The Christian Quarter in the heart of occupied Jerusalem's Old City witnessed tense field events this evening, Thursday, following the incursion of groups of extremist settlers into the alleys of the Christian neighborhood. Local sources reported that clashes erupted directly when Palestinian residents confronted the settlers' attempts to bring noise and racist chants into the neighborhood, known for its traditional tranquility, in defense of their homes and presence.

These clashes come in the context of the annual 'Flag March' events, in which tens of thousands of right-wing extremists participate to commemorate the occupation of the eastern part of the city in 1967. Participants in the march attempted to provoke Jerusalemites by raising Israeli flags in sensitive areas, leading to widespread popular mobilization in various neighborhoods of the Old City to prevent the intruders from imposing a new reality.

In a parallel escalation, the Minister of National Security in the occupation government, Itamar Ben-Gvir, stormed the courtyards of the blessed Al-Aqsa Mosque under heavy security protection. This move sparked a wave of official and popular Palestinian condemnations, as it was described as a blatant provocation aimed at changing the historical and legal status quo in Islamic holy sites, and imposing temporal and spatial division schemes.

For their part, human rights organizations warned that these systematic practices reflect a broader strategy aimed at forcibly displacing Palestinians and completely Judaizing East Jerusalem. Reports indicated that turning residential neighborhoods into confrontation zones falls within the policy of tightening restrictions on the indigenous population, in complete disregard for international law which classifies Jerusalem as occupied territory whose features should not be altered.

Observers believe that the timing of the incursion into the Christian Quarter with the incursion into Al-Aqsa represents a clear message of escalation from the occupation government and settler groups against the Palestinian presence in all its components. Jerusalemites affirm that their steadfastness in the face of these provocative marches is the only way to thwart plans to control the holy city and preserve its Arab, Islamic, and Christian identity.

These marches are not just a celebration, but a tool to entrench the occupation and threaten the Palestinian presence in ancestral neighborhoods.

The Fatah movement is witnessing a growing state of anger and internal debate, following reports and information revealing attempts led by Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas to push his son, Yasser, towards playing an influential role within the movement's Central Committee. These moves coincide with the start of the Eighth Conference, where Yasser Abbas's name is strongly circulated as a potential candidate for membership in the movement's highest leadership body.

This step has provoked widespread objections and sharp criticism within Fatah circles, which view this direction as a clear attempt to 'inherit political and organizational influence' within the movement that leads the Palestinian Authority. Estimates suggest that the Eighth Conference may turn into a fierce battleground between the movement's different factions, especially with the escalating talk of rearranging power and influence centers.

Questions are increasing about the post-Mahmoud Abbas era given his advanced age, making the issue of his son's ascent a rich topic for discussion about the future of leadership. While no official announcement has yet been issued by Yasser Abbas regarding his candidacy, the volume of leaks and reports reflects the depth of the tensions the movement is experiencing at this sensitive historical stage.

A state of discontent prevails among Fatah cadres and leaders regarding the push to bring Yasser Abbas to the forefront, which opponents attribute to the man's lack of organizational history. Sources reported that Yasser Abbas did not follow the traditional path of the movement, nor did he progress through the known movement positions in the regions or leadership bodies, which makes his ascent lack the usual militant legitimacy.

Leaders in the movement warned that imposing specific names in advanced positions could lead to the eruption of new internal conflicts and deepen the already existing division. Observers believe that the competition between the movement's poles over Abbas's succession could get out of control if attempts to empower the president's inner circle at the expense of historical cadres continue.

Sources expressed concern about Yasser Abbas taking the lead with the support of a group described as 'beneficiaries' surrounding the presidency of the Authority, who see personal interest in accommodating him. This group, according to sources, seeks to secure its positions by ensuring the continued influence of the president's family in the movement's and the PLO's highest organizational and political structures.

Despite not holding an officially announced position yet, Yasser Abbas has begun to be presented in recent months as the 'President's Special Representative' in several official meetings and visits. Informed sources confirmed that his appointment to the National Council and his assignment of political tasks were made by unannounced decisions years ago, away from legal oversight or official publication.

Yasser Abbas's representative activity began to expand since 2020 through external participations, where he handled sensitive files that included the Lebanese arena and communication with state institutions there and its factions. Reports indicate that he intensified his activity in recent weeks to gain the support of various movement frameworks to support his membership in the Central Committee during the current conference.

It is worth noting that Yasser Abbas is primarily known as a businessman who manages a group of companies in the fields of contracting, tobacco, and various investments. He has never held any official organizational position within Fatah or PLO institutions, despite his frequent appearances in high-level political meetings alongside his father in international and local forums.

Yasser Abbas's sudden ascent is viewed as 'political inheritance' rather than an organizational entitlement, given the absence of movement progression.

Washington – Said Arikat – 15/5/2026

News Analysis

In a development reflecting the escalating ethical and political debate surrounding the role of major technology companies in the Israeli war on Palestinians, Alon Himovitch, the General Manager of Microsoft's branch in Israel, was dismissed from his position after an internal investigation into the use of the "Azure" cloud computing platform by the Israeli military intelligence Unit "8200" in mass surveillance operations against Palestinians in Gaza and the occupied West Bank. This development comes at a time when Western technology companies are facing increasing pressure due to their cooperation with Israeli military and security institutions, amid accusations of facilitating widespread human rights violations.

According to media reports, Himovitch, who led Microsoft's operations in Israel for four years, will leave his position, and administrative oversight powers will be transferred to the company's branch in France. A number of officials in the governance department within Microsoft Israel also left, against the backdrop of concerns that they might have violated the company's ethical code of conduct, indicating the depth of the crisis sparked by the internal investigations.

Microsoft had opened an investigation last year following reports revealing that Unit "8200," the most advanced arm of the Israeli espionage system, used the "Azure" platform to store and analyze vast amounts of intercepted Palestinian communications. According to circulating information, the system was capable of collecting and analyzing "one million calls per hour," as part of a mass surveillance project targeting the daily lives of Palestinians in the occupied territories.

Leaked documents indicate that Himovitch played a pivotal role in solidifying the relationship between Microsoft and Unit "8200," especially after a meeting between the company's CEO Satya Nadella and the intelligence unit's leadership in 2021. The cooperation included the creation of an isolated space within the "Azure" cloud infrastructure to store sensitive intelligence materials, before the unit began transferring a vast archive of daily Palestinian communications to Microsoft's servers.

Following the investigation, the company concluded, according to press reports, that Unit "8200"'s use of its services violated the terms of use that prohibit employing technology to facilitate mass surveillance of civilians. Consequently, Microsoft suspended the unit's access to its cloud services and products related to the intelligence project.

However, the issue extends beyond the administrative dispute within a major tech company, opening the door to deeper questions about the nature of the relationship between Western technology companies and Israeli military institutions. For years, Silicon Valley giants have become essential partners in the modern digital control structure, by providing cloud computing, artificial intelligence, and big data analysis tools, technologies that have become an integral part of war and surveillance systems.

In this context, the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement believes that Microsoft is "one of the most complicit technology companies" with what it describes as the "Israeli apartheid system" and the war on Gaza. The movement asserts that tech companies are no longer merely neutral service providers but have become direct parties in the digital dominance structure used against Palestinians.

This debate reflects a global shift in the perception of technology, which is no longer presented as merely a tool for communication and development, but also as a means of security control and managing populations under occupation. Widespread digital surveillance is no longer a marginal activity but has become part of Israeli security doctrine, where personal data and daily communications are used to draw complete social and political maps of Palestinian society, allowing for tracking individuals, analyzing relationships, and predicting behavioral patterns.

In a deeper reading, the issue reveals the structural contradiction within Western discourse on human rights and digital privacy. The very companies that champion data protection and individual freedom in Europe and the United States find themselves involved in intensive surveillance projects when it comes to Palestinians. This contradiction reinforces accusations of double standards and raises questions about the limits of ethical responsibility for multinational corporations, especially when technology becomes a tool to perpetuate occupation and tighten control over a people subjected to siege and constant surveillance.

The resignation of Himovitch also reflects growing concern within technology institutions themselves about the legal and political repercussions of such partnerships. With increasing human rights and media pressure, companies are becoming concerned about their global image and international markets, especially amid growing boycott campaigns and protests among employees and shareholders. Recent years have seen repeated protests from employees in major companies against contracts with the Israeli army, considering that technology should not be used to facilitate mass violations or support repressive surveillance systems.

Ultimately, the Microsoft case does not appear to be merely a fleeting administrative incident, but rather a sign of a new phase in the conflict over the ethics of technology and the limits of digital companies' involvement in political and military conflicts. The more artificial intelligence and cloud computing expand their ability to penetrate daily life, the more the debate intensifies over who owns these tools, how they are used, and who pays the real price for the world's transformation into a monitored and managed space by giant algorithms that are often not subject to any real political or human accountability. At the heart of this debate, Gaza stands out as the cruelest example of the human cost of this technical complicity, where technology, which is supposed to serve humanity, becomes a tool used to manage war, deepen the siege, and entrench military superiority against an unarmed people facing daily killing, destruction, and starvation.

In a more dangerous dimension, this technological cooperation cannot be separated from the immense human devastation suffered by Palestinians, especially in Gaza, where modern technology has become part of the war and extermination machine. Surveillance systems, data analysis, and artificial intelligence are no longer just security tools; they are used to identify targets, track individuals, and map the entire Palestinian society under bombardment and siege. While technology companies market themselves as symbols of progress and innovation, Palestinians find themselves facing a digital system that contributes to deepening mass killing, displacement, starvation, and the systematic destruction of civilian infrastructure. Thus, algorithms and cloud servers have become part of a bloody reality that affects the Palestinian individual in their daily life, future, and fundamental right to exist.

US President Donald Trump issued a public warning to the Iranian leadership, stressing that the United States' patience regarding outstanding issues will not last much longer. Trump called on Tehran to engage in a comprehensive agreement that ends the state of conflict in the Middle East, while describing the officials he dealt with in Iran as rational despite the existing tensions.

In an interview from the Chinese capital, Beijing, Trump indicated that Washington is closely monitoring Iranian military movements related to the transfer of missile platforms. The US President warned that these military capabilities could be completely neutralized within one day if escalation continues, emphasizing that the diplomatic option and an agreement are the only available way out currently.

Trump touched upon the nuclear program file, expressing his desire to reach a formula that allows the United States to obtain enriched Iranian uranium instead of disposing of it by burial. These statements come at a sensitive time, coinciding with a major economic summit in China that included technological delegations and prominent American businessmen.

For its part, Tehran responded to these threats with a firm tone through its Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, who affirmed that issues related to his country cannot be resolved through military means. Araghchi clarified that Iran has long experience in confronting pressures and wars, stressing that any attempt at a new confrontation will only bring repeated failure to Washington.

The Iranian Foreign Minister pointed out that the American administration fully realizes the futility of the language of threat in extracting concessions from Tehran. He added during international meetings in New Delhi that whoever seeks to test Iranian strength again will reap the same results achieved in the past, stressing that the diplomatic path requires mutual respect away from dictates.

In a related context, informed sources stated that Tehran has shown initial readiness to continue diplomatic channels with Washington to avoid sliding into a comprehensive confrontation. However, the sources warned that any resumption of hostile action by the United States would lead to dire consequences whose impact on the stability of the entire region cannot be predicted.

On the ground, media sources in Tehran reported that current indicators do not reflect the imminent occurrence of a diplomatic breakthrough between the two parties. Observers believe that the current negotiation path is still in the 'ground-building' stage and has not yet reached the stage of drafting concrete agreements, given the depth of the gap in strategic positions.

Reports quoted Mohammad Ali Jafari, the former commander of the Revolutionary Guard, as saying that the current phase is witnessing an exchange of conditions and arrangements through back channels and international mediators. These indirect moves aim to establish a solid foundation that can be built upon in future negotiations that include complex security, political, and economic issues.

The Iranian leadership confirms a high level of coordination between decision-making institutions, where sensitive files are managed through the Supreme National Security Council and under the direct supervision of Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei. This institutional harmony aims to ensure the state's readiness for all possible scenarios, whether diplomatic or military.

Political circles in Tehran believe that they possess a wide margin of maneuver and deterrent power that prevents American pressures from achieving their strategic goals. The Iranian government considers that the 'maximum pressure' policy has not succeeded in bringing the national economy to its knees or fundamentally changing the political behavior of the state.

In reference to the economic dimension of the conflict, the Speaker of the Iranian Parliament considered that the financial crises facing Washington, including rising sovereign debt, limit its ability to engage in costly military adventures. He described American policies as characterized by risk that could negatively affect global financial stability.

Tehran is waving strategic pressure cards, most notably its control over international navigation lanes in the Strait of Hormuz, which gives it the ability to influence global energy markets. This was clearly evident in the exceptions granted by Tehran to Chinese ships, as part of managing its balances with major powers.

Iran also continues its naval movements and the transfer of oil shipments in sensitive areas as a message of defiance to the restrictions imposed on it, affirming its ability to overcome sanctions. These moves are seen as part of a comprehensive strategy aimed at improving negotiation terms and demonstrating imperviousness to direct threats.

The official Iranian position concluded that engaging in negotiations does not mean excessive optimism about achieving a quick breakthrough, but rather it is a path to crisis management. Tehran stresses at the end of its officials' statements that any military escalation will not achieve the goals of hostile parties, but will rather complicate the regional and international scene.

I will not be more patient.. they must reach an agreement, and all missile movements could disappear in one day.

Official American sources reported that the Chinese leadership has shown a clear inclination towards ensuring the stability of navigation in the Strait of Hormuz, emphasizing the necessity of keeping the international waterway open to trade without restrictions or additional financial burdens. This stance emerged during high-level discussions held in the Chinese capital, Beijing, between US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping.

US Trade Representative Jamison Greer clarified in media statements that Beijing adopts a 'practical' approach in dealing with the Iranian issue, indicating that the Chinese side does not wish to take positions that would put it in confrontation with current international trends. Greer affirmed that the US administration perceived a Chinese desire to limit forms of military and material support provided to Tehran, in line with de-escalation efforts in the region.

The American official emphasized the convergence of interests between Washington and Beijing regarding establishing peace in the Middle East, expressing confidence that China will take concrete steps to undermine support from which Iran might militarily benefit. These statements reflect a potential shift in Chinese foreign policy towards its traditional allies in the region in exchange for maintaining the stability of global supply chains.

It is truly important for China that the Strait of Hormuz be open, without transit fees or military control, and this was clear from the meeting.

The village of al-Mughayyir, located northeast of Ramallah, witnessed a new attack by settlers on Wednesday evening, where the attacking groups deliberately set fire to large areas of citizens' lands. Local sources reported that flames engulfed agricultural crops and green areas, threatening the livelihoods of farmers in the region, which already suffers from continuous restrictions.

Following the villagers' attempt to confront the settlers and defend their properties, the occupation forces intervened violently to provide protection for the attackers instead of stopping their assaults. The army forces fired a heavy barrage of tear gas canisters towards citizens' homes, leading to violent field confrontations in the village's alleys and among its agricultural fields.

Sources stated that the Israeli suppression resulted in several local residents suffering severe suffocation due to inhaling the toxic gas that reached inside inhabited homes. This incident is part of a series of organized attacks carried out by settlers in the West Bank, which directly aim to intimidate residents and push them towards forced displacement from their lands.

Al-Mughayyir village faces major strategic challenges as it is surrounded by a belt of Israeli settlements seeking to expand their influence at the expense of the village's lands. Recently, the pace of what is known as 'settler terrorism' has escalated, enjoying support and backing from the occupation's military establishment, which turns the lives of Palestinians in those areas into a daily struggle for survival.

Al-Mughayyir village is considered one of the most targeted villages by settlers and the occupation due to its strategic location and its encirclement by settlements.

Local and medical sources announced the martyrdom of the sixteen-year-old youth, Fahd Zeidan Owais, after being shot by Israeli occupation army bullets in the village of Al-Lubban Al-Sharqiya, located south of Nablus city. This incident occurred during a sudden raid carried out by occupation forces on the village, where they directly fired live ammunition at citizens, resulting in the youth sustaining fatal injuries from which he later died.

At this time, a state of extreme tension and popular anger prevails in Al-Lubban Al-Sharqiya village and its surrounding areas, following the official announcement of the youth Owais's martyrdom. Dozens of residents and citizens gathered in front of the hospital where the martyr's body was taken, awaiting the completion of the necessary medical and legal procedures for his funeral in a solemn procession that reflects the magnitude of the tragedy experienced by Palestinian villages.

This new crime comes in the context of continuous military escalation practiced by the occupation army in various governorates of the occupied West Bank, where the targeting of children and youth has significantly increased recently. Field sources indicated that the occupation deliberately uses excessive force and live ammunition against unarmed civilians, which raises the death toll and further complicates the security and field situation.

In light of these tightened military measures, the occupation army continues to impose widespread restrictions on the movement of citizens around Nablus city, by closing some entrances and setting up sudden military checkpoints. National and local activists expressed their strong condemnation of the continuation of these blatant violations, stressing that targeting children represents a flagrant breach of all international laws and norms that protect civilians under occupation.

The youth Owais lost his life after being directly hit by live ammunition during the occupation forces' raid on the village.

By Said Arikat

May 15, 2026

News analysis

Washington, D.C. — Seventy-eight years after the Palestinian Nakba of 1948, the catastrophe endures not as memory, but as structure — a living system of dispossession sustained by military force, protected by Western power, and normalized through decades of political hypocrisy. What began with the expulsion of more than 750,000 Palestinians from their towns and villages evolved into one of the modern world’s longest-running projects of displacement and erasure. Hundreds of communities were destroyed, families scattered across refugee camps and exile, and an entire people condemned to occupation, siege, and statelessness. For Palestinians, the Nakba was never an event confined to history. It survives in settlement expansion, land confiscation, checkpoints, home demolitions, and the repeated destruction of Gaza.

The origins of this catastrophe lie in the logic of empire itself. The 1917 Balfour Declaration remains among the clearest expressions of colonial arrogance in modern history: Britain, ruling Palestine through imperial force, promised the homeland of one people to another political movement while denying the indigenous Palestinian population the right to determine its own future. Under the British Mandate, Zionist institutions were cultivated politically and militarily under imperial protection, while Palestinian resistance was crushed with extraordinary brutality, particularly during the Arab Revolt of 1936–1939. Palestinian aspirations for independence were treated not as legitimate national demands, but as obstacles to imperial strategy.

The Nakba did not emerge simply from the chaos of war. Decades of historical research — including by Israeli historians — have documented organized expulsions, massacres, psychological warfare campaigns, and the systematic destruction of Palestinian villages designed to prevent refugees from ever returning. The massacre at Deir Yassin became a symbol of terror that accelerated mass flight across Palestine. What followed was demographic engineering on a historic scale: the creation of a Jewish-majority state through the removal of much of the indigenous Arab population.

At the center of this history lies a moral contradiction that still haunts the modern world. European Jews, fleeing centuries of persecution culminating in the Holocaust, sought refuge after one of humanity’s greatest crimes. But Europe effectively resolved its “Jewish question” by transferring the consequences onto another people entirely innocent of European antisemitism. Palestinians — who bore no responsibility for the crimes of Nazi Germany — were forced to surrender their homeland so Europe could escape the full moral burden of its own history.

For Palestinians, and for much of the Global South, this remains the essence of the injustice: a settler-colonial project, backed by imperial power, displaced an existing population in the name of historical and biblical claims. Jewish historical attachment to the land may be real and deep, but Palestinians argue — with growing international resonance — that modern sovereignty cannot ethically rest on ancient claims while erasing the continuous presence, rights, and humanity of another people who lived on and cultivated that land for centuries.

What Palestinians lost in 1948 was far more than territory. They lost cities, ports, farms, businesses, libraries, cultural institutions, and entire social worlds. Jaffa and Haifa — once vibrant centers of Palestinian economic and intellectual life — were transformed through expulsion and confiscation. Under Israel’s “Absentee Property” laws, refugees who fled bombardment and massacres became legal ghosts: their homes, lands, and savings seized precisely because they were no longer physically present. Dispossession was not merely military. It was bureaucratic, legalized, and systematic.

Equally devastating was the assault on memory itself. Hundreds of Palestinian villages were erased from maps, repopulated, or renamed in Hebrew in an effort to sever the landscape from its Arab identity. Archives disappeared, books were looted, and historical records vanished. Increasingly, Palestinians see their struggle not only as resistance to occupation, but as resistance to erasure itself — a fight to preserve historical truth against a project determined to disconnect a people from their geography, culture, and legitimacy.

The violence of 1948 did not end with the armistice lines. The occupation of the West Bank and Gaza after 1967 became, for Palestinians, the continuation of the same catastrophe by different means. Settlements spread across confiscated land, checkpoints fragmented daily existence, homes were demolished, and military rule hardened into permanence. Gaza — subjected to blockade, siege, and repeated wars — emerged as the clearest symbol of collective punishment in the modern era.

The current destruction of Gaza has intensified global debate over whether the Nakba is continuing in real time. Images of flattened neighborhoods, starving civilians, mass displacement, and staggering civilian casualties have shattered decades of carefully managed Western narratives. Terms once dismissed as politically unacceptable — apartheid, ethnic cleansing, genocide — now dominate international legal and human rights discourse.

Nowhere has Western hypocrisy been more exposed. Governments that speak endlessly of human rights and a “rules-based international order” have armed, financed, and diplomatically shielded Israel even as entire Palestinian communities were obliterated. International law appeared absolute when applied to some conflicts, yet suddenly negotiable when Palestinians were the victims. In the moral hierarchy of global politics, Palestinian life remained conditional.

Yet the old consensus is fracturing. Across universities, civil society movements, human rights organizations, and even within Jewish communities, younger generations increasingly reject narratives that demanded recognition of Jewish suffering while denying Palestinian suffering equal humanity. The tragedy of Palestine lies not only in dispossession itself, but in the persistent refusal to acknowledge that dispossession. Palestinians were expected to negotiate endlessly over fragments of land while the foundational injustice of 1948 remained politically untouchable.

 Seventy-eight years later, the Nakba survives not only in refugee camps across Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, the West Bank, and Gaza, but in memory carried across generations. It survives in rusted house keys preserved by descendants of destroyed villages, in oral histories passed from grandparents to grandchildren, and in the unbroken Palestinian determination to remain on their land and live in freedom and dignity despite decades of occupation, siege, exile, and war.

The Nakba endures because the structures that created it were never dismantled. But Palestinians themselves remain the clearest refutation of that project of erasure. After seventy-eight years of dispossession, bombardment, and exile, they continue to insist that they are not a people destined for permanent displacement, but a nation determined to live freely in its homeland. Their survival has become an act of resistance. Their persistence stands as proof that memory cannot be bombed into silence, identity cannot be buried beneath rubble, and a people cannot be erased simply because the powerful wish them invisible.

In recent weeks, more and more reports and intelligence assessments have been published in Israel regarding a “renewed military strengthening” of Hamas in the Gaza Strip. The message is clear: Hamas is rebuilding its power, reorganizing, gathering weapons, and preparing itself for the next confrontation. The Israeli public is being left with the impression that only another military operation can prevent the “return of the threat.”

But behind this campaign lies a far more complex reality - and perhaps also a deliberate attempt to prepare Israeli and international public opinion for the renewal of the war.

The reality in Gaza today is very far from the image of a flourishing and powerful terrorist organization. Gaza is devastated, the population exhausted, and the civilian system has almost completely collapsed. Hamas itself is also experiencing profound distress. According to many sources inside Gaza, Hamas is suffering from an extremely severe financial crisis. It has no regular ability to pay salaries - neither to its fighters nor to employees of the civilian administration. The public in Gaza is exhausted from the war, and many oppose the continuation of Hamas rule in its current form.

And yet Hamas continues to be the controlling force in those parts of Gaza where the Palestinian population remains. Why? Not because Hamas currently enjoys broad public legitimacy, but because Israel refuses to allow the entry of the Palestinian technocratic committee (NCAG) that was intended to assume civilian administration of the Strip.

Five months after the end of the war, this committee has still not been allowed to enter Gaza and begin operating. Without an agreed and functioning governing alternative, the resulting vacuum continues to leave Hamas as the only organized force on the ground.

It is important to understand: according to messages coming from inside Gaza, Hamas is prepared to immediately transfer full civilian control to the technocratic committee - including the police, internal security, and the management of government ministries. This is no longer simply a question of “who will rule Gaza,” but rather whether Israel and the Americans are truly prepared to allow the creation of a new reality in the Strip.

This is precisely where the current deadlock lies.

The negotiations between the United States and Hamas are stuck around the issue of disarmament. The American position - which in practice adopts the Israeli demand - is that Hamas must commit in advance and unequivocally to the complete dismantling of its weapons before the other commitments are implemented: significant humanitarian aid, medical equipment, temporary housing units, heavy machinery for clearing rubble, the entry of the technocratic committee, the establishment of a new Palestinian police force, and a phased Israeli withdrawal in accordance with the understandings that were presented.

Hamas, for its part, argues that it is prepared for a gradual process of disarmament in parallel with the implementation of Israeli and international commitments, including phased Israeli withdrawal from Gaza. From its perspective, this is fundamentally a question of trust: why should it surrender its main leverage in advance when there is no guarantee whatsoever that the other side will fulfill its obligations?

Instead of addressing the real crisis of trust, the Americans have chosen to place additional pressure on Hamas and warn that if there is no full prior agreement to disarmament, they will not be able to prevent Israel from renewing the war.

The issue of mediation itself has also become part of the problem. In the eyes of many within Hamas, the representative of the Peace Council, Nikolay Mladenov, is perceived not as a neutral mediator but as someone who has effectively adopted the Israeli positions. This further deepens the distrust and makes reaching agreements even more difficult.

At the same time, an interesting development is taking place inside Gaza itself that has received almost no attention. Hamas has held internal elections, and the new leadership in Gaza is regarded by many as more realistic and pragmatic than the leadership abroad. The leaders inside Gaza are themselves living through the destruction, the hunger, and the daily suffering of the population. They understand better than anyone that continuation of the war could lead to total catastrophe.

The central question now is not whether Hamas is “rebuilding its strength,” but whether there exists genuine political will to prevent the renewal of the war and create a credible mechanism for political transition, reconstruction, and phased disarmament.

The real problem today is not only the issue of weapons - it is the complete absence of trust. Hamas does not believe Israel will fulfill its commitments after Hamas gives up its weapons in advance. Israel and the United States do not believe Hamas will ultimately agree to the full dismantling of its military capabilities. In this vacuum, each side waits for the other to make the first move - and the war could resume.

Therefore, a new mechanism is required to break the deadlock.

One possible solution may be the establishment of a small international panel composed of individuals with global experience in conflict resolution, disarmament of armed organizations, and political transition processes. People who do not currently represent governments, but who possess international credibility and the professional capacity to supervise, mediate, and provide guarantees to both sides.

Such a panel could:

supervise implementation of reciprocal commitments;

establish a phased and verified disarmament mechanism;

simultaneously ensure the entry of humanitarian aid and reconstruction efforts;

provide international guarantees for a phased Israeli withdrawal;

and prevent the renewed collapse of agreements.

Models of this kind have worked elsewhere in the world before - including in Northern Ireland - where disarmament processes succeeded only when a credible international mechanism was created that gave both sides confidence that commitments would actually be honored.

Without a credible mechanism of guarantees and oversight, the lack of trust will continue to dictate reality - and the path toward renewed war will become very short indeed.

The world must understand: Gaza does not need another war. It needs a credible political pathway that can provide both security for Israelis and a future for Palestinians.

The 'Global Resilience' flotilla began its sea journey today from the coast of the Turkish city of Marmaris, heading towards the Gaza Strip in a symbolic and humanitarian attempt to break the naval blockade imposed on the Strip for years. This move comes amid extremely complex humanitarian conditions experienced by the residents of the Strip, as organizers seek to deliver a message of international solidarity and urgent relief aid.

Field sources from Marmaris port reported that the flotilla consists of 54 boats and ships, carrying more than 500 activists and solidarity activists representing dozens of nationalities from around the world. These solidarity activists gathered in the Turkish coastal city days ago, completing the necessary preparations for sailing amidst an atmosphere of enthusiasm and determination to reach the shores of Gaza.

The nationalities of the participants in this international initiative vary, with the flotilla including activists from Arab countries such as Libya and Egypt, in addition to large delegations from various foreign countries. Participants affirmed that their motives are purely humanitarian, aiming to highlight the suffering of Palestinians and demand an end to the starvation and siege policy imposed by the occupation authorities.

The central ship in the flotilla takes center stage, hosting a large number of public figures and foreign human rights activists who are conducting continuous interviews with international media. Through their presence, they aim to document the journey and ensure the greatest possible international protection for the flotilla should it face any harassment in international waters.

For their part, the flotilla organizers expressed during a press conference their expectations of facing real risks and objections from the Israeli navy during the journey. The organizers revealed that some activists were arrested before departure, noting that five of them are still in custody, which they considered an attempt to intimidate participants.

In the legal context, Brazilian lawyer Natalia Maria, spokesperson for the flotilla's legal team, stated that the blockade imposed on the Gaza Strip lacks any international legal cover. Maria confirmed that the legal team has prepared complete files to prosecute any Israeli aggression that may affect the ships or participants before the competent international courts.

In turn, Saeed Abu Koshk, a member of the flotilla's board of directors, stressed that the current movement is a natural reaction to what he described as the 'slow genocide' to which Palestinians are subjected. Abu Koshk explained that the systematic starvation policy pursued by Israel requires international popular action to break the stalemate and open waterways for vital supplies.

This attempt comes just weeks after an incident on April 29, when the Israeli army intercepted ships belonging to the same flotilla off the Greek island of Crete. That attack resulted in the detention of 21 boats and about 175 activists, a move that human rights activists considered a blatant violation of international navigation laws.

The launch of this flotilla brings back painful memories associated with the 'Freedom Flotilla' in 2010, when Israeli commando forces attacked the Turkish ship 'Mavi Marmara'. That incident, which led to the martyrdom of 10 Turkish solidarity activists, caused a severe diplomatic crisis between Ankara and Tel Aviv, and still casts a shadow over any similar maritime movement.

The Gaza Strip has been suffering from a severe blockade since 2007, but its pace has escalated unprecedentedly since October 2023, leading to the destruction of infrastructure and the displacement of more than 1.5 million Palestinians. International reports confirm that the Strip now lacks the most basic necessities of life, making maritime aid convoys an urgent necessity.

The media teams accompanying the flotilla continue to broadcast live images from the open sea, showing the ships lining up in formation before venturing into the Mediterranean waters. The organizers of this initiative hope that international pressure will succeed in securing a safe passage for the ships, ensuring the delivery of humanitarian aid to thousands of besieged families in Gaza.

The blockade imposed on Gaza is illegal, and any Israeli attempt to intercept the ships will be met with international legal actions and measures.

In his speech before the Eighth General Conference of the Fatah movement, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas was not only addressing the movement's cadres gathered in Ramallah, but he also seemed to be addressing an entire world observing the Palestinian scene after the war on Gaza: Washington, Arab capitals, Europeans, Israel, and even the Palestinians themselves, who emerged from the war with a different political awareness, and perhaps a harsher one towards everything that preceded it.

Perhaps the Eighth Fatah Conference was not directed at the Palestinian internal audience as much as it appeared to be directed externally. From the very first moment, the Palestinian President's speech seemed more like a multi-faceted political message than an organizational speech for a movement holding its conference after a full decade of absence. The primary concern was not to revive the Fatah base or conduct a deep review of the movement's and the Authority's trajectory, but rather an attempt to re-present the Palestinian Authority as an indispensable player in the post-war arrangements for Gaza.

For this reason, terms such as "legitimacy," "reform," "one weapon," "two-state solution," and "elections" were heavily present in a speech that seemed to address Washington, Arab capitals, and Europeans more than it addressed the Palestinians themselves. Even the Palestinian President's tone seemed closer to the language of a president seeking to convince the world of his ability to manage the next phase, rather than a leader of a liberation movement addressing a people who had emerged from one of the bloodiest and most transformative wars in their modern history.

It was clear from the first moment that the speech did not belong to the traditional revolutionary mobilization language that Fatah was known for in its early stages, but rather to the language of the state, authority, and political system. Terms such as "law," "reconstruction," and "the single legitimate weapon" were heavily present, as if the Palestinian President was trying to re-establish the image of the Palestinian Authority as the only framework capable of controlling the Palestinian scene after the earthquake that struck Gaza.

On the surface of the speech, there was a focus on the scale of the humanitarian catastrophe: hundreds of thousands of victims and injured, widespread destruction, neighborhoods completely wiped out, and families erased from the civil registry. The Palestinian President used harsh language when speaking of "genocide" and the project of displacing Palestinians, in an attempt to re-establish the Palestinian narrative before the world. But what was more important than describing the tragedy was the political construct he tried to derive from it.

For the central message in the speech was clear: there is no future for any Palestinian formula outside the framework of the Authority and the Palestine Liberation Organization. For this reason, the Palestinian President reiterated his decisive trinity: "one system, one law, one legitimate weapon." These were not just administrative phrases or organizational slogans, but a direct political declaration against the reality of multiple Palestinian power centers, and specifically against the Hamas model in Gaza.

The man was speaking with a "day after the war" mentality. While Gaza is still under fire, the real political battle seems to have already begun: who will govern Gaza? Who will represent the Palestinians? Who will possess legitimacy before the international community? In this context, the Palestinian President's speech appeared to be a clear attempt to present the Palestinian Authority as the only party capable of managing the Strip in the future, not only because it is "Palestinian legitimacy," but also because it is the party accepted by Arabs and internationally.

However, the most sensitive moments of the speech came when the Palestinian President spoke about October 7th. He said that the operation was "glorious," but quickly added that "things are measured by their outcomes," considering that Palestinians were "slaughtered, displaced, and their country destroyed because of this act." This mixed formulation revealed the depth of the crisis facing the official Palestinian leadership. He cannot directly condemn the operation because the Palestinian popular mood still sees it as a moment of historical breakthrough, but at the same time, he cannot adopt it because it completely undermined the political logic upon which the Authority was founded since the Oslo Accords.

For this reason, the Palestinian President seemed to be trying to walk on a political minefield: acknowledging the popular mood without fully aligning with it, and condemning the results without explicitly attacking the act itself. But this fragile balance in fact reflects the deeper dilemma facing Fatah and the Authority together: how can the discourse of settlement continue after a war that has reshaped Palestinian consciousness in this way?

Perhaps for this reason, the most significant sentences in the speech were those in which the Palestinian President spoke about Oslo. He said it with a sarcastic and bitter tone at the same time: "We want the treacherous Oslo." It was not just a fleeting political joke, but an implicit acknowledgment that the agreement upon which the Authority was founded has become, in Palestinian consciousness, synonymous with political failure and historical deadlock. Nevertheless, the Palestinian President insists on adhering to it because he sees no other practical alternative.

Here precisely lies the structural contradiction in the entire speech. On the one hand, the Palestinian President speaks of genocide, settlement, ethnic cleansing, displacement, and unprecedented massacres, but on the other hand, he adheres to the same political path that has failed for decades to stop settlement, end the occupation, or even protect Palestinians from war. It is as if the Palestinian Authority, despite its awareness of the collapse of a large part of its previous bets, is still unable to imagine a different political project.

This contradiction was not only in the stance on Oslo, but also in the nature of the speech itself. The Palestinian President did not speak in the language of a national liberation movement engaged in an open struggle, but in the language of an authority president seeking to convince the world that he is still capable of managing the population, land, and institutions. Even when he spoke of resistance, he confined it to the framework of "peaceful popular resistance," meaning within a concept based on controlling the conflict, not expanding it.

In another part of the speech, the Palestinian President's talk about the agreement with Lebanese President Aoun to hand over the weapons of Palestinian factions in Lebanese camps carried deeper implications than it seemed. This announcement is not only about security arrangements within Lebanon, but reflects a broader regional trend towards re-regulating the armed Palestinian presence, and perhaps ending any formula for Palestinian weapons outside official Arab and Palestinian control. Therefore, when the Palestinian President described these weapons as "not resistance weapons but weapons of internal killing," he was sending a political message that goes beyond Lebanon itself.

But the most important question remains: Is this discourse still capable of convincing Palestinians?

After the war, it seems that the gap between the Palestinian street and the Palestinian Authority has widened more than ever before. While a large part of the popular mood tends to believe that the settlement project has practically ended, the official leadership still adheres to almost the same language: international legitimacy, the two-state solution, reforms, the political process, and negotiations.

Therefore, the Palestinian President's speech seemed like a belated attempt to regain control over a historical moment that is changing faster than the Authority's ability to keep up with it. It was a defensive speech rather than an offensive one, and a speech to stabilize the existing political system rather than proposing a new national project.

Nevertheless, the importance of what happened in Ramallah cannot be underestimated. The Eighth Fatah Conference comes after ten years of organizational stagnation, and at a moment that is perhaps the most dangerous in contemporary Palestinian history since the Nakba. The truth is that the Palestinian President's speech revealed, with unprecedented clarity, that the upcoming battle will not only be with Israel, but also over the form of the Palestinian political system itself: who possesses legitimacy? Who possesses weapons? Who defines the meaning of resistance? And who inherits political Palestine after Gaza?

These questions were present in almost every line of the speech, even if not directly stated.

The American capital, Washington, is resuming today, Thursday, a third round of indirect talks between Beirut and Tel Aviv, with the aim of reaching a sustainable formula for a ceasefire. These diplomatic moves come at a very sensitive time, as the truce agreement faces the imminent risk of collapse due to ongoing Israeli military operations that have not ceased despite declared understandings.

Hours before the start of the negotiations witnessed a violent field escalation, as Israeli forces committed new massacres in Lebanon, resulting in the martyrdom of 22 citizens, including eight children. Official sources confirmed that warplanes carried out a series of intense raids targeting about 40 locations distributed between the southern and Beqaa regions, which complicates the negotiating scene and increases the state of tension.

Through this round, the American administration seeks to save the truce that President Donald Trump had announced an extension of for three weeks during a previous meeting at the White House. Despite Trump's optimism about the possibility of drafting a "historic agreement," the facts on the ground indicate a wide gap between political aspirations and the deteriorating security reality that claims civilian lives daily.

For his part, Lebanese President Joseph Aoun set clear conditions for moving forward with the political process, stressing that any symbolic meetings or joint summits must be preceded by an actual consolidation of the security agreement. Aoun clarified that the top priority now is to stop Israeli attacks and ensure the protection of Lebanese sovereignty before discussing any broader diplomatic arrangements.

In a related context, official statistics issued by the Lebanese Ministry of Health indicate a heavy toll of victims since the ceasefire came into effect in mid-April. Medical sources recorded the martyrdom of more than 400 people during the supposed truce period, raising the total number of victims of the confrontations since their outbreak to nearly 2,900 martyrs and thousands injured.

On the Israeli side, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu adopts an escalating rhetoric, as he affirmed in statements following the assassination of a Hezbollah leader in the southern suburb that there is no immunity for any party that threatens Israel's security. This hardline stance reflects Tel Aviv's desire to impose new field conditions under the guise of negotiations, which Beirut completely rejects.

Regional powers are entering the crisis, with Iran demanding the necessity of reaching a permanent and comprehensive ceasefire in Lebanon as a fundamental condition for any broader regional settlement. This demand was met with resentment from the American administration, which is trying to limit negotiations to the Lebanese track according to its own vision that serves the interests of its allies in the region.

As for the American vision for a comprehensive solution, the State Department summarized it by linking peace to the Lebanese state restoring its full authority and disarming Hezbollah permanently. Washington considers that the current rounds aim to correct what it described as the "failed approach" that allowed armed factions to strengthen their influence at the expense of official state institutions in recent years.

President Trump and his Secretary of State Marco Rubio are absent from this pivotal round due to their official visit to China, but they have entrusted the mission to a specialized diplomatic team. The mediation is currently led by Washington's ambassador to Israel, Mike Huckabee, and the ambassador to Lebanon, Michel Issa, with the participation of close advisors from decision-making circles in the White House.

The Lebanese delegation in these talks is represented by Special Envoy Simon Karam, who carries technical and security files related to ongoing Israeli violations. In contrast, the Israeli delegation is headed by Ambassador Yehiel Leiter, a figure close to Netanyahu and known for his support of settlement projects, which adds a complex character to the nature of the anticipated discussions in Washington's corridors.

The Lebanese priority is to put an end to the series of death and destruction and to effectively establish a ceasefire on the ground.

Dr. Dalal Erekat: "Fatah" as a liberation movement is historically required to restore its role and legacy with a modern vision that responds to international transformations and the aspirations of the new Palestinian generation. Awni Al-Mashni: The challenges facing the Palestinian people are great, and the conference does not have practical answers to this reality, and its outcomes will be vague phrases and traditional rhetoric. Abdul Ghani Salameh: The discussion of Palestinian frameworks, including the Eighth Conference, ending Oslo, needs clear alternatives because its repercussions will affect the future of the Palestinian cause as a whole. Dr. Raed Al-Dabai: The current stage reflects a gradual transition from managing the Authority to managing a national liberation project that requires restoring the liberation dimension of the "Fatah" movement. Majed Hdeib: "Fatah" is expected to move towards rebuilding the political system and reviving the role of the PLO as the comprehensive representative of the Palestinian people. Muhammad Hawash: The conference is responsible for developing a political program to deal with the Israeli project and providing effective tools for renewing leadership frameworks through comprehensive elections. Ramallah – Exclusive to "Al-Quds" – The Eighth Conference of the Fatah movement is being held today, in one of the most complex and sensitive political stages the Palestinian people are going through, amidst accumulated challenges that impose themselves on its agenda, starting from the escalating Israeli trends aimed at undermining the Palestinian Authority and attempts to end the Oslo Accords and expand settlements, and not ending with internal Palestinian crises, which puts the movement before a political and organizational entitlement that goes beyond rearranging the internal house to searching for practical answers for the future of the Palestinian national project.

Writers, political analysts, specialists, and university professors confirm, in interviews with "Al-Quds", that the conference faces a set of fundamental challenges, foremost among them formulating a political vision capable of dealing with rapid regional and international changes, and redefining the relationship with Israel in light of escalating annexation policies and ending the two-state solution, in addition to discussing the future of the Oslo Accords and the possibilities of dealing with attempts by the Israeli right to disavow or cancel it, in the absence of clear alternatives that could ensure the stability of the Palestinian political system and preserve national institutions from collapse.

According to writers, analysts, specialists, and university professors, the conference also faces an equally complex internal challenge, which is its ability to move from an electoral and organizational nature to producing real political and strategic outcomes that address the crises of division, rebuild popular trust, and develop a unified national program that strengthens Palestinian steadfastness, and balances between preserving the institutions of the Palestinian Authority and restoring the liberation dimension of the movement, in light of escalating Israeli pressures and declining opportunities for traditional political settlement.

Challenges of canceling Oslo Dr. Dalal Erekat, Professor of Diplomacy and Conflict Resolution at the Arab American University, believes that the Israeli Knesset's moves towards pushing for the cancellation of the Oslo Accords do not represent merely a legal or internal political step, but rather reflect an attempt to issue a practical declaration of the end of a transitional phase that has been used for decades to manage the Palestinian-Israeli conflict instead of resolving it, which puts the Fatah movement before a "historical review moment" for the future of its national role.

She explains that its coincidence with the convening of the Eighth Conference of the "Fatah" movement is not limited to rearranging the organizational structure of the movement, but is supposed to produce a new national vision that transcends the logic of managing the Authority, towards redefining the function of the Palestinian political system in light of a reality characterized by escalating settlements, annexation policies, field tensions, and attempts to undermine the two-state solution.

Erekat confirms that the expected outcomes of the conference must include reformulating the relationship with Israel as an occupying power and not a partner in a peace process, in addition to renewing national legitimacy through democratic paths that enhance the trust of the Palestinian street, and developing resistance tools, including political, diplomatic, legal, and economic paths, in addition to strengthening national unity and ending the division as a strategic loophole affecting the national project.

The importance of empowering youth and women Erekat emphasizes the importance of empowering youth and women within the movement and decision-making institutions, in addition to restoring the status of the Palestine Liberation Organization as the comprehensive framework and primary reference for the Palestinian national project.

The conference at a pivotal stage Erekat believes that the conference is being held at a pivotal stage characterized by deep regional and international transformations, with an Israeli government that openly adopts annexation and displacement policies, which forces Palestinians to move from a state of crisis management to building a comprehensive and long-term national liberation project.

Erekat confirms that the fundamental challenge lies not only in describing the risks, but in possessing the political will necessary to move from reaction to strategic action, by formulating a unified national strategy that combines political, economic, and social steadfastness, and restoring public trust through reform, transparency, and participation, and activating Palestinian diplomacy and the national narrative in the international arena.

The necessity of unifying Palestinian geopolitics Erekat emphasizes the necessity of unifying Palestinian geopolitics between the West Bank, Gaza Strip, and Jerusalem within a single national vision, and moving from crisis management to managing a comprehensive national liberation project, stressing that the Fatah movement, as a historical liberation movement that led the national project, is today required to restore this role and legacy with a modern vision that responds to international transformations and the aspirations of the new Palestinian generation.

Two contradictory concepts proposed by the conference Writer and political analyst Awni Al-Mashni believes that the Eighth Conference of the "Fatah" movement proposes two contradictory concepts; the first is a real opportunity for political and organizational review and drawing lessons from the previous stage with the aim of formulating new strategies, and the second is no more than a process of "recycling organizational elites" without a fundamental impact on the course of the movement or the Palestinian political system.

Al-Mashni explains that the method of preparing for the conference, in addition to the orientations of the majority of participants, indicates that it tends to be primarily an electoral conference, while the political dimension is dealt with as a protocol discussion or a "formal dialogue", which limits the possibility of producing real strategic outcomes.

Possibility of repeating outcome scenarios Al-Mashni believes that the expected outcomes of the conference do not exceed, at best, a general statement containing traditional phrases and repeated political clichés, which will not have a tangible impact on the course of political action after the end of the conference, noting that this pattern has been repeated in previous conferences without actual change in decision-making mechanisms.

Al-Mashni points out that Palestinian policies are actually drawn up by a limited group that does not await the outcomes of internal conferences to adjust its course, which makes the conference's impact on political decision weak or almost non-existent.

Al-Mashni believes that the convening of the conference amidst a rapidly escalating regional and international conflict, witnessing deep geopolitical transformations in the region and the world, does not seem like a calculated step, questioning the conference's ability to formulate policies or determine a strategic path without awaiting the results of this open conflict.

Al-Mashni believes that this timing reflects, in essence, that the conference is not political as much as it is an "electoral bazaar", in the absence of a strategic vision capable of dealing with regional changes.

Outcomes that may not provide real and practical answers Al-Mashni points out that the challenges facing the Palestinian people are great and are not limited to annexation decisions or ending the Oslo Accords, but also include an escalating economic crisis, a war of displacement and extermination in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, in addition to settlement expansion, and the conference's outcomes are not expected to provide real and practical answers to these challenges and this reality.

Al-Mashni believes that what will be issued by the conference will not exceed vague phrases and traditional rhetoric that will quickly fade after hours of its conclusion, considering that the current stage does not indicate a solution to the crisis as much as it reflects its deepening.

Canceling Oslo.. within a broader project of the Israeli right Writer and political analyst Abdul Ghani Salameh confirms that the escalating trends within the Israeli right towards disavowing the Oslo Accords, leading to an attempt to officially cancel them, come within the context of a broader project adopted by the ruling right based on what he describes as "correcting Israel's historical mistakes", considering that this trend is not limited to Oslo alone, but includes all files related to the Palestinian cause and the Palestinian presence.

The Israeli right and the attempt to get rid of "mistakes" Salameh explains that the Israeli right views a number of historical stations as "mistakes" that should be corrected, foremost among them the failure to displace the Palestinians who remained within the 1948 territories, and who have become, according to the right-wing Israeli vision, a growing demographic challenge.

Salameh points out that the Israeli right considers the continued presence of Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza Strip after 1967 another mistake, in addition to the continued work of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees (UNRWA) and the related file of the right of return, amidst continuous Israeli-American attempts to reduce or end the agency's role.

Salameh notes that the Oslo Accords occupy a central position in this context, as it is viewed within Israeli right-wing circles as a "historical sin" committed by Yitzhak Rabin and the left-wing current in Israel, which pushes the current government to try to backtrack on it or empty it of its content.

Canceling Oslo is not an easy step Despite this, Salameh stresses that canceling Oslo is not an easy step or a decision that can be settled by a vote in the Knesset alone, given that the agreement is linked to considerations that go beyond the Israeli interior, including Israel's long-term strategy, regional geopolitical balances, as well as American patronage and international and European guarantees that accompanied its signing, which makes any radical change in it subject to broader approvals and understandings.

Palestinian decisions on Oslo not actually implemented Regarding the Palestinian position, Salameh points out that official Palestinian institutions, foremost among them the Palestinian Central Council, have taken decisions in recent years related to reconsidering the obligations arising from Oslo, including stopping security coordination, but most of these decisions have not been actually implemented, noting that the Eighth Conference and its decisions in this context are also important.

Salameh believes that the Palestinian Authority faces a deep political and economic crisis that limits its ability to make fateful decisions of this kind, explaining that the discussion of Palestinian frameworks, including the Eighth Conference, the issue of ending Oslo requires clear alternatives, because its repercussions will affect the future of the Palestinian cause as a whole.

Salameh expects the current situation to continue during the next stage, so that the Oslo Accords remain formally in place without the implementation of its basic entitlements by any party, in the absence of a state of peace or comprehensive war, and stalled negotiations, until broader changes occur in regional and international power balances, including files such as the Russian-Ukrainian war, US-Iranian tension, and the rearrangement of the Middle East.

Salameh confirms that preserving the Palestinian Authority represents a national priority in the current stage, as it embodies the Palestinian political and entity identity, in addition to its security, social, and economic role in supporting the steadfastness of Palestinians on their land.

The conference facing central questions Dr. Raed Al-Dabai, Professor of Political Science at An-Najah National University, confirms that the convening of the Eighth Conference of the "Fatah" movement comes at one of the most sensitive political stages since the signing of the Oslo Accords, in light of increasing indications of the erosion of this agreement on the ground and what is being discussed about voting in the Knesset on canceling the agreement, despite it being under international and American patronage, reflects the escalation of the discourse of the extremist religious right within the Knesset and its tendency to deny the Palestinian existence and consider the entire land "the land of Israel."

Al-Dabai explains that this reality forces the conference to answer central questions related to the future of the Palestinian national project, forms of resistance, national unity, and strengthening steadfastness, in addition to redefining the relationship between the Fatah movement and the Palestinian Authority, the movement's identity, its internal system, and its political program for the next stage, as well as the future of the relationship with Israel at the political, security, and economic levels, in light of continued settlement, annexation, incursions, and attempts to weaken the Palestinian Authority.

The importance of restoring Fatah's liberation dimension Al-Dabai points out that the current stage reflects a gradual transition from managing the Authority to managing a national liberation project, which requires restoring the liberation dimension of the Fatah movement, in light of Israeli transformations that are moving towards ending the idea of a Palestinian state, in contrast to Palestinian efforts to arrange the internal house and strengthen the political system.

Al-Dabai believes that what is happening within the conference tends to prioritize the electoral and organizational dimension at the expense of the programmatic dimension, which makes it difficult to expect a radical breakthrough in the movement's political program, attributing this to the conference's structure, which is dominated by a functional character in its security and civilian aspects, in addition to the large number of candidates for membership in the Central Committee and the Revolutionary Council, as well as the leadership's conviction that the current circumstances are not suitable for major strategic changes in light of regional and international challenges and external reform pressures.

Fatah must adopt new policies Al-Dabai believes that international and regional interest in the conference's outcomes will be determined by the extent of the movement's ability to adopt new policies that meet the requirements of the stage, without a fundamental change in general strategies, but rather in working tools, programs, and implementation mechanisms.

Al-Dabai confirms that the conference's ability to address challenges is directly linked to the size and role of the Fatah movement within the Palestinian political system, its history, and its wide presence in society, explaining that the conference does not only discuss organizational issues, but faces a fateful question related to the future of the national project in light of Israel's attempts to obliterate the idea of a Palestinian state, settlement expansion, regional and international transformations, and the decline of young generations' trust in traditional political frameworks.

Al-Dabai confirms that the success of the conference will not be measured only by the results of internal elections, but by its ability to provide practical answers to the central question: How can the Palestinian national project be rebuilt in a stage where occupation policies aim to dismantle its political and geographical foundations.

A crucial and sensitive moment Writer and political analyst Majed Hdeib explains that the convening of the Eighth Conference of the Fatah movement comes at a crucial and sensitive moment in the history of the Palestinian cause, in light of two factors that strongly impose themselves on the Palestinian scene; the first is the escalating Israeli trends towards ending the political framework of the Oslo Accords, and the second is the war on the Gaza Strip and the accompanying political and field changes, amidst attempts to separate the Strip from the legal and political jurisdiction of the Palestinian Authority.

Fatah.. the backbone of the Palestinian political system Hdeib points out that the expected outcomes of the conference can be read within four main axes that include political, organizational, national, and institutional dimensions, noting that the Fatah movement is no longer read as merely a political organization, but as the backbone of the Palestinian political system, and the central player in the Palestinian national project, especially in light of the challenges related to the future of the Authority and the Palestinian cause.

The importance of Fatah redefining its political discourse Hdeib expects the Fatah movement to redefine its political discourse, by adopting a more stringent language towards the Israeli occupation, and moving from the concept of settlement based on traditional political dialogue to a path based on combining political, legal, and diplomatic confrontation, by strengthening Palestinian presence in United Nations institutions, especially international courts, foremost among them the International Criminal Court.

Reshaping power balances within the movement Hdeib suggests that the conference will witness a reshaping of power balances within the movement through the election of a new leadership for the Central Committee and the Revolutionary Council, reflecting the rise of a new organizational generation that seeks to form internal alliances and redraw the features of the post-President Mahmoud Abbas era, which may limit the influence of traditional or historical leaders in shaping the policies of the next stage.

Conference outcomes are the most important axis Hdeib considers the conference outcomes to be the most important axis, expecting the movement to move towards rebuilding the Palestinian political system, and reviving the role of the Palestine Liberation Organization as the comprehensive representative of Palestinians, in addition to the functional separation between the institutions of the PLO, the Palestinian Authority, and the Fatah movement, while strengthening popular resistance and expanding the tools of political and legal confrontation with Israel.

The importance of preserving the Authority's institutions Hdeib points to the importance of the institutional dimension, considering that preserving the institutions of the Palestinian Authority and preventing their collapse is a priority, in parallel with launching internal reforms to address the decline in popular trust in the movement and confront Israeli policies aimed at undermining the Authority and weakening the chances of establishing a Palestinian state.

Hdeib explains that two main currents have emerged within the Fatah movement recently; the first focuses on preserving the Palestinian Authority as an entry point for the state through the continuation of the negotiation process, and the second pushes towards restoring the logic of national liberation through popular resistance and intensifying action in international forums to politically and legally besiege Israel.

Despite this, Hdeib suggests that the dominance of what he described as the "Authority current" within the movement will continue, which makes the possibilities of launching new strategies that go beyond Oslo limited, even if the Israeli Knesset proceeds to cancel the agreement.

Hdeib expects the Fatah movement to redefine itself as a national liberation movement, by adopting a more stringent political discourse, with hints of disengaging from some security obligations, and holding Israel responsible for the collapse of Oslo, in addition to strengthening Palestinian presence in international institutions, and reviving popular resistance, while at the same time insisting on preserving the Authority and preventing the collapse of its institutions.

It is not necessary to link the convening of the conference with the cancellation of Oslo Writer and political analyst Muhammad Hawash stresses that attempts by parties of the ruling right in Israel to push for the cancellation of the Oslo Accords or to disavow its obligations are not directly linked to the convening of the Eighth Conference of the Fatah movement, considering that linking the two events lacks political accuracy, because Israeli calls to end the agreement are not new, but date back years, and have escalated more clearly in recent months by ministers in the Israeli government, foremost among them Itamar Ben-Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich.

Hawash explains that the Israeli right's trends towards undermining Oslo are consistent with a continuous Israeli policy based on practically bypassing the agreement on the ground, by weakening the Palestinian Authority and preventing it from fulfilling its political and economic obligations towards Palestinian society, in addition to continuing settlement expansion, land confiscation, control over resources, and economic restrictions, including clearance funds and depriving Palestinian workers of working inside Israel.

Pushing Palestinians to abandon their national aspirations Hawash believes that these policies reflect an Israeli vision that seeks to push Palestinians to abandon their national aspirations related to the right to self-determination and the establishment of a Palestinian state, in exchange for keeping them as residents who have some individual rights without recognizing their national rights, in parallel with an attempt to control the largest possible area of Palestinian land in the West Bank, Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip, and reducing Israeli responsibilities towards the residents.

Hawash stresses that the coincidence of Israeli calls to cancel Oslo with the convening of Fatah's Eighth Conference does not mean a causal relationship between them, considering that the issue goes beyond the Fatah movement to include all official and civil Palestinian institutions, frameworks, and political structures, in light of what he described as Israel's attempt, with American support, to obstruct any international accountability for its violations against Palestinians, whether in the United Nations or international courts.

Israel's reversal of the Oslo Accords Hawash rejects blaming the Oslo Accords for the current deterioration in the situation of Palestinians, confirming that the agreement – despite observations on it – set legal and administrative limits for the occupation, and was a transitional framework for ending the occupation within five years, but Israel reversed the agreement and the idea of political settlement after the assassination of Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and the late Palestinian President Yasser Arafat.

Hawash points out that the international community, despite its official adherence to the two-state solution, faces a challenge represented by broad American support for the right-wing Israeli government, despite shifts within American society that criticize Israeli policies towards Palestinians, in addition to European moves towards imposing sanctions on settlers involved in attacks against Palestinians.

Responsibility does not fall on Fatah alone Hawash believes that the Eighth Conference of the Fatah movement is responsible for developing a clear political program to deal with the Israeli project based on settlement expansion and undermining Palestinian rights, and providing effective tools to achieve this program, by renewing the leadership frameworks of Fatah, the Organization, and the Authority through comprehensive elections.

However, Hawash confirms that the responsibility does not fall on Fatah alone, but on all Palestinian factions and the Palestine Liberation Organization, by developing tools of steadfastness and political struggle, strengthening Arab and international partnerships, and preserving the possibility of implementing the two-state solution.

Hawash stresses that the Palestinian people face a project that targets their existence and national rights, which forces Palestinian forces to unite their efforts and build a political vision more capable of confronting Israeli policies, while developing tools for political and diplomatic action to protect Palestinian national rights and prevent their liquidation.

The eighth general conference of the Palestinian National Liberation Movement (Fatah) began today, Thursday, in Ramallah, in the occupied West Bank, marking the first organizational event of its kind in a decade. The conference convenes at a pivotal historical moment, coinciding with the ongoing war of extermination in the Gaza Strip and escalating security and political challenges in Jerusalem and the West Bank.

The Palestinian presidential headquarters hosts the main sessions of the conference, where participants aim to elect members of the Central Committee and the Revolutionary Council, the supreme leadership bodies that will manage the movement's affairs in the upcoming phase. Observers view this step as a practical prelude to reorganizing power centers within the movement, especially with the approaching post-President Mahmoud Abbas era, as he is over ninety years old.

Jibril Rajoub, Secretary of the movement's Central Committee, affirmed that this conference represents a crucial juncture in the history of the Palestinian national struggle, emphasizing the necessity of protecting independent national decision-making. Rajoub clarified that through this meeting, the movement seeks to solidify the presence of the Palestinian cause in international forums and enhance the role of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) as the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people.

Rajoub indicated in his statements that the conference aims to build a genuine partnership with the international community to establish an independent Palestinian state, far from any illusions of partnership with the current Israeli government. He stressed that Benjamin Netanyahu's government categorically rejects the two-state solution, which compels Palestinians to organize their internal affairs to confront these extremist policies.

Approximately 2580 members are participating in the conference, geographically distributed to ensure representation from all arenas, with about 400 members in the Gaza Strip, a similar number in the Egyptian capital Cairo, and 200 members in Beirut. The movement utilizes video conferencing technologies to connect different arenas and ensure everyone's participation in voting and discussions despite geographical and security obstacles.

In the Gaza Strip, sessions began at Al-Azhar University amidst special security arrangements directly supervised by Fatah cadres. Sources reported that these arrangements were made without interference from Hamas security forces, which still control the reins of power in the Strip, reflecting a desire to smoothly pass the organizational entitlement.

The conference is expected to result in the election of 18 members to the Central Committee and 80 members to the Revolutionary Council, with the conference having the authority to amend these numbers according to organizational requirements. The nomination process is subject to strict conditions, most notably that the candidate must have spent at least two decades within the movement's ranks and progressed through its various organizational levels.

This entitlement comes at a time when Fatah faces internal and external criticism regarding its declining popular influence and the failure of the political settlement project. Analysts believe that the movement is increasingly relying on Palestinian Authority institutions and the PLO to solidify its legitimacy, in the absence of general legislative and presidential elections for nearly twenty years.

Hani Al-Masri, director of the Masarat Center, warned that the struggle for leadership positions might overshadow substantive discussions related to the movement's national and political program. Al-Masri pointed out that the legitimacy crisis suffered by Palestinian institutions requires radical reforms and comprehensive national consensus that goes beyond merely changing names in leadership bodies.

On the ground, the conference coincides with unprecedented Israeli escalation in the West Bank, where occupation forces continue their military operations and expand settlement activity. The Palestinian Authority faces increasing pressure from the Palestinian street, which demands more decisive stances against repeated settler attacks and the ongoing war of extermination in Gaza.

Prominent leadership figures are absent from the conference, including Nasser al-Qudwa, who questioned the legality of the conference and the legitimacy of the current leadership, in addition to the continued exclusion of Mohammed Dahlan. Despite this absence, some individuals affiliated with opposition currents are participating individually, amidst an atmosphere of anticipation for the new balances that the ballot boxes will reveal.

Attention is focused on prominent names competing to succeed President Abbas or strengthen their positions at the top of the leadership hierarchy, including Hussein al-Sheikh, Jibril Rajoub, and Majed Faraj. Yasser Abbas, the President's son, has also emerged as a potential candidate for Central Committee membership, based on his extensive political and economic activity and his wide-ranging connections within state agencies and the movement.

This conference is the most important in the history of the Palestinian national movement, and it is being held amidst the most dangerous challenges facing our struggle.

Ramallah - "Al-Quds" Dot Com - By Ahmed Jalajel - A delegation from the Jerusalem National and Civil Action Commission and the Jerusalem Chamber of Commerce met with His Excellency the Omani Ambassador in Ramallah, Abdullah bin Omar bin Salem Al-Haddad, and the embassy staff. Speakers from the Commission and the Chamber of Commerce unanimously expressed their high gratitude and appreciation for the Omani role in supporting our people and our Palestinian cause, politically, media-wise, financially, and relief-wise, and within the framework of cultural and heritage exchange. The delegation also provided a detailed and in-depth explanation of the Israeli violations in the city of Jerusalem, and the comprehensive war waged against Jerusalemites in all fields and arenas, targeting people, stones, trees, and Islamic and Christian holy sites, foremost among them Al-Aqsa Mosque and the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. The delegation warned that there are serious Judaization risks coming to Al-Aqsa, especially in light of calls by Talmudic and Torah groups, supported by the occupation government, to storm Al-Aqsa and raise Israeli flags in its courtyards on the anniversary of what is known as the unification of Jerusalem, coinciding with the 78th anniversary of the Nakba of our Palestinian people.

The delegation called on the Omani government to support and assist the commercial and economic movement in the city of Jerusalem, and to adopt projects that would serve traders and strengthen their steadfastness in the Old City, such as the solar energy project and other projects that leave a distinctive Omani impact and footprint in supporting our people in the city. Finally, the delegation thanked the Ambassador and the embassy staff for their warm reception and for working to enhance future communication and cooperation.

Groups of settlers stormed the courtyards of the blessed Al-Aqsa Mosque in occupied Jerusalem on Thursday morning, where they conducted provocative tours and performed Talmudic rituals under tight security from the occupation forces. These incursions come amidst official warnings issued by the Jerusalem Governorate about plans led by the alleged 'Temple organizations,' aiming to impose a new reality and expand the scope of violations during upcoming occasions, especially what is called 'Jerusalem Unification Day.'

In a related context, Israeli occupation forces launched a wide-ranging raid campaign in various governorates of the West Bank, focusing on Nablus city where the 'Madaed' charitable association was stormed and closed. The forces tampered with the association's contents and confiscated some of its belongings before issuing a decision to close it, claiming it provided services to entities described by the occupation authorities as 'illegal,' without providing clear evidence for these allegations.

Military operations at dawn today included the cities of Hebron, Bethlehem, Salfit, and Qalqilya, where local sources reported the arrest of a number of citizens, including two doctors from the town of Tafuh, west of Hebron, after their homes were raided and thoroughly searched. These arrests fall within the ongoing field escalation policy adopted by Israeli forces in West Bank cities and towns for several months, leading to an increase in security tension.

Regarding settler attacks in pastoral areas, the human rights organization 'Al-Baydar' revealed a forced displacement crime targeting a Bedouin family of seven in the area west of Al-Auja village, north of Jericho. Sources explained that continuous pressure, physical assaults, and intimidation by settlers forced the family to forcibly relocate towards the northern Jordan Valley, as part of the occupation's efforts to empty areas classified as 'C' of their original inhabitants.

International reports indicate the seriousness of the humanitarian situation in the West Bank, where UNICEF noted that the escalating pace of violence since the beginning of 2025 has led to the martyrdom of approximately one Palestinian child weekly. This field reality reflects the extent of violations faced by Palestinians, amidst the ongoing war on the Gaza Strip and the intensification of military and settlement operations in all occupied territories.

Jerusalem Governorate warns of an escalation led by Temple organizations in cooperation with the occupation government to change the historical and legal status of Al-Aqsa Mosque.

The scenes coming from the border town of Houla in the Marjayoun district bring back bloody chapters that have not left the memory of South Lebanon for decades. The systematic destruction witnessed in the town today seems to be a continuation of a series that began in 1948, when Zionist gangs committed a horrific massacre against its residents and land.

Houla is located in a sensitive strategic position within what is known as the 'Galilee Finger,' south of the Litani River and adjacent to the occupied Palestinian border. Its area is about 16 square kilometers, and it is bordered by the villages of Markaba, Tallousa, and Mays al-Jabal, which has always placed it on the front line against Israeli ambitions.

The roots of the tragedy date back to May 1948, when Zionist gangs infiltrated and killed three men from the town, prompting the Arab Liberation Army to intervene and establish a presence there. However, the withdrawal of Arab forces in October of the same year opened the door to a humanitarian catastrophe that years have not erased.

On October 31, 1948, the attackers used deception to enter the town, wearing kuffiyehs and agals to make the residents believe they were from the Arab Liberation Army. The residents welcomed them, thinking they were alternative Arab forces, but the attackers soon revealed their identity and began a widespread arrest campaign that included 85 people.

The arrested young and elderly men were taken to three houses in the town, where they were executed in cold blood while unarmed and with their hands raised. The occupation did not stop at killing; it also blew up the houses over the bodies of the victims, in a brutal scene that embodies the policy of extermination adopted by the Zionist gangs at the time.

Accounts vary regarding the final number of martyrs, but local estimates indicate that between 70 and 80 martyrs fell in that massacre. The town commemorated their memory with a memorial bearing the names of about 100 martyrs, including women and children who died in various attacks targeting the village.

Historical documents highlighted the name of Shmuel Lahis, a company commander in the Carmeli Brigade, as directly responsible for this crime. Although he was the only soldier tried for killing Arabs during the Nakba, the Israeli judiciary reduced his sentence to one year, then released him with a swift pardon.

The stark irony in Lahis's story was his subsequent career path, where he was appointed Director-General of the Jewish Agency. This honoring of a war criminal reflects the Israeli approach of reintegrating killers into high positions, instead of holding them accountable for documented crimes against Lebanese and Palestinian civilians.

Houla suffered from direct occupation that lasted from 1978 until liberation in 2000, a period that witnessed intense repressive practices. The systematic killing, arrest, and displacement forced the majority of the town's youth into forced displacement, seeking lost safety under the weight of Israeli military control.

In the recent aggression that began in October 2024, Israel returned to using more lethal means to destroy what remained of life in Houla. International human rights sources documented widespread destruction affecting thousands of residential and agricultural facilities in the border villages, in a clear attempt to turn them into uninhabitable areas.

Field sources reported that the occupation army is currently destroying entire neighborhoods in the town, which brings back memories of the first displacement in 1948. At that time, the people of Houla took refuge in the Dbayeh area east of Beirut and lived in tin shacks, before returning after the armistice agreement in March 1949.

Houla's history is a record full of steadfastness and pain, as the occupation repeatedly demolished its homes, and each time the residents rebuilt. Today, the town's residents find themselves displaced once again in displacement centers, awaiting the moment of return to their land, which has never stopped offering martyrs.

The massacre, which occurred one day after the 'Salha' massacre in the seven villages, remained etched in the collective memory of the people of the South. Names like Zainab Younes, Amna Hammoud, and the child Yahya Qassem remain living testimonies to the brutality of the crimes committed by the 'Haganah' gangs led by Menachem Begin.

What is happening today in Houla is not just a fleeting military confrontation, but a new chapter in the struggle for existence on the Lebanese-Palestinian border. Israel is trying, through its 'scorched earth' policy, to erase the geographical memory of the village, but history proves that Houla always rises from the ashes.

The criminal Shmuel Lahis, responsible for the execution of dozens in Houla, was later rewarded with his appointment as Director-General of the Jewish Agency after a sham one-year prison sentence.

A high-level US security assessment, circulated concurrently with President Donald Trump's visit to Beijing, revealed alarming data regarding China's exploitation of the ongoing military confrontation with Iran. US officials familiar with the analysis explained that Beijing successfully leveraged the war to enhance its superiority over the United States in military, economic, and diplomatic spheres, benefiting from Washington's preoccupation in the Middle East.

The report, prepared by the Intelligence Directorate of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, used the 'DIME' framework to assess Chinese power across four key axes. The assessment indicated that Beijing skillfully employed diplomatic, informational, military, and economic tools to undermine US influence, at a time when the Pentagon faces increasing logistical and strategic challenges due to the prolonged conflict.

Since the outbreak of military operations launched by the United States and the occupying state against Iran in late February, China has emerged as an alternative arms supplier. Beijing has sold defense systems to Washington's traditional allies in the Gulf region, who seek to protect their bases and oil facilities from intense Iranian missile and drone attacks.

Economically, Beijing exploited the global energy crisis resulting from the closure of the Strait of Hormuz, through which one-fifth of global oil production passes. China provided technological and energy assistance to many countries struggling to meet their needs, taking advantage of the absence of the usual US leadership role in managing global fuel and gas supply shortages.

The intelligence report warned that the war has depleted massive stockpiles of advanced US munitions, which were earmarked for a potential confrontation in the Pacific region. This severe shortage raises serious concerns among Washington's allies in Taiwan, Japan, and South Korea about the US military's ability to intervene quickly should Beijing decide to take military action against Taiwan.

The war also provided a golden opportunity for the Chinese military to observe modern US combat methods and test the effectiveness of Western weapons in the field. According to informed sources, Beijing is currently studying the shortcomings that appeared in US military performance to develop its future operational plans and enhance its defensive and offensive capabilities based on these lessons.

Diplomatically, China adopted rhetoric describing the war as 'illegitimate,' exploiting global public criticism of military operations to enhance its image as a responsible power. Through this approach, Beijing sought to undermine US claims of leading a rules-based international order, describing Washington as a reckless power drawn into endless bloody conflicts.

In an official reaction, Pentagon spokesman Sean Parnell denied the validity of these conclusions, considering claims of a shift in the global balance of power in China's favor to be 'completely false.' Parnell affirmed that the United States still maintains its qualitative and quantitative superiority, despite the challenges posed by the current confrontation in the Middle East.

For her part, White House spokeswoman Olivia Wells stated that US forces succeeded in destroying the bulk of Iran's military capabilities in record time. She added that the naval blockade currently imposed is one of the most successful operations in history, aiming to dry up the Iranian regime's funding sources and force it to comply with international demands.

In contrast, the Chinese Embassy in Washington affirmed that its priority is to prevent renewed fighting and work to de-escalate the volatile situation. A spokeswoman for the embassy said that Beijing rejects exploiting the situation to tarnish the reputation of nations, emphasizing her country's commitment to promoting global peace away from alliance politics and military incitement.

Security experts, such as Jacob Stokes, believe that the current timing of the disclosure of this information is highly sensitive given Trump's visit to Beijing. The visit aims to reset relations between the two largest economies, but it comes amid a decline in Trump's global standing due to the severe damage to the global economy caused by the war and the disruption of energy supplies.

Despite Trump's assurances before leaving Washington that he does not need Beijing's help to end the war, the reality on the ground indicates otherwise. China has become the second most fortified country against energy crises after the United States, thanks to its massive investments in renewable energy and its oil reserves, which gives it strong leverage in negotiations.

Analyst Ryan Hass points out that Beijing is not exercising 'benevolence' in providing energy solutions to Thailand, the Philippines, and Australia, but rather sowing discord between Washington and its partners. The gap left by the US administration in managing the current energy crisis has allowed China to present itself as a reliable provider of technological solutions and alternative fuels in the long term.

In conclusion, the shortage of munitions and US defense industrial capacity remains the biggest concern facing planners in Washington. The high cost of interceptor missiles and the long time required to replace them put US military readiness to the test, which reinforces China's geopolitical position as it quietly observes the scene and awaits the opportune moment to impose a new reality.

The war on Iran significantly improves China's geopolitical standing and portrays Washington as a power mired in costly conflicts.

The US federal judiciary has issued a decision to suspend the sanctions that the US administration had imposed last year on Francesca Albanese, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the occupied Palestinian territories. This judicial step brings renewed attention to the escalating controversy surrounding the limits of freedom of expression and the political pressures exerted by Washington regarding the ongoing war in the Gaza Strip.

The United States had taken punitive measures against Albanese in July 2025, following her bold statements criticizing US support for Israel. The justifications for the sanctions also included her recommendation to the International Criminal Court to issue international arrest warrants against Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on charges related to war crimes.

In the details of the judicial ruling, Federal Judge Richard Leon issued a temporary injunction preventing the implementation of these sanctions, noting in his reasoning that upholding freedom of expression is a fundamental pillar that serves the public interest. This decision reflects the legal and political tension within American institutions regarding how to deal with international figures who criticize Washington's foreign policies.

For his part, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio had previously expressed strong displeasure with Albanese's reports, in which she accused the Israeli occupation authorities of committing acts amounting to genocide against Palestinians. The US administration at the time considered that the UN rapporteur's positions exceeded the limits of her mandate and harmed strategic relations in the region.

Following the judicial decision, Francesca Albanese expressed her welcome of this step, which she considered a victory for justice, as she had previously affirmed that the sanctions aimed to undermine her international mission. Albanese posted a message of thanks on her official 'X' account to everyone who supported her in facing these pressures, affirming her continued commitment to performing her professional duty.

Albanese, an Italian lawyer, has held her position by mandate of the UN Human Rights Council since 2022, where her mission focuses on documenting violations in the occupied territories. Although she does not officially speak on behalf of the international organization as a whole, her reports resonate widely and have a significant impact in global legal and human rights forums.

The UN official has revealed on several occasions that she has been subjected to a series of direct threats and harassment as a result of her firm stances on the Israeli war on Gaza. She considered that these attempts primarily aim to intimidate human rights defenders and prevent the facts related to Palestinian suffering from reaching global public opinion.

Judge Leon's decision reopens the door to in-depth legal discussions about the legality of using economic and political sanctions as a tool to silence international human rights voices. It also puts the US administration in an awkward position before human rights organizations that demand the guarantee of the independence of international investigators and their protection from direct political targeting.

Protecting freedom of expression always serves the public interest.

The blessed Al-Aqsa Mosque in the occupied city of Jerusalem witnessed a wave of extensive incursions this Thursday morning, carried out by hundreds of Israeli settlers under heavy protection from occupation forces. Among the intruders were Knesset member Ariel Kallner and the extremist rabbi Yehuda Glick, who performed Talmudic and provocative rituals in the mosque's courtyards.

Sources from the Jerusalem Governorate reported that the occupation authorities imposed strict military measures at the mosque's gates, including severely restricting the entry of Palestinian worshippers. These measures aim to empty the mosque of its rightful occupants to secure routes for the settlers, who have intensified their presence since the early morning hours.

Sources in the Islamic Endowments Department stated that approximately 422 settlers stormed the mosque during the first three hours of the morning tours alone. These actions come in response to calls launched by extremist settler groups on the occasion of what they call the 'Hebrew anniversary of the occupation of Jerusalem'.

In the context of field restrictions, the occupation police prevented men under the age of 60 and women under the age of 50 from entering Al-Aqsa since dawn prayers. The forces also assaulted by pushing and beating a number of male and female steadfast worshippers who tried to be present at the outer gates of the mosque.

Occupation forces forced employees of the Endowments Department and students of the Sharia school, who are taking their final exams, to remain confined inside the covered prayer halls and administrative buildings. These measures prevented any Palestinian presence in the open courtyards, turning the mosque into a military barracks for the benefit of the intruders.

In the Old City, a state of commercial paralysis prevailed after occupation forces compelled shop owners to close their doors all day. This step comes to secure the route of the provocative 'Flag March' scheduled for this evening, in which thousands of settlers are expected to participate.

Minister of the Negev and Galilee, Yitzhak Wasserlauf, a member of the extremist 'Jewish Power' party, had stormed Al-Aqsa Mosque on Wednesday evening in preparation for these events. This official participation by ministers and Knesset members reflects direct Israeli government support for changing the status quo in the holy sites.

Media estimates indicate that about 50,000 settlers will participate in the Flag March, which will tour Palestinian neighborhoods in East Jerusalem. This march is usually accompanied by racist anti-Arab chants and physical assaults on the property and residents of the holy city.

Regarding violations in the West Bank, human rights reports indicated the displacement of a Bedouin family of 7 from the Auja area north of Jericho due to repeated settler attacks. These events coincide with an arrest campaign that targeted two doctors from the town of Taffouh and raids in several cities in the West Bank.

In Nablus, the occupation authorities closed the 'Maded' charity association, claiming it provided services to illegal entities, as part of the crackdown on civil work. These practices continue amidst an escalating pace of violence targeting Palestinian civilians in various governorates.

For its part, UNICEF warned of the seriousness of the field situation, noting that a Palestinian child is killed weekly in the West Bank since the beginning of 2025. These statistics confirm the extent of the systematic targeting of the Palestinian people in the absence of international accountability.

Occupation forces forced worshippers, Waqf employees, and Sharia school students to remain inside the covered prayer halls to clear the courtyards for the intruders.

The least that can be said is that "Fatah" today goes to its eighth conference amidst unprecedented existential challenges, which impose duties on the conferees commensurate with these challenges. The race today is for burdens, not gains. Before the ambitious and greedy, and those whose hearts and pockets have been won over, there are major tasks that cannot be solved by slogans, eloquent promises, or statements. Their test will not exceed a few days, when those who emerge from the ballot boxes find themselves facing mountains of tasks, responsibilities, and unanswered questions.Protecting the dignity of the families of martyrs, wounded, and prisoners, rescuing them from the scourge of hunger, destitution, and harsh living conditions, and helping people in refugee camps, villages, and towns ravaged by the claws of settlement in the West Bank, and responding to the concerns and pains of people in Gaza, should be at the forefront of the programs of those competing to serve their people. Slogans are worthless if not accompanied by actions; for life is the strongest weapon in confronting an enemy that practices genocide and displacement, and undermines the foundations of the state by imposing harsh realities that create an expelling environment, emptying the land of its owners.Today, "Fatah" is most in need of those who possess keen insight and sharp foresight. The purpose of holding the conference is not to replace names with names, but rather it is a station for evaluation and correction, mending the cracks in the surfaces, and injecting new blood into the veins of the movement, which is deeply rooted in struggle, making it capable of continuing to run on the path of the early pioneers who carried it on their shoulders in its early beginnings.Fatah cannot regain its role unless the Eighth Conference is a starting point for comprehensive national unity, ending the division, and establishing a genuine partnership in which the movement lays down its burden, so that all national factions can have the honor of holding its end to carry the stone of the Palestine Liberation Organization, the legitimate and sole representative of the Palestinian people.Fatah, as the locomotive of the struggle and the focus of hopes, must and can take the initiative to compensate for shortcomings and make up for what has been missed; through conducting reviews, correcting paths, rectifying policy deviations, restoring eroded trust in the movement's bodies and institutions, and addressing disputes among comrades. It is not enough for Fatah to be the owner of the first shot, but rather to be a shield that wards off the last bullet from its people.

Chinese President Xi Jinping began his meeting with his American counterpart Donald Trump in Beijing by affirming that trade talks between the two superpowers are making tangible progress. Xi clarified during the two-day summit that cooperation is the only way to achieve the interests of both parties, while warning that confrontation would lead to severe damage affecting everyone.

In a firm message, the Chinese President stressed that the issue of Taiwan island represents the most sensitive and important matter in bilateral relations. He warned that any mishandling of this issue or continued military support for the island could push relations towards a very dangerous path, indicating the possibility of a direct clash if Beijing's red lines are not respected.

For his part, US President Donald Trump praised his Chinese counterpart, describing him as a 'great leader,' and suggesting that this summit could be classified as the most important diplomatic event in modern history. Trump expressed optimism about the anticipated results, despite the political and economic pressures facing his administration in Washington due to complex domestic and foreign issues.

The opening session saw a notable presence of US tech giants, as Trump was accompanied by Elon Musk, Jensen Huang, and Tim Cook. Musk described the initial atmosphere of the discussions as 'wonderful,' reflecting the American business sector's desire to end the state of trade tension and open new horizons for investment in the massive Chinese market.

This summit comes as a continuation of preliminary discussions held in South Korea, where sources reported that economic teams reached balanced initial understandings. Both sides aim from this round to solidify the trade truce agreed upon last October, and prevent the global economy from sliding into a new tariff war.

During his visit, President Trump seeks to push for 'full openness' for American industry within China, in an attempt to reduce the chronic trade deficit. Washington particularly looks forward to concluding massive deals including Boeing aircraft, energy products, and agricultural goods, which are top priorities on Trump's economic agenda.

In contrast, Beijing prioritizes easing strict US restrictions on the export of advanced electronic chip technology and semiconductors. China believes these restrictions hinder its technological development and demands fair treatment for its companies in global markets in exchange for the continued flow of rare earth metals to American factories.

After the first official session concluded, the two leaders made a symbolic visit to the historic Temple of Heaven in Beijing, a step aimed at demonstrating their personal rapprochement. Trump expressed his admiration for China's historical landmarks, while observers considered these protocol tours to reflect Beijing's desire to win over the US President and soften the tone of his escalating rhetoric.

Political analysts believe that the balance of power has shifted since Trump's previous visit, with the United States now recognizing China's status as an equivalent great power. Experts noted that the term 'Group of Two' (G2) has reappeared, reflecting a new international reality that requires direct coordination between Washington and Beijing to manage global crises.

On the geopolitical front, Trump is expected to ask Xi Jinping to pressure Iran to reach an agreement that ends the current conflict in the Middle East. Washington bets that damage to Chinese commercial interests in the Gulf might push Beijing to play a mediating role, despite analysts' doubts about China's willingness to abandon the strategic card of Iran.

The US administration faces a legal challenge domestically, as courts have limited the President's powers to unilaterally impose tariffs. This situation puts Trump under pressure to negotiate for quick gains before the midterm congressional elections, especially with rising inflation rates resulting from international tensions.

Regarding the Taiwan issue, the estimated $14 billion US arms deal remains a stumbling block to full normalization of relations. Washington adheres to its legal commitment to arm the island for self-defense, which Beijing considers blatant interference in its internal affairs and a threat to its non-negotiable national sovereignty.

Discussions are expected to expand to include frameworks for cooperation in artificial intelligence and setting international standards for its use in military and civilian fields. Both parties seek to avoid a technological arms race that could destabilize global stability, while maintaining their respective technological superiority in this vital area.

The visit concludes with setting a timeline for an anticipated visit by President Xi Jinping to the United States later this year. This visit will be his first since Trump's return to the White House, signaling a new phase of intensive diplomacy between the world's two largest economies.

When we cooperate, both sides benefit, and when we confront, both sides suffer.

Washington – Said Arikat – 14/5/2026

News Analysis

The name of Abdul Rahman Mohamed El-Sayed (Abdul El-Sayed), a progressive politician of Egyptian descent from Michigan, has emerged as one of the most rising figures within the American Democratic Party, after polls showed him leading in the primary race for Senator Gary Peters' seat in the Senate. According to a poll published on May 11, El-Sayed is ten points ahead of his opponent, Representative Haley Stevens, and also tops the average of "Real Clear Politics" polls. If he wins the election, he will become the first Muslim to be elected as a member of the US Senate, and one of the most prominent Arab-American voices advocating for Palestinian rights within the political establishment in Washington.

El-Sayed, 41, a distinguished physician in Michigan (and also an assistant professor in the Department of Epidemiology at Columbia University), carries a broad progressive platform that includes universal healthcare, criminal justice reform, and a complete ban on sending weapons to Israel. These positions were, until recently, considered highly marginal within traditional American politics. However, his rise comes at a different political moment, where public anger over the Israeli war on Gaza is expanding, and the power of the progressive current within the Democratic Party is increasing, especially among youth, unions, and student movements.

In this context, Zohran Mamdani's victory in the New York City mayoral election in 2025 appeared to be a pivotal moment in contemporary American politics, as it proved that a candidate clearly supportive of Palestinian rights could achieve a significant electoral victory in one of America's most important cities. This victory opened the door for a new wave of progressive candidates who place the Palestinian issue at the heart of their political discourse, after many long years during which criticizing Israel was seen as a political risk that could end the future of any candidate within the Democratic Party.

Observers believe that El-Sayed's rise is not only linked to shifts in public opinion after the war on Gaza, but also to the deep political and social legacy of Detroit and its suburbs, where alliances between Arab Americans, labor movements, and progressive Black movements have formed over decades. Since the 1960s, radical Black organizations adopted positions supportive of Palestinians as part of their anti-global colonialism vision, while Arab-American activists, including Lebanese-American lawyer Abdeen Jabara, contributed to building political and academic institutions that supported the Palestinian cause and linked it to social justice issues within the United States.

It is worth noting that one of the pivotal moments in this history was in 1973, when about two thousand auto workers in Detroit went on strike to protest the American auto workers' union leadership's relations with Israel. The strike was then led by the "Arab Workers' Caucus," which later continued its campaigns to push unions to divest from Israel, a step that preceded by decades the boycott and divestment movement known today as "BDS." Activists believe that this historical background explains why Michigan has today become an advanced center for pro-Palestinian political activism within the Democratic Party.

El-Sayed's rise reveals a profound change within the American political mood, transcending the boundaries of traditional elections. The war on Gaza has prompted an increasing number of young people and progressive voters to reconsider the American-Israeli relationship, after images of destruction and killing began reaching them daily through social media, far from the traditional official narrative. Therefore, talking about Palestinian rights has become less politically sensitive than it was in previous decades, while demands to stop arming Israel have gained increasing legitimacy within progressive, union, and student circles, especially among new generations who view the conflict from the perspective of human rights and international justice, not solely geopolitical calculations.

Michigan's experience reflects a political and social specificity rarely given attention in traditional American media. The Palestinian issue there was not only shaped as an issue of Arab or religious identity, but as a result of decades of joint work between Arab Americans, labor movements, and Black movements. This legacy created a political discourse that links economic justice, anti-racism, and rejection of foreign wars. Therefore, the support El-Sayed enjoys within unions and progressive organizations is not solely linked to his Arab background, but to his ability to represent a broader current that believes American foreign policy must also be subject to standards of justice and human rights.

The growing pro-Palestinian current within the Democratic Party represents a strategic challenge to the traditional political establishment in Washington, which for decades treated support for Israel as an unquestionable constant. However, demographic and cultural shifts within the United States have begun to impose new equations, especially with the rise of a generation more critical of wars and more sensitive to issues of discrimination and occupation. If figures like El-Sayed and Mamdani succeed in achieving additional electoral breakthroughs, Democratic leaders may find themselves forced to reformulate their discourse towards the Middle East, reflecting the changing public mood within the party's electoral base in the coming years, gradually but effectively.

Today, many observers believe that El-Sayed's campaign represents an extension of a historical path led by prominent political and reformist figures, such as the late Reverend Jesse Jackson and current Senator from Vermont, Bernie Sanders, among others. However, it comes at a more sensitive and impactful moment, after Gaza has become a central focus in American political discussion, and after universities, unions, and protest movements have become public pressure platforms on both the Trump administration and Democratic leaders. Furthermore, El-Sayed's recent endorsement by prominent Black and progressive organizations in Detroit indicates the expansion of the alliance supporting him within the state, and that the Palestinian issue is no longer an isolated foreign file, but has become part of the internal American discussion about justice, identity, and the future of American politics itself.

The United Arab Emirates has refuted the Israeli narrative regarding an unannounced visit by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to the capital Abu Dhabi amidst the recent military escalation with Iran. The UAE Ministry of Foreign Affairs confirmed in an official statement issued today, Thursday, the inaccuracy of the circulating information about this visit, emphasizing that the state has not received any Israeli military delegations on its territory during the past period.

This categorical Emirati denial comes in response to what Netanyahu's office announced on Wednesday, where the latter claimed to have made a 'secret visit' that included a meeting with the Head of State, Sheikh Mohamed bin Zayed Al Nahyan. The Israeli side claimed that these movements took place within the framework of what it described as 'Operation Roaring Lion,' which coincided with direct confrontations between Israel and Iran, describing it as a historical breakthrough in the path of bilateral relations.

The Emirati Ministry of Foreign Affairs clarified in its statement that the state's foreign policy is characterized by transparency, noting that relations with Israel are 'declared relations' and are not managed through secret channels or hidden arrangements. The Ministry also called for not relying on any news related to official visits unless issued by the competent authorities in the UAE, in a clear reference to refuting the narrative issued by the Israeli Prime Minister's office.

In a related context, statements by the US Ambassador to Israel, Mike Huckabee, had sparked widespread controversy after he revealed that Israel had supplied the UAE with 'Iron Dome' air defense systems. Huckabee indicated that Tel Aviv had sent military experts to operate these systems with the aim of protecting Emirati facilities from aerial threats that emerged during the recent confrontation with Tehran, which Abu Dhabi has not confirmed.

The region has witnessed a dangerous escalation since February 28th, following American and Israeli strikes targeting sites within Iranian territory. As a result, the UAE was subjected to a series of missile and drone attacks launched from Iran, which put the security of the region to a difficult test and made the Gulf states a theater for the repercussions of this direct conflict.

The United Arab Emirates is considered a strategic ally of the United States in the region and has made significant strides in normalizing its relations with Israel since the signing of the 'Abraham Accords' in 2020. Despite this diplomatic path, Abu Dhabi is keen to keep its movements within a declared official framework, away from the political exploitation that some Israeli parties try to practice by leaking news of secret visits.

Observers believe that the contradiction between the Emirati and Israeli narratives reflects the sensitivity of the current regional situation, especially in light of the continued mutual threats between Tehran and Tel Aviv. While Netanyahu tries to portray his relations with Arab countries as major security achievements, the UAE insists on regulating the pace of this relationship in a way that serves its national interests without being drawn into undeclared military arrangements that could further complicate the scene.

The UAE's relations with Israel are declared and are not based on secrecy or hidden arrangements, and any claims to the contrary are baseless.

An international press report highlighted the advanced offensive strategy adopted by Hezbollah in its current confrontation with the occupation army, pointing to the increasing reliance on suicide drones operating via fiber optic technology. The report clarified that this new weapon has created a complex security vulnerability in the Israeli defense system, as Tel Aviv's available technology has so far failed to find a radical solution to these drones.

Sources stated that Hezbollah has managed to activate this type of drone to circumvent the 'Iron Dome' system, which the occupation has relied on for many years to counter missiles. These devices are characterized by a very low manufacturing cost, not exceeding a few hundred euros, and are made from commercially available materials. However, they have proven to be highly lethal, causing the death and injury of a number of occupation soldiers in border locations.

Reports quoted researchers at the Israeli Institute for National Security Studies as saying that controlling these drones, which operate with 'First-Person View' (FPV) technology, is extremely simple, with some describing it as easier than video games. The drone relies on a camera that transmits live images to the operator, giving Hezbollah fighters a superior ability to accurately guide them towards sensitive military targets from fortified and safe positions.

The technical secret of these drones lies in their connection to a very thin fiber optic cable, which completely eliminates the need to send or receive any radio signals during flight. This physical link makes it impossible for the occupation's electronic warfare and jamming systems to intercept the drone or divert its path, leading to a state of paralysis in the traditional defense systems deployed along the border.

Estimates derived from Hebrew media sources indicate that Hezbollah has allocated a military unit comprising hundreds of militants specialized exclusively in operating and launching these drones. According to field data, this network has launched approximately 160 suicide drones, including 90 drones operating with fiber optic cables, often launched after precise reconnaissance and monitoring operations of the targeted sites.

Reports indicated that Iran, the primary supporter of the party, has pushed for the widespread use of this weapon in various conflict zones in the region, including its use against American forces in Iraq. With the ongoing escalation in the field, Hezbollah has intensified its use of this technology in response to occupation raids, which has doubled the frustration within the Israeli military establishment due to the inability to confront this growing threat.

The General Staff of the occupation army faces internal accusations of neglecting early warnings that indicated Hezbollah's adoption of military technologies that appeared in the Ukrainian arena. The matter reached direct intervention from Benjamin Netanyahu, who issued strict instructions to security and technical agencies on the necessity of finding a way to end this threat that is daily depleting ground forces.

For their part, military analysts believe that the current attempts by the occupation to counter drones, such as placing fishing nets or metal boxes over vehicles, are primitive and ineffective solutions. Experts confirmed that these drones have shown a high ability to target weak points in advanced 'Merkava' tanks and 'Namer' armored personnel carriers, in addition to the command cabins of massive military bulldozers.

According to statistics issued by the occupation army radio, suicide drones launched from Lebanon were responsible for injuring 37 soldiers out of 39 who fell during a period not exceeding three weeks. These figures confirm the significant field impact of this weapon, whose victims were not limited to regular soldiers but also included contractors and workers in border military installations.

In addition to the military impact, Hezbollah uses these drones as a powerful propaganda and psychological tool against the occupation's internal front, as its media platforms publish videos documenting moments of attack on targets. These clips use the hashtag 'The thread that changes the equation,' referring to the fiber optic cable that connects the drone to its operator and gives it immunity against jamming.

These intensive media campaigns aim to raise morale in the party's supportive environment in Lebanon, which has been suffering from the effects of war and widespread displacement for months. Observers believe that documenting targeting operations with high accuracy contributes to solidifying the image of 'Israeli helplessness' in the face of simple and innovative technologies used by fighters on the northern front.

Although some security experts rule out that these drones alone will lead to a comprehensive strategic change in the balance of power, they acknowledge their transformation into a source of immense annoyance and attrition. These 'fiber optic threads' continue to represent a technical and operational challenge that forces the occupation army to reconsider its entire defense system dedicated to protecting the northern border.

Using these drones is even easier than video games, and they fly without the need for radio signals, making jamming them impossible.

The seventy-year-old Palestinian refugee, Izzat Sultan Adwan, summarized the tragedy of successive generations in a concise phrase: 'I was born in a tent, and today I live in a tent.' These words reflect a life journey that began in refugee tents during the 1948 Nakba, leading to the bitter reality of displacement imposed by the ongoing Israeli aggression on the Gaza Strip since October 2023.

Adwan was born in a tent in the Deir al-Balah camp in the central Strip, a camp established by UNRWA to shelter those forcibly displaced from their original villages and towns. His early childhood witnessed deprivation and poverty, while the conversations of the elders in his family always revolved around the inevitability of returning to the village of 'Barbarah' in the Gaza district, which is only a few kilometers away.

After more than seven decades, Adwan now finds himself an old man facing similar conditions to those he was born into, living with his children and grandchildren in dilapidated displacement tents. These tents have become the family's last refuge after fleeing the bombing and crimes committed by the occupation army in its continuous war that claims lives and destroys stone and people.

The seventy-year-old believes that the history of occupation crimes is repeating itself in a more brutal way, as he was forced to set up his new tent in the Al-Mawasi area west of Khan Yunis. This came after he lost his four-story home in the city of Rafah, which he was forced to leave on the eve of the ground invasion of the city in May 2024.

Adwan's family consists of an extended family including 4 sons, 5 daughters, and 17 grandchildren, all of whom lived in apartments within what is known as 'Barbarah Camp' in Rafah. This camp derived its name from their original village destroyed in 1948, with the name remaining a testament to their adherence to identity and land despite decades of long displacement.

The family's memory carries a deep wound from the martyrdom of their fifth son, 'Yasser,' in 2003 during a commando operation against an Israeli settlement, adding a dimension of sacrifice to the journey of refuge. Today, these large families are scattered among adjacent tents in a scene Adwan describes as the 'Second Nakba,' which revives the tragedies of the early ancestors.

In the Al-Mawasi area, where the tents lack the most basic necessities for a dignified life, Izzat and his neighbors live amidst harsh conditions marked by constant fear and hunger. Despite the occupation's complete destruction of Rafah city and preventing residents from returning to it, the dream of return still beats in the heart of this elderly man who refuses to surrender to reality.

Adwan asserts with confidence that the oppression he experiences has doubled his insistence on historical rights, noting that the dream of return has now become 'two dreams.' He dreams first of returning to his home in Rafah, and then the greater return to the village of Barbarah and the usurped homeland from which his ancestors were displaced decades ago.

Adwan reviewed the stages of his life, during which he moved between refugee camps and working abroad, where he received his education in international agency schools and obtained a teacher's diploma from Ramallah. Despite spending 27 years working as a teacher in Saudi Arabia, he chose to return to Gaza to be connected to his land and people despite all material temptations.

The seventy-year-old refugee lived through major wars and historical milestones, from the Tripartite Aggression in 1956 to the defeat of 1967 and the 1973 war, but he describes the current war as the deadliest. He describes what is happening today as a 'renewed Nakba,' given the unprecedented scale of destruction and systematic killings targeting the entire Palestinian existence.

For his part, his son Mohammed Adwan confirms that his father instilled in his children and grandchildren an absolute belief in the inevitability of returning to historical Palestine. Mohammed, who was born abroad and returned to Gaza in the nineties, believes that the destruction of the camps aims to assassinate the symbols of the cause, but he stresses the occupation's failure to erase the collective memory of the younger generations.

The family concludes its story by emphasizing that the policies of killing and destruction will not achieve the occupation's goals of making Palestinians forget their legitimate rights. Izzat Adwan, with his features etched by years of refuge, remains a living witness to a cause that refuses to be forgotten, affirming that Palestinian rights will remain present generation after generation until the return is achieved.

I was born in a tent, and today I live in a tent.. The dream of return has become two dreams: returning to Rafah, and returning to the entire homeland.

Tkiyet Um Ali announced the launch of a new humanitarian pledge worth two million Jordanian dinars dedicated to implementing the 'Gaza Children's Recovery' program. This multi-intervention project aims to provide comprehensive support to approximately 3,000 children in various areas of the Strip, to confront the harsh repercussions of the ongoing war on educational and food systems.

This relief program is being implemented in cooperation and partnership with the Hashemite Charity Commission and the Palestine Tomorrow Society, in response to the collapse of food security and the prolonged absence from school. Through this initiative, the partners seek to provide a safe environment that ensures children regain their psychological and social balance amidst the current circumstances.

For his part, Samer Balkar, Director General of Tkiyet Um Ali, affirmed that the program represents a practical and integrated response aimed at enhancing children's resilience and restoring their lost sense of security. Balkar pointed out that the institution has been at the forefront of humanitarian intervention since the beginning of the aggression, emphasizing the need for donors to unite to expand the scope of aid to include the largest possible number of affected people.

The program includes the establishment of 15 fully equipped educational units with all health and service facilities, geographically distributed between North Gaza, Gaza City, the Central Governorate, and Khan Yunis. These units will provide educational curricula for students from the first to the tenth grade, with all necessary supplies such as books, stationery, and school uniforms to ensure the continuity of the educational process.

Regarding nutrition, the program is committed to providing 360,000 integrated meals, two meals per day for each student, to improve health and concentration. This step aims to address the severe malnutrition levels suffered by children in the Strip, especially in areas lacking regular access to essential food items.

The project is not limited to children only, but also extends to include 660 mothers of students and 60 male and female teachers, in addition to specialized psychological counseling staff. 720 psychological support sessions and recreational activities will be organized, along with 92 awareness and training sessions for caregivers to enable them to deal with the psychological trauma experienced by families.

The program also focuses on improving infrastructure at implementation sites, by providing safe water, improving sanitation facilities, and using solar energy solutions. These interventions aim to ensure the sustainability of the services provided and create an inclusive learning environment that preserves the dignity of beneficiaries and meets their basic needs amidst the disruption of public services.

The 'Ta'afi' program comes as part of a series of responses launched by Tkiyet Um Ali, which previously included the establishment of temporary shelter units benefiting approximately 1,000 displaced families. The institution affirms its full commitment to international standards of transparency and accountability, by issuing periodic reports and adopting accurate monitoring and evaluation systems to ensure that aid reaches those who deserve it.

Field data indicates a tragic reality in Gaza, where more than 637,000 children lack regular education, while approximately 1.1 million children need urgent protection services. Reports confirm that more than 58,000 children have lost one or both parents, making such programs an urgent necessity to save an entire generation from losing its educational and health future.

Children in Gaza face unprecedented challenges affecting their right to education, health, and protection, and our program aims to provide a practical response that supports their ability to recover.

International press reports have revealed exclusive documents from the US Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), indicating the closure of an initial investigation targeting Palestinian activist and former Columbia University student Mahmoud Khalil. The documents showed that the Bureau found the accusations against Khalil did not warrant any further legal or security follow-up, placing the official narrative of President Donald Trump's administration in a legal and ethical predicament.

According to details based on public records, the FBI received an anonymous tip on March 6 of last year, alleging Khalil's involvement in inciting violence. Although the investigation into this tip quickly concluded due to the lack of serious claims, US authorities proceeded with severe repressive measures against the Palestinian activist and his family.

Just two days after the tip, agents from Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) raided Khalil's home and arrested him in front of his family, secretly transferring him to a detention center in Louisiana. This action led to Khalil being separated from his wife and infant child for several months, a move human rights advocates described as an attempt to break the will of pro-Palestinian activists in American universities.

Documents obtained by Khalil's legal team indicate that the decision to close the investigation was officially made by March 19, 2025; however, the Trump administration continued to portray him as an imminent threat to national security. This contradiction between intelligence assessments and political decisions reinforces the hypothesis of systematic targeting of students who oppose Israeli policies in the occupied territories.

Observers believe that the timing of the anonymous tip and its coincidence with the arrest campaign constitutes strong circumstantial evidence that the case is purely political, not security-related. Spokespersons for human rights institutes affirmed that Khalil's continued detention despite his exoneration by the FBI reveals a retaliatory approach aimed at intimidating Palestinian voices within the United States and silencing critics of the occupation.

Khalil's case is part of a broader campaign launched by the US administration against a group of students and activists, including Mohsen Al-Mahdawi and Rumaysa Ozturk, under the pretext of protecting foreign policy interests. This campaign relied on vague legal provisions in immigration laws that allow authorities to deport foreigners based on their political stances that may be deemed 'detrimental' to American interests.

In a related context, Secretary of State Marco Rubio's role emerged, as he issued direct orders for Khalil's deportation, reiterating accusations of sympathy with banned groups without providing concrete evidence. The Palestinian activist's legal team considered these statements to reflect a complete adoption of the claims of extremist right-wing groups that had launched extensive smear campaigns against Khalil shortly before his arrest.

Legally, the battle continues in US courts, where Khalil's lawyers are preparing to appeal the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals, which previously refused to halt the deportation. Khalil is currently pursuing a separate federal case under 'habeas corpus,' a legal procedure that prevents his forced deportation as long as judicial review is ongoing before the competent federal courts.

The document revealed a broader danger; even after the federal investigation found that Khalil did not warrant further investigation, he remained detained for months.

The High Representative of the Peace Council in Gaza, Nikolay Mladenov, called on the political leadership currently managing the Gaza Strip to step down from the scene, indicating that this step comes in response to the requirements of the twenty-point plan known as the 'Trump Plan'. These statements came after a meeting held by Mladenov with the head of the occupation government, Benjamin Netanyahu, where arrangements for the transitional phase and the proposed new administrative structure for the Strip were discussed.

Mladenov clarified in his statements that the plan offers an opportunity for those who respect the law and fulfill their duties to participate in the new structure, while providing a 'safe passage' to third countries for those who cannot accept this political framework. He affirmed that the proposal does not aim to exclude Hamas as a political movement or party, but rather allows it to contest Palestinian national elections provided it renounces armed action and commits to the peaceful path.

The international official stressed that the disarmament of factions, the dismantling of tunnel networks, and their special military command systems are non-negotiable conditions, considering them essential for enabling the Palestinian Authority to govern. He pointed out that the presence of armed militias outside the state framework hinders any real political or developmental process in the Strip, which requires a complete transfer of security and administrative control.

For its part, the Hamas movement expressed its strong astonishment at these demands, describing them as suspicious attempts to liquidate the Palestinian cause. The movement's spokesman, Hazem Qassem, said that demanding the resignation of the Gaza administration before the entry of the technocrat committee practically means pushing the Strip towards a state of chaos and security breakdown, a goal that the Israeli occupation seeks to achieve by all available means.

The movement reiterated its call for the immediate empowerment of the National Committee for the Administration of Gaza, and to allow it to carry out its duties and provide all necessary needs for its work away from international conditions. Qassem affirmed that the Palestinian people will not accept the imposition of external dictates that affect the structure of the resistance or aim to create an administrative vacuum that serves the interests of the occupation in fragmenting the internal front.

In a related context, Mladenov warned that the reconstruction process of the Gaza Strip would require a full generation given the enormous scale of destruction left by military operations. He explained that there are tens of millions of tons of rubble that need to be removed, in addition to more than a million displaced people who lack permanent shelter, making the task beyond traditional capabilities and requiring many years of continuous work.

Informed sources reported that the meeting between Mladenov and Netanyahu also touched upon the expected Israeli scenarios if Hamas rejects the disarmament proposals. Reports indicated that the absence of a positive response from the movement could lead to the freezing of negotiation rounds in Cairo, putting the future of calm and reconstruction at risk amidst the continued blockade and imposed restrictions.

What is not subject to negotiation is the existence of armed factions or militias with their own military command and control systems, in addition to the transition to Palestinian Authority rule.

The Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas) expressed its strong disapproval of the recent statements made by Nikolay Mladenov, the coordinator of the 'Peace Council' in Gaza, regarding the future of Palestinian factions' weapons. Basem Naim, a member of the movement's political bureau, affirmed that any discussion about the resistance's military arsenal must be placed in its natural context within a comprehensive national dialogue primarily aimed at ending the occupation.

Mladenov had previously stated that he does not demand the dissolution of Hamas as a political entity, but rather emphasizes the necessity of it abandoning its military wing within any upcoming political settlement. The international coordinator indicated that the movement's transformation into a political party adopting peaceful action would open doors for its participation in general Palestinian elections under the umbrella of the Authority.

The international official stressed in his vision that the continued existence of armed factions or militias possessing independent military structures and tunnel networks is non-negotiable. He considered that the presence of these arsenals in parallel with a transitional Palestinian authority hinders opportunities for permanent stability, demanding the integration of all forces under a single legitimate authority.

In response to these proposals, Hamas warned against the consequences of calling for the current administration in the Gaza Strip to step down before the technocrat committee effectively assumes its duties. The movement clarified that any administrative vacuum at the present time could open the door to a state of chaos and security breakdown that would not serve the Palestinian national interest.

Basem Naim affirmed that the movement has fulfilled all its obligations and taken the necessary practical steps to facilitate the transfer of governance to the established national committee. He pointed out that the core of the crisis does not lie in the internal Palestinian administration, but in the continued existence of the Israeli occupation, which obstructs all paths of development and stability.

The Hamas leader also noted that the movement deals with the negotiation process with seriousness and full responsibility, away from selectivity in its approach. He clarified that Hamas has provided clear and detailed responses to international initiatives, including the provisions of US President Donald Trump's plan, emphasizing that the door to negotiation has never been closed by their side.

Naim accused the Israeli side of direct responsibility for obstructing the implementation of the proposed plans and ignoring the required political entitlements. He criticized the absence of reference to Israeli obstacles in some recent international positions, considering that this reflects a bias that does not serve efforts to reach a just and comprehensive solution to the Palestinian issue.

In conclusion of its statements, Hamas reiterated its logistical and administrative readiness to hand over civil affairs tasks in the Gaza Strip to the national committee. It called on the international community to exert real and serious pressure on the occupation authorities to ensure the committee's entry and commencement of its work without field or political obstacles.

Discussion of the weapons issue should be within a comprehensive national context that ends the occupation and establishes an independent Palestinian state.