moving from conflict management to an attempt to resolve it by imposing facts on the ground. With continued financial and political support for settlers, the prospects for peace remain elusive amidst the fragmentation of Palestinian geography.

The question is no longer about the extent of settler influence in the government, but about whether there is any difference between the two parties; the political project has become one.

Israeli occupation machinery began, this Wednesday morning, demolition operations targeting two inhabited homes in the towns of Nahalin and Za'tara in the Bethlehem Governorate. These actions come in the context of escalating the systematic demolition policy that targets the Palestinian presence in areas classified as 'C', under the pretext of not obtaining legal building permits from the occupation's civil administration.

In details of the raid, local sources reported that a military force reinforced with bulldozers stormed the 'Sabiha' area in the town of Nahalin, where they began demolishing the home of citizen Adel Hassan Azazma. The targeted home consists of two floors with a total area of 340 square meters, noting that Israeli courts had previously rejected legal appeals to protect 14 homes threatened with demolition in the same area.

The demolition operations were not limited to Nahalin but also extended to include the town of Za'tara, east of Bethlehem, where bulldozers demolished the home of citizen Raed Hassan Abu Raya. The home, consisting of a basement and two floors, housed a family of seven who are now homeless, amidst the occupation's insistence on implementing demolition orders despite continuous human rights appeals.

Statistical data for the first half of this year reflect the scale of the settlement attack, as the occupation authorities carried out about 341 demolition operations that led to the destruction of 740 different structures. These operations have had severe humanitarian consequences, affecting more than 900 Palestinian citizens, including hundreds of children and women who lost their housing and living stability.

In a related context, settlers continued their attacks in various areas of the West Bank, where extremist groups attacked the outskirts of Jalud village, southeast of Nablus. Settlers set fire to large areas of agricultural land, leading to clashes with the villagers who tried to confront the attack, resulting in injuries among citizens.

The town of Turmus Ayya, north of Ramallah city, also witnessed similar attacks, where settlers stormed the outskirts of the town and carried out extensive acts of sabotage targeting residents' properties. The attackers burned agricultural crops and lands belonging to citizens, causing severe material losses and a state of extreme tension that prevailed in the area after the attacking groups withdrew under the protection of the occupation army.

In the town of Beita, south of Nablus, settlers targeted an agricultural facility in the 'Qamas' border area, where they vandalized its contents and attacked the surrounding facilities. These attacks usually occur under security cover from the occupation forces, who intervene to suppress Palestinians if they try to defend their properties and lands from repeated settler attacks.

Regarding security pursuits, occupation forces launched an arrest campaign at dawn today, targeting six citizens from the city of Tulkarm, including a Palestinian woman. The raid involved searching homes and meticulously inspecting their contents, amidst scattered clashes in the city's neighborhoods, which witness almost daily raids by Israeli military units.

In the Hebron Governorate, south of the West Bank, occupation forces arrested three citizens after raiding their homes and provocatively tampering with their personal belongings. These arrests fall within the continuous policy of constriction pursued by the occupation authorities in various governorates of the West Bank, which has been accompanied by the issuance of more than 250 new demolition notices in the past few months.

The occupation court had earlier rejected a legal appeal to stop demolition orders targeting 14 homes in the town of Nahalin.

The Palestinian youth Yazan Fathi Saleh recorded a heroic stance in Jabalia camp, north of the Gaza Strip, after he threw himself into a deep wastewater pond to save a child who had fallen into it. Video footage circulated by social media platforms showed breathtaking moments, where the young man stormed the camp's famous 'Abu Rashid' pond, defying the looming health and environmental risks to pull out the child who was struggling to stay afloat.

Thanks to his quick response and courage, Yazan was able to reach the child in time, successfully lifting her from the polluted water and bringing her to safety. The child was handed over to her family in stable health, amidst widespread praise from citizens who gathered at the scene to follow the dangerous rescue operation in the absence of safety equipment.

This incident highlights the tragic reality experienced by displaced camps in the Gaza Strip, where sewage ponds have turned into deadly traps threatening children's lives daily. The spread of these polluted gatherings is due to the massive destruction of sewage and water networks as a result of continuous targeting, leading to the overflow of wastewater into streets and residential areas.

Local sources confirmed that residents of Jabalia camp and neighboring areas face successive environmental crises, as these areas lack the minimum basic services and necessary maintenance operations. These risks are exacerbated by the continued forced displacement and overcrowding of families in shelters lacking infrastructure, making individual acts of courage sometimes the only way to confront daily disasters.

The actions of the young man Yazan Saleh received a great deal of interaction from followers, who considered what he did an embodiment of the spirit of social solidarity that characterizes Palestinian society despite the ravages of war. Activists called for the necessity of international institutions to intervene to address the environmental catastrophe in Gaza, warning that the persistence of these ponds without radical solutions will lead to the recurrence of such tragic incidents and the spread of epidemics.

What the young man Yazan did is a living example of courage and human solidarity in light of the harsh conditions experienced by the residents of the Strip.

Mohamed Salem Sharqawi, the acting director of Bayt Mal Al-Quds Al-Sharif Agency, called for greater coordination among international humanitarian organizations to contribute to "preserving the special status of Jerusalem, fortifying its religious and civilizational center, and providing livelihood security and stability for its Palestinian residents," in integration with international efforts at various levels. Sharqawi stated, in his speech during the opening of the seventeenth session of the General Meeting between the United Nations and the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, which opened today, Wednesday, at the United Nations headquarters in Geneva, and will continue for three days: that there is a need to "develop a joint mechanism to rationalize efforts and unify goals to achieve the desired results," especially in light of the increasing challenges witnessed by the Holy City and its surroundings, based on the values of unity, freedom, justice, peace, and coexistence. He pointed out that the economic and social conditions of Palestinians "remain worrying" due to the daily challenges they face, and the difficulties they encounter in managing their livelihoods, movement, and mobility, which reinforces Bayt Mal Al-Quds Agency's commitment to continue providing all possible forms of support, in implementation of the high directives of His Majesty King Mohammed VI, Chairman of the Al-Quds Committee. He added that the work of humanitarian institutions operating in Jerusalem and Palestine "collides with the effects of accelerating events in the Middle East," noting that the role of the Al-Quds Committee, chaired by His Majesty King Mohammed VI, remains "important and influential" in advancing peace efforts and drying up the sources of conflict. He stressed that the Agency's action plan for the period 2025-2030 stems from a comprehensive vision aimed at consolidating the institution's role as a sustainable development mechanism, combining social support programs for the most needy groups, economic empowerment and human development projects, and supporting emerging enterprises in the fields of renewal and innovation. Today, in Geneva, the General Meeting between the United Nations and the Organization of Islamic Cooperation began, with the aim of strengthening strategic partnership and developing mechanisms for joint coordination between the bodies and agencies of the two organizations. The meeting discusses the progress made in areas of cooperation on issues of common concern, including political challenges, regional conflicts, combating terrorism, cultural, social and economic files, and sustainable development, in addition to exchanging views on ways to address regional and international challenges, and launching new initiatives that support efforts for peace, development, stability, and prosperity. The Organization of Islamic Cooperation is the second largest international organization after the United Nations, with 57 member states spread across four continents, and is headquartered in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. It is worth noting that Bayt Mal Al-Quds Al-Sharif Agency, the executive arm of the Al-Quds Committee chaired by His Majesty King Mohammed VI, continues to implement its field programs and projects in the city of Jerusalem, in the sectors of education, health, social support, economic empowerment, and heritage preservation, in support of the resilience of Jerusalemites and to strengthen their presence in their city, and to preserve its civilizational and religious identity.

Informed sources revealed the Trump administration's intention to support a civil nuclear cooperation agreement with Saudi Arabia, granting Riyadh the right to enrich uranium and reprocess spent nuclear fuel. This move represents a shift in traditional US policy, which had insisted on a 'gold standard' preventing partner countries from possessing domestic enrichment capabilities.

Talks between Washington and Riyadh have been ongoing for many years, as the Kingdom seeks to acquire advanced American technology to build its nuclear reactors. This cooperation aims to enable American companies to win massive contracts to develop Saudi Arabia's nuclear energy infrastructure, enhancing US commercial and strategic influence in the region.

These reports raise serious concerns in Washington's political circles and among some regional allies, especially since the agreement does not include strict restrictions preventing the transfer of technology for military purposes. Observers point out that the absence of an 'Additional Protocol' for international oversight may reduce the International Atomic Energy Agency's ability to monitor any undeclared activities.

Economically, Saudi Arabia's desire to possess nuclear energy falls within 'Vision 2030,' led by Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman. Through this program, the Kingdom aims to diversify energy sources and reduce reliance on burning oil and gas for electricity generation, which would free up larger quantities of crude for export and generate higher financial returns.

Data from the US Energy Information Administration indicates that Saudi Arabia consumes enormous quantities of oil for energy production, especially in the summer. This consumption reaches about 1.4 million barrels per day, which Riyadh considers a waste of resources that could be better invested in global markets if a nuclear alternative were available.

The Kingdom clearly announced in early 2025 that it would proceed with uranium enrichment to produce the 'yellowcake' needed for nuclear fuel. This statement presented the US administration with two options: either engage in the agreement to ensure oversight of the program, or leave the field open to international competitors such as China and Russia.

China and Russia are prominent competitors to the United States in this matter, as Beijing previously offered to build Saudi nuclear power plants. Moscow also has experience in the region after constructing the Dabaa plant in Egypt, giving Riyadh strong alternatives if negotiations with Washington falter.

The agreement faces a legal hurdle and strict scrutiny in the US Congress, as the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 requires review of any nuclear cooperation agreement. Members of Congress are demanding firm guarantees preventing Saudi Arabia from using the technology to develop nuclear weapons, especially in light of ongoing tensions with Iran.

The new trends raise questions about the consistency of US foreign policy, especially since Washington exerted maximum pressure on Tehran to abandon its enrichment program. Critics believe that granting Riyadh the right to enrich may weaken the American stance demanding nuclear disarmament in the region generally.

Regionally, Israel always expresses concern about any nuclear ambitions in its vicinity, even if for peaceful purposes. Despite Washington's efforts to link nuclear cooperation with the normalization issue, Riyadh still links any political progress with Tel Aviv to the necessity of finding a just solution to the Palestinian issue and establishing a state.

Sources reported that the US Secretary of Energy met with his Saudi counterpart last year, confirming that the two countries are on a positive path towards a civil nuclear agreement. However, ambiguity still surrounds the technical details related to the management of enrichment facilities, and whether they will be subject to a 'black box' system managed by Americans.

The issue of reprocessing spent nuclear fuel is another point of contention, as materials used in warheads can be extracted from it. The Saudi side asserts that its commitment to the Non-Proliferation Treaty is sufficient to reassure the international community, emphasizing its sovereign right to possess a complete fuel cycle.

Experts believe that reaching a nuclear agreement will give the United States greater ability to access details of the Saudi program compared to other partners. This access may help alleviate security concerns in the long term and ensure Riyadh remains within the Western technological and security system.

Ultimately, the decision to proceed with this agreement remains subject to political balances within Washington and the extent of Congress's acceptance of waiving the 'gold standard.' The coming months will determine whether Saudi Arabia will enter the nuclear club with an American partnership or turn eastward to secure its energy ambitions.

The proposed agreement provides a legal path for cooperation in the nuclear fuel cycle, but it does not obligate Washington to immediately transfer enrichment technology.

The regional area witnessed a dangerous military escalation after Iran renewed its missile bombardment of the Jordanian city of Aqaba, coinciding with widespread attacks targeting sites in Kuwait and Bahrain. These developments follow a night of intense American airstrikes that targeted deep inside Iran, leading to the simultaneous ignition of multiple fronts.

The General Command of the Jordanian Armed Forces announced today, Wednesday, that its air defense systems detected six missiles launched from Iranian territory towards the Kingdom. The military statement clarified that the air defenses successfully intercepted and destroyed four missiles in the air, while the remaining two missiles fell in empty and remote areas.

A responsible military source confirmed that the armed forces dealt with the threat immediately upon its penetration of Jordanian airspace, emphasizing that Jordanian airspace is under precise and continuous monitoring around the clock. The source indicated that the army would not hesitate to apply strict rules of engagement to protect national sovereignty and ensure the security of citizens from any external attacks.

On the opposite side of Aqaba, camera lenses in Eilat detected a dense rise of smoke plumes in the sky, accompanied by the sound of violent explosions that shook the border area. These scenes raised questions about the nature of military intervention in the interception operations that took place over the Gulf of Aqaba in recent hours.

For its part, media sources quoted the Israeli Broadcasting Corporation confirming that no missiles or shrapnel fell within Israeli borders as a result of the latest Iranian volley. The sources clarified that the Israeli army did not intervene in the missile interception operations, which reinforces the hypothesis that US forces stationed in the region carried out the interception mission.

Regarding Iranian operations, the Iranian army announced the execution of suicide drone attacks targeting ammunition depots and command centers belonging to the US Army at Camp 'Doha' in Kuwait. Iranian attacks also included Al-Azraq Air Base in Jordan and Sheikh Isa Air Base in Bahrain, in a move described by Tehran as a response to US actions.

Inside Iran, local sources reported hearing three powerful explosions near the city of Sirik in Hormozgan province in the southeast of the country. The nature of these explosions or the extent of the resulting damage was not immediately clear, amid a state of security and military alert in Iran's coastal provinces.

Iran's energy infrastructure was subjected to direct strikes, as American missiles targeted a vital power plant located near the Bushehr nuclear reactor in the south of the country. The attack, which occurred on Tuesday evening, led to a complete power outage in the village of Bandar Gah and its surrounding areas, before emergency teams intervened to repair it.

The security assistant to the governor of Bushehr confirmed that the cities of Bushehr and Dashti were subjected to a series of American airstrikes targeting specific locations. Despite the intensity of the bombing, Iranian authorities confirmed that no human casualties were recorded among civilians or technical crews, considering the targeting an unprecedented escalation against civilian facilities.

These direct confrontations raise the level of tension in the Middle East to record levels, amid the continued exchange of blows between Washington and Tehran. Regional and international capitals are cautiously monitoring the outcomes of this military clash, amid fears of the region sliding into an all-out war that transcends the limits of current skirmishes.

The armed forces will deal with any aerial threat targeting Jordanian territory according to the established rules of engagement, ensuring the protection of the Kingdom's sovereignty and the safety of its citizens.

US President Donald Trump has given his official approval for a strategic agreement with the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, aimed at establishing a nuclear program dedicated to civilian purposes. Informed sources stated that this agreement, described as historic, comes after a series of intensive discussions to enhance energy cooperation between Washington and Riyadh. The final details of this cooperative framework are expected to be announced in the coming hours, serving as a fundamental pillar in long-term bilateral relations.

Through this step, the US administration aims to open up massive investment opportunities, estimated at billions of dollars, for American companies specializing in the nuclear technology sector. The agreement includes extensive participation of these companies in building and developing the infrastructure of the Saudi program, which will boost the American economy and create new job opportunities in this vital sector. Washington asserts that this partnership will ensure its leadership in the global energy market while meeting Riyadh's growing needs.

Press reports revealed that the three-decade agreement includes a controversial clause allowing for the establishment of a uranium enrichment facility within Saudi territory. The implementation of this clause is linked to the results of a joint technical and economic study conducted by the two countries to assess the feasibility of the project and its compliance with international standards. This development represents a qualitative shift in nuclear policy in the region, as Saudi Arabia seeks to possess a complete nuclear fuel cycle to ensure its energy sustainability.

In contrast, this move has faced a wave of criticism and reservations within the US Congress from both Republican and Democratic lawmakers. Opponents expressed grave concerns that Saudi Arabia's acquisition of enrichment technologies could lead to a nuclear arms race in the Middle East. Israeli officials also expressed similar concerns, warning of the possibility of converting these civilian capabilities into military programs in the future if political circumstances change.

Procedurally, the text of the agreement is scheduled to be referred to Congress in the coming days for review and examination of its detailed provisions. However, the agreement's entry into force does not require an approval vote from lawmakers; rather, it automatically passes unless opposing forces succeed in mobilizing a sufficient majority to block it. The US administration is banking on its ability to convince hesitant parties of the effectiveness of the strict oversight guarantees included in the agreement.

This announcement comes at a sensitive time when the region is witnessing an escalation on the ground between Saudi forces and the Houthi group, which recently threatened to target navigation linked to Saudi ports. These tensions coincide with ongoing anticipation regarding the Iranian file, making the Saudi-American nuclear agreement have geopolitical dimensions that extend beyond mere energy cooperation. Through this program, Riyadh seeks to diversify its sources of income and reduce its total reliance on oil as part of its future vision.

The United States emphasizes that any nuclear cooperation with Riyadh will be subject to strict international oversight to ensure no deviation from peaceful objectives. The agreement includes precise inspection protocols aimed at preventing any attempts to develop nuclear weapons, which Washington considers a fundamental condition for moving forward. Both sides hope that this cooperation will contribute to stabilizing global energy markets and providing clean and sustainable alternatives for economic growth in the region.

The agreement will provide investment opportunities estimated at billions of dollars for the nuclear energy sector in the United States through the participation of national companies in the implementation of Saudi projects.

Washington Message

AIPAC and the Purchase of Political Influence… When Millions of Dollars Become a Tool to Re-engineer American Democracy

Washington – Said Arikat – 22/7/2026

News Analysis

The Democratic Party's primary race for a Senate seat in Michigan is no longer just an electoral competition between Representative Haley Stevens and progressive candidate Abd al-Rahman al-Sayed. Instead, it has transformed into one of the most controversial political battles in the United States, after the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) and its affiliated organizations spent nearly thirty million dollars to support Stevens, in the largest single electoral investment in the organization's history. The question is no longer who will win the seat, but rather to what extent political money has become capable of directing voters' will and reshaping American political life to serve the agendas of the wealthiest and most influential lobbying groups.

This battle reveals a disturbing aspect of American democracy, where competition is no longer based on programs and visions as much as it relies on the ability of entities with massive financial resources to flood media markets with advertisements and craft the image of their preferred candidate, even if that candidate is not the most popular or the most capable of raising donations from citizens. While Stevens' direct campaign spending did not exceed one million dollars, external spending supporting her exceeded fifty million dollars, including tens of millions from AIPAC and other organizations, some of which do not even disclose the identity of their funders.

Notably, according to experts, this flood of money is not transparently injected before voters. Advertisements funded by AIPAC deliberately avoid making Israel the focus of their messages, even though the organization explicitly states in its literature that Israel is its top priority and that it only supports candidates who endorse it and adopt its political agenda. In contrast, there is no mention whatsoever of the Israeli massacre in Gaza or the political goals the organization seeks to achieve, while its messages hide behind general slogans that do not reveal the true identity of the funding entity or its motives. This approach reflects a growing realization within the organization that its name has become a political liability, especially among broad segments of the Democratic Party. As a result, millions of voters are exposed to intensive advertising campaigns without realizing who is behind them or the true political objectives of this unprecedented electoral spending.

Equally striking is the position of candidate Haley Stevens herself, who has repeatedly avoided directly answering questions about AIPAC, contenting herself with saying that all who support her do so in appreciation of her service to the people of Michigan. But this avoidance raises legitimate questions: If financial support does not affect the independence of political decision-making, why are candidates hesitant to talk about it? And why do they not provide voters with a clear explanation of the nature of the relationship with the entities that spend tens of millions on their behalf?

The problem is not in the right of AIPAC, or any other lobbying group, to participate in political life, as this is a right guaranteed by American law. Rather, it lies in the inflation of its financial capacity to the extent that it becomes a player almost on par with political parties themselves. When a single organization can spend amounts equivalent to tens of times what the candidate it supports spends, then talking about equal electoral opportunities becomes questionable, even if everything remains in compliance with the letter of the law.

The controversy intensifies because these elections are taking place in a state with the largest concentration of Arab Americans, at a time when the Israeli war on Gaza continues to cast a shadow over American politics. Since the outbreak of the war, anger has escalated within the Democratic base, criticism of American military support for Israel has widened, and a new generation of voters has emerged who believe that continued support contradicts the party's principles regarding human rights and international law.

In this context, Abd al-Sayed has made the issue of AIPAC's influence a central theme in his campaign, considering political money as a means to silence voices critical of Israeli policies within the Democratic Party. This argument is supported by prominent progressive figures, including Senator Bernie Sanders and Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who considered the Michigan battle a test of whether grassroots campaigns can withstand unprecedented financial spending.

Criticism of AIPAC gains an additional dimension because it is not limited to Arab or Islamic circles but also includes Jewish politicians and veteran Democrats. Former Representative Andy Levin, who is Jewish, previously accused the organization of concealing its political identity in electoral advertisements, asserting that the average voter does not know that the messages they see daily are funded by a lobbying group with clear foreign policy objectives. Other Democratic representatives have also announced their refusal to accept AIPAC's future support, considering that the independence of political decision-making requires avoiding any impression that positions are bought with money.

This comes at a time when the Democratic Party is undergoing a significant shift regarding Israel. More than a hundred Democratic representatives recently voted in favor of an attempt to halt part of US military aid to Israel, the biggest indicator yet of the widening gap between the party's traditional leadership and its popular base. Criticizing AIPAC or rejecting its support is no longer a political taboo as it was years ago, but has become part of the internal debate about the future of American foreign policy.

Although some analysts downplay the impact of this issue on voter behavior compared to economic and inflation issues, the importance of the Michigan battle extends beyond the state's borders. It represents a real test of American democracy's ability to resist the dominance of political money, and of the voter's ability to distinguish between electoral messages and the entities that fund them.

The real danger lies not in the existence of lobbying groups, as these are part of the American political system, but in the imbalance of power between them and the ordinary citizen. When the ability to inject tens of millions of dollars becomes the decisive factor in determining who has a chance to appear in the media and who can reach voters, competition gradually transforms from a struggle of ideas into a struggle of bank accounts.

Even more alarming is that many politicians and institutions seem willing to turn a blind eye to this imbalance as long as it does not directly affect their interests. Silence about the inflation of political money's influence is no less dangerous than its inflation itself, because it bestows political and moral legitimacy upon it, making the accountability of lobbying groups seem like an anomaly, rather than a natural part of democratic oversight.

The Gaza war has revealed a profound shift in American public opinion, showing that the Democratic base no longer views Israel and its pro-Israel lobbying groups in the same way that was prevalent for decades. From this perspective, the Michigan battle appears to be more than just an electoral race; it is a confrontation between two models of democracy: one that sees money as a legitimate right to influence politics within legal boundaries, and the other that warns that the inflation of this influence empties elections of their popular content and makes them closer to a competition between funders than a competition between candidates. Ultimately, democracy is measured not only by ballot boxes, but also by the equality of opportunity among competitors, the transparency of sources of influence, and the ability of citizens to choose their representatives away from the dominance of organized money and the wealthiest lobbying groups.

US Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced that the United States continues to keep diplomatic channels open to resolve the escalating conflict with Iran, noting that Tehran has not yet shown serious engagement with negotiation pathways. Rubio clarified during a meeting with his counterparts at the 'ASEAN' association in the Philippines that Washington is ready for dialogue provided there is genuine will from the other side.

Rubio stressed that the US administration will not hesitate to take decisive steps to protect its interests and those of its allies in the region if Iranian intransigence continues. He indicated that the main obstacle to de-escalation lies in the absence of parity in seriousness, emphasizing that commitment to diplomacy requires concrete actions on the ground, not just statements.

These statements come at a sensitive time when the region is witnessing intensive diplomatic efforts to save the temporary ceasefire agreement, amid reports of a new proposal for a ten-day cessation of hostilities. This proposal aims to revive the understandings reached last June, which collapsed due to mutual military escalation in international shipping lanes.

On the ground, sources reported that the US Central Command continued its airstrikes on Iranian sites for the eleventh consecutive night, aiming to undermine Tehran's ability to threaten navigation. Loud explosions were heard in various areas including Tabriz, Sirik, and Chabahar, while Iranian authorities activated air defense systems in the capital, Tehran.

Regarding regional mediation, Iranian Interior Minister Eskandar Momeni visited Pakistan to strengthen communication channels and convey messages between Tehran and Washington. Tehran asked Islamabad to continue its efforts to de-escalate tensions, in an attempt to avoid a comprehensive confrontation that could affect vital Iranian and nuclear facilities.

The US Secretary of State warned of the danger of controlling the Strait of Hormuz, considering that imposing any conditions or fees on passing ships represents a precedent that threatens global trade. Rubio affirmed that this issue does not concern the Middle East alone, but its repercussions extend to Southeast Asian countries that rely entirely on energy supplies passing through these waterways.

In a related context, international concerns escalated following threats by the Houthi group to impose a naval blockade on Saudi ports and target oil tankers at the entrance to the Red Sea. These threats led to a change in the route of three giant oil tankers that were heading to China and India, as they preferred to pass through the Suez Canal to avoid the turbulent Yemeni coasts.

For his part, US President Donald Trump hinted at military action against the Houthis if they carry out their threats to close the Bab al-Mandab Strait, noting that the waterway remains open for now. Trump revealed a heavy toll from the four-month conflict, announcing the death of 18 American soldiers in confrontations related to the escalation with Iran and its proxies.

The disruption of navigation routes in the Straits of Hormuz and Bab al-Mandab led to a jump in global oil prices, with Brent crude exceeding $91 per barrel. Observers believe that the continuation of maritime threats will reduce the available alternatives for oil exports, putting immense pressure on the global economy and energy security in importing countries.

In Tehran, the 'Khatam al-Anbiya' Air Defense Headquarters threatened to directly target the interests of the United States and its allies if nuclear facilities are attacked. These threats reflect the magnitude of the gap between the two sides, despite the continued existence of back channels trying to prevent a slide into a wide-ranging regional war whose end cannot be predicted.

ASEAN foreign ministers expressed their grave concern about the repercussions of this crisis on economic stability in their region, calling for ensuring freedom of air and sea navigation. The ministers warned that any long-term disruption in energy supplies would lead to severe inflationary crises affecting the livelihoods of millions in Southeast Asian countries.

International circles are awaiting the outcome of the coming days, especially with Trump's vow to strike the 'Jabal al-Fa's' area in Iran in response to recent attacks. With the collapse of previous memorandums of understanding, it seems that the dispute over freedom of navigation and mechanisms for regulating passage in international straits has become the most prominent knot preventing a return to the negotiating table.

If they are serious, we are serious, and if not, we will take the necessary measures to protect our interests and the interests of our allies.

Tehran issued a strong warning to Bulgaria today, Tuesday, demanding that it not allow the United States to use its territory as a launchpad for military operations targeting the Islamic Republic. This stance was expressed by the spokesperson for the Iranian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Esmaeil Baghaei, amid reports of Sofia's intention to enhance military cooperation with Washington.

Sources reported that the Bulgarian government, a member of NATO, plans to seek parliamentary authorization to deploy up to eight US aerial refueling aircraft. These aircraft are scheduled to be stationed at the "Bezmer" military base located southeast of the capital Sofia, a move that Tehran views as a direct threat to its national security.

Baghaei, in statements reported by official media, stressed the necessity for Bulgaria to adhere to international law and not become a "partner to aggressors." He added that facilitating any American attacks would place Sofia in the circle of complicity in what he described as "aggression and war crimes," warning of the repercussions of engaging in the ongoing military escalation in the region.

This diplomatic tension comes at a time when the relationship between Washington and Tehran is witnessing a remarkable field escalation, as mutual raids intensified after the collapse of a temporary ceasefire agreement signed last month. International concerns are growing about the two sides sliding into a comprehensive confrontation, especially with reports indicating that other European countries, including Britain, have granted similar facilities to US forces.

Any activity that facilitates US attacks on Iran will be considered complicity in aggression and war crimes.

American military operations against targets deep inside Iran entered their eleventh day, amidst a sharp escalation in the language of threat between Tehran and Washington, which portends an expansion of the direct confrontation in the region.

Official Iranian sources quoted the Supreme Joint Military Command as issuing a strong warning, in which it affirmed that any American attempt to strike nuclear facilities would be met with a decisive response targeting American interests and the interests of Washington's allied countries directly.

This announcement comes at a sensitive time when the region is witnessing unprecedented military mobilization, as Tehran considers the protection of its nuclear program a red line, believing that any تجاوز of this line will change the existing rules of engagement and open the door to targeting Western bases and interests.

Iran will target the interests of the United States and its allies if Washington attacks Iranian nuclear sites.

The Arabian Gulf region witnessed a dangerous military escalation today, Tuesday, as authorities in both Kuwait and the Kingdom of Bahrain announced that their territories were subjected to coordinated aerial attacks launched by Iranian forces. Official sources confirmed that the air defense systems in both countries entered a state of maximum alert to deal with waves of missiles and drones that targeted various locations.

In Kuwait, the General Staff of the Army issued an urgent statement clarifying that air defense forces are currently confronting hostile targets resulting from Iranian aggression. The statement indicated that the sounds of explosions heard across the capital and other areas are a result of successful interception operations carried out by defense systems to protect Kuwaiti airspace.

Kuwait's General Staff called on citizens and residents to strictly adhere to security and safety instructions issued by the competent authorities and to stay away from military operation sites. It also stressed the importance of obtaining information from official sources and not being swayed by rumors during these critical circumstances the country is experiencing.

For its part, the official Kuwait News Agency reported that sirens sounded in various governorates to warn residents of imminent attacks. These developments come just hours after a previous attack targeted Kuwaiti facilities, indicating a continuous Iranian escalation aimed at destabilizing the region.

In Manama, the General Command of the Bahrain Defense Force announced the activation of early warning systems and sirens throughout the Kingdom following the detection of an Iranian aerial attack. In an official statement, Bahrain accused Tehran of continuing its systematic aggressive approach through attacks directly targeting civilian areas and safe residents in the Kingdom.

Bahrain's General Command clarified that air defenses were able to intercept and destroy a number of treacherous missiles and drones before they reached their targets. The Bahraini armed forces affirmed that they are at the highest levels of combat readiness and prepared to defend the homeland and protect its assets from any external threat.

Bahraini authorities warned residents not to approach any strange objects or debris resulting from air interception operations, emphasizing that they could pose a danger to public safety. They called on everyone to immediately report any suspicious debris to enable specialized technical teams to deal with and dismantle it safely.

Bahrain's Royal Engineering Unit indicated that its specialized teams are deployed in the field to deal with the repercussions of the Iranian attack. The Bahraini forces stressed that deliberately targeting civilians and private property constitutes a blatant violation of all international humanitarian laws and norms that criminalize such hostile acts.

Internationally, this escalation has raised widespread concerns about navigation security in the Arabian Gulf and the stability of global energy supplies. The International Energy Agency warned that the continuation of armed conflict in this vital region threatens major disruptions in oil markets, calling for the necessity of securing the Strait of Hormuz passage.

In a related context, political observers considered the simultaneous Iranian attacks on Kuwait and Bahrain to represent a dangerous shift in the rules of regional conflict. Analysts pointed out that directly targeting Gulf states reflects Tehran's desire to expand the scope of confrontation and pressure the international community by threatening the security of Washington's allies in the region.

These developments come at a time when the region is witnessing escalating tensions, with increasing warnings of the situation sliding into an all-out war. Major capitals are closely monitoring the situation, amidst expectations of firm international stances regarding the attacks that targeted the sovereignty of two Arab states and endangered civilian lives.

Military sources in both countries concluded by affirming that the armed forces will remain the protective shield against any attempts of aggression. Kuwait and Bahrain affirmed their continuous coordination within the framework of joint Gulf action to confront common threats and ensure the security and stability of the GCC states in the face of current challenges.

Kuwaiti air defenses are currently confronting hostile missile and drone attacks, following the sinful Iranian aggression.

The security team of Colombian President-elect, Abelardo de la Espriella, announced the detection of precise intelligence information indicating the existence of a 'criminal plot' aimed at his physical elimination. These threats come amidst the sensitive transitional phase preceding his official inauguration ceremonies scheduled for August 7th, which has triggered a state of security alert in the country.

The statement issued by the security team clarified that the plot aimed to launch attacks during the power transfer meetings or during the regional tours currently being conducted by the President-elect. Intelligence reports indicated the detection of a huge financial offer, amounting to approximately one million US dollars, allocated to the party that would carry out the assassination, which reflects the seriousness and danger of the existing threat.

Security authorities directly pointed fingers at elements of the 'National Liberation Army' and dissident groups from the 'Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia' known as (FARC). The statement warned of the possibility of these groups resorting to infiltration tactics at press conferences and public events, exploiting the presence of civilians and children as human shields to carry out their treacherous attacks.

Despite these stringent security warnings, de la Espriella affirmed that he would not back down from his announced agenda or cancel his scheduled public meetings. His team stressed that the Colombian state would not succumb to the policy of intimidation, while simultaneously announcing the strengthening of preventive measures and intensifying security around the President and all participants in his political activities.

The President-elect's team demanded that judicial and competent authorities launch an immediate and urgent investigation to ascertain the sources of these threats and verify the accuracy of the incoming intelligence information. This move aims to thwart any attempt to destabilize political stability or target civilians participating in public events organized by the President-elect in various regions.

Observers believe that this plot comes as a reaction to the hardline political stances adopted by de la Espriella towards irregular armed groups in Colombia. He explicitly announced his intention to end all dialogue paths initiated by the previous administration, preferring to adopt an iron fist policy to end the armed conflicts that have been ongoing for decades.

De la Espriella, a Washington-backed lawyer, is a new face on the Colombian political scene, having never held any public office before his controversial victory in the runoff. His narrow victory sparked a wave of violent protests, especially with his electoral promises which included building massive prisons and reducing the state's administrative apparatus by up to 40%.

Colombia is experiencing a state of increasing security concern, especially after the assassination of presidential candidate Miguel Uribe Turbay last year during an election rally. These new threats bring back memories of the country's long history of political violence, at a time when the Colombian right seeks to consolidate its power with the support of international allies, most notably the United States and Israel.

Colombia cannot surrender to threats, and the work program or scheduled meetings will not be suspended despite the security risks.

The Israeli intelligence services, this Tuesday afternoon, released Major General Bilal Natsheh, Secretary-General of the National Popular Conference for Jerusalem, following an interrogation that lasted several hours at the "Moscovia" interrogation and detention center in occupied Jerusalem.

According to lawyer Ahmed Safiya, who defended Major General Natsheh, the interrogation sessions focused on his national and social activities in Jerusalem, particularly his representation of His Excellency the President and his deputy, in addition to his follow-up on programs supporting Jerusalemite students and helping them complete their education in Palestinian universities.

Lawyer Safiya clarified that the occupation authorities decided to release Major General Natsheh under restrictive conditions, most notably prohibiting him from engaging in any activity that the Israeli authorities consider to be representing the Palestinian leadership in Jerusalem.

Occupation forces had raided Major General Natsheh's home in the Sharafat neighborhood of Jerusalem yesterday, Monday, but he was not present at home during the raid. His brother was handed a summons requiring him to appear at the "Moscovia" interrogation center this afternoon. He complied with the summons, before undergoing a lengthy interrogation that lasted several hours, ending with his release under the aforementioned conditions.

This measure comes within the context of a continuous Israeli policy targeting national figures, leaders, and Palestinian institutions operating in Jerusalem, through summonses, interrogations, and the imposition of administrative restrictions, as part of efforts to limit any official or national Palestinian presence in the occupied city.

The restrictions imposed by the occupation authorities on Major General Bilal Natsheh are an extension of Israeli measures aimed at reducing the Palestinian political and official presence in East Jerusalem, a city that international law considers part of the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967.

The Gaza Strip witnessed another bloody day since dawn on Tuesday, as 12 Palestinians were martyred in a series of airstrikes and artillery shelling targeting various areas of the Strip. These attacks come within the framework of the ongoing escalation and repeated Israeli violations of the ceasefire agreement in effect since October 10, 2025, threatening the collapse of fragile understandings.

In a horrific crime that shook Gaza City, an entire family of six was martyred as a result of shelling that targeted a residential apartment in the Al-Samir area. Medical sources confirmed that ambulance crews recovered the bodies of the father, Firas Ahmed Al-Masry, and his wife, Salsabil Mohammed Al-Masry, 34 years old, in addition to their four children whose bodies arrived charred at the hospital.

Sources at Al-Shifa Hospital reported that the child victims were Naim (13 years old), Ferial (11 years old), Salma (9 years old), and Amira (6 years old). The family's bodies were laid to rest in a mournful funeral procession, amidst widespread popular condemnation of the crime that led to the complete erasure of the family from the Palestinian civil registry as a result of the direct targeting of their home.

In another field development, an Israeli drone carried out a raid targeting an apartment in a residential building located opposite the Public Service Hospital in the center of Gaza City. The attack resulted in the martyrdom of four Palestinians and the injury of others with varying degrees of severity. The bodies of three of them were transported immediately after the raid, while the fourth died from his serious injuries inside the operating rooms.

The attacks were not limited to Gaza City but extended to the central Strip, where occupation aircraft targeted a civilian car traveling northeast of the Nuseirat refugee camp. Medical sources confirmed the arrival of two martyrs at the hospital as a result of this targeting, while search operations continued for potential injuries in the vicinity of the targeted site, which suffered extensive damage.

In a related context, the Ministry of Health announced the death of a Palestinian woman who succumbed to severe injuries she sustained in a previous Israeli raid that targeted a home in Gaza City several days ago. This announcement raises the toll of victims who die daily from their injuries amid a severe shortage of medical supplies and necessary medicines to treat critical cases.

On the ground, the eastern areas of the Al-Zaytoun neighborhood, south of Gaza City, were subjected to intense artillery shelling at dawn today, coinciding with gunfire from military vehicles stationed in the vicinity. Eyewitnesses reported that the indiscriminate shelling caused a state of panic among displaced residents in nearby areas and led to significant material damage to properties and agricultural lands.

In the central Strip, Israeli military vehicles, including tanks and a bulldozer, encroached into the 'Abu Gharaba' area east of Deir al-Balah city. The encroaching forces carried out extensive bulldozing of agricultural lands under heavy gunfire, before the vehicles withdrew to their positions behind the security fence after several hours of the operation that targeted the area's infrastructure.

Local reports indicate that this encroachment comes in the context of Israeli army attempts to expand its control areas, as the displacement of yellow concrete blocks westward was observed. These blocks are symbolic markers of what is known as the 'Yellow Line' defined by ceasefire understandings as a dividing line between withdrawal areas and military concentration areas.

There is a state of concern among Palestinians following statements by Israeli officials about their intention to increase the area of military control within the Strip. According to these plans, the occupation authorities seek to raise their control percentage from 53% stipulated in the agreement to about 70%, which represents a fundamental violation of the internationally sponsored truce provisions.

According to Ministry of Health data, the toll of Israeli violations since the start of the ceasefire agreement until this morning has reached 1,168 martyrs and 3,798 injured. These figures show the extent of ongoing violations suffered by civilians in various governorates of the Strip, despite declared commitments to cease hostilities and protect civilians.

These developments come at a time when the Strip is still suffering from the effects of the genocide war that began on October 7, 2023. That war left a catastrophic toll exceeding 73,000 martyrs and more than 173,000 injured, in addition to the destruction of about 90% of the infrastructure, civilian facilities, and hospitals, making life in the Strip almost impossible.

For its part, the Civil Defense confirmed that its crews are working under harsh conditions to extinguish fires resulting from the shelling, having managed to control a large fire in the Al-Masry family's home. Rescue teams suffer from a severe shortage of equipment and fuel, which hinders their ability to respond quickly to calls amidst continuous direct and indirect Israeli targeting.

Human rights activists and international organizations demand immediate intervention to stop these violations and ensure the protection of Palestinian civilians from the Israeli war machine. Observers warn that the continuation of these systematic raids could lead to a return of comprehensive confrontations, especially given the occupation's insistence on changing the field reality and imposing new buffer zones that violate international understandings.

The Israeli raid led to the complete erasure of the Al-Masry family from the Palestinian civil registry after the martyrdom of the father, mother, and their four children.