The Ministry of Health in Gaza reported on Monday that the death toll from the Israeli aggression has risen to 51,240 dead and 116,931 injuries since October 7, 2023.

The Gaza Health Ministry stated in a brief statement that 39 dead (including two recovered martyrs) and 62 injuries had arrived at Gaza Strip hospitals in the past 24 hours.

it pointed out that the death toll and injuries since March 18, 2025 amounted to (1,864 dead and 4,890 injuries).

Today, Monday, the Israeli occupation forces began bulldozing citizens' lands located between the towns of Haris and Kafl Haris, northwest of Salfit.

Local sources reported that the bulldozing operations were concentrated east of the village of Haris, which is a land planted with ancient olive trees.

She explained that the occupation forces yesterday served notices of the seizure of these lands, estimated at 65 dunams, giving citizens only 24 hours to submit their objections.

Today, Monday, the occupation authorities released 10 prisoners from the Gaza Strip through the Kissufim military checkpoint.

According to local sources, the ten prisoners arrived at Al-Aqsa Martyrs Hospital via the Red Cross after their release from Sde Teiman prison.

According to the sources, all the prisoners were arrested at the Civil Administration checkpoint, except for one from Al-Zawaida, who was arrested at the Netzarim checkpoint.

The ten prisoners are: Mazen Ramadan Shaaban Al-Kilani, Khaled Hussein Youssef Sorour, Ahmed Magdy Ahmed Qashqash.

Osama Salah El-Din Hassan Ayoub, Hani Gamal Ahmed Sobh, Mohammed Wael Mohammed Al-Ballah, Bilal Shehadeh Matar Al-Shishi, Sabry Ali Ashour Salama, Rami Rafiq Haboub, all from Beit Lahia in the northern Gaza Strip.

As for the released prisoner, Ahmed Mahmoud Abu Hour, he is from the Al-Zawaida area in the central Gaza Strip.

The Vatican announced a short while ago the death of Pope Francis, at the age of 88.

The Israeli government has revoked the entry visas of 27 French MPs and left-wing officials, two days before their scheduled visit to Israel and the West Bank tomorrow, Tuesday.

The Israeli decision came in response to French President Emmanuel Macron's statement that France may soon recognize a Palestinian state, as well as his recent demands of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu regarding the situation in the Gaza Strip.

Several days ago, Israel barred two British members of parliament from the ruling Labour Party from entering the country.

The Israeli Interior Ministry stated that the decision to bar the French and British parliamentarians from entering Israel was based on a law that allows the entry ban of anyone "who may act against the State of Israel."

Seventeen members of the delegation, from the French environmental and communist parties, described the move as "collective punishment" and called on Macron to intervene.

The delegation's statement noted that the French Consulate in Jerusalem had extended an invitation for a five-day visit, with the aim of "promoting international cooperation and a culture of peace" in Israel and the Palestinian territories. It confirmed that Israeli authorities had revoked the visas issued a month earlier.

The delegation members emphasized their desire to understand the motives behind the sudden decision, which they considered "collective punishment." They considered the move to represent a "major rupture in diplomatic relations." They warned that banning elected officials from travel "cannot go unpunished," calling for a meeting with Macron and government action to ensure their entry.

The delegation includes French parliamentarians François Ruffin, Alexi Corbière, and Julie Ouzin (from the Ecology Party), communist deputy Soumia Borouha, and senator Marianne Margat, as well as mayors and local representatives from the left.

These parties have supported the recognition of a Palestinian state for decades, something Macron said last week could be achieved during an international conference to be held next June.

Earlier this month, Israel detained British MPs Yuan Yang and Ibtisam Mohammed at Ben Gurion Airport before deporting them, prompting British Foreign Secretary David Lammy to describe the action as "unacceptable."

In February, Israeli authorities also denied entry to European Parliament members Rima Hassan and Lynn Boylan.

Netanyahu responded angrily to the possibility of France recognizing a Palestinian state, claiming that establishing a state alongside Israel would represent a "great reward for terrorism."

Today, Monday, Israeli occupation intelligence summoned Minister of Jerusalem Affairs Ashraf al-Awar, interrogated him, and issued him a deportation order from the West Bank.

The Jerusalem Governorate said in a statement that Israeli intelligence summoned Minister Al-Awar and interrogated him on the pretext of "engaging in activities on behalf of the Palestinian National Authority." The statement also stated that the intelligence service issued him a six-month ban from the West Bank.

Dozens of settlers stormed Al-Aqsa Mosque today, Monday, under the protection of the occupation forces.

Local sources reported that dozens of settlers stormed the Al-Aqsa Mosque compound and performed Talmudic rituals. Meanwhile, extremist and former Knesset member Yehuda Glick gave a number of intruders a presentation about the alleged Temple.

In a new development regarding the Russia-Ukraine war, US President Donald Trump expressed hope that Russia and Ukraine could reach a peace agreement this week, pledging "thriving" trade relations with the United States to both sides if a truce is reached.

Trump said in a post on his Truth Social platform on Sunday that he hopes Moscow and Kyiv will strike a deal to end the war, without providing details on any progress in the ongoing talks.

He stressed that the United States may shift its focus to other priorities if an agreement is not reached "soon," emphasizing that ending the war has been a foreign policy priority since assuming the presidency for a second, non-consecutive term, succeeding Joe Biden last January.

On the ground, Russia and Ukraine traded accusations of violating the Easter truce declared by Russian President Vladimir Putin and approved by his Ukrainian counterpart, Volodymyr Zelenskyy. Zelenskyy described the truce as having been "violated more than 2,000 times," but noted that there were no Russian airstrikes during the daytime hours.

The Ukrainian president proposed extending the ceasefire by halting long-range drone and missile strikes on civilian facilities for a period of no less than 30 days.

For his part, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov clarified that the Russian president had not issued any decision regarding extending the ceasefire, which was scheduled to expire at 21:00 GMT.

On the ground, clashes escalated, with Ukraine accusing the Russian military of launching attacks on the Pokrovsk and Seversk regions on the eastern front, and using heavy weapons despite the declared truce.

In contrast, the Russian Ministry of Defense reported that Ukrainian forces attempted to attack Russian positions in the Sukhaya Balka and Bogatyr areas of the Donetsk People's Republic, noting that these attempts failed.

It also announced Ukrainian attacks targeting Russian border areas in Bryansk, Kursk, and Belgorod, resulting in civilian deaths and injuries, according to a ministry statement.

These rapid developments and mutual accusations reflect the difficulty of imposing a true truce, even a temporary one, amid a war entering its fourth year and continuing to claim lives and cause widespread destruction on both sides of the front.

The Yemeni capital, Sana'a, has witnessed a major military escalation following US airstrikes that killed and injured dozens, amid warnings of a further escalation that could include a ground military operation.

Media outlets affiliated with the Ansar Allah group (Houthis) announced on Monday morning that the death toll from the US raid that targeted the popular market in the Farwa neighborhood in central Sana'a had risen to 12 dead and 30 wounded.

It reported that three people were killed and 12 others injured on Sunday evening as a result of the bombing, before later announcing the new death toll.

In a simultaneous escalation on the ground, the same sources reported that four US airstrikes targeted the southern city of Saada in the north of the country late Sunday evening, without providing details of any casualties.

It also reported that US fighter jets carried out more than 10 airstrikes on sites in the capital, Sana'a, and the governorates of Ma'rib and Al Hudaydah.

The raids also included the Attan area south of Sana'a, the cleaning project in the Asr area, in addition to the Al-Jawba district in Marib and Kamaran Island in Al Hudaydah Governorate in western Yemen.

These raids are part of an escalating military campaign launched by the United States in mid-March, following the Houthis' resumption of attacks on ships in the Red Sea and the Gulf of Aden, in response to the ongoing Israeli aggression against the Gaza Strip.

Warning of a ground operation

In a related context, the Houthi group warned of the United States' preparations to launch a ground military operation in Yemen, considering such a move "threatens to completely detonate the situation."

This warning was made by the Houthi government's Foreign Minister, Jamal Amer, during his meeting in Sana'a with Mari Yamashita, Acting Head of the United Nations Mission to Support the Hodeidah Agreement.

Amer stressed that targeting the Ras Issa oil port in Al Hudaydah Governorate and bombing the paramedics constitutes a "full-fledged war crime that requires investigation."

He added that the US raids follow a "scorched earth policy," indicating a premeditated intention to launch a large-scale ground operation that could drag the country into further deterioration and explosion.

Amer sent a letter to UN Secretary-General António Guterres, calling for urgent intervention to prevent the situation from deteriorating further, warning that the situation could spiral out of control.

To date, the United States has not issued any official comment on these statements, while Houthi data indicates that US airstrikes since mid-March have killed more than 200 civilians and injured over 400 others.

These developments come at a time of heightened tensions in the region, amid fears of the conflict expanding and its humanitarian and security repercussions for Yemen and the entire region.

The aggression is expanding, and everything in the slaughtered Gaza Strip is running out, except for the shrouds in which to collect the remains of the victims scattered in the streets, homes, hospitals, and tents.

Morning and evening, the bloodshed never stops, and the wailing of mothers never ceases, while the streets and roads continue to be dug to bury the martyred sons and daughters, fathers and mothers, grandfathers and grandmothers. All of Gaza has become a cemetery where the dead receive their share of torture, mutilation and violation, just like the living. The tragedy has expanded, encompassing the entire universe. The killers have not left a chance for those trapped in hell to catch their breath, or to grieve for their loved ones, or to provide a meal or a sip of water for their children, who are starving and terrified, receiving less than one meal a day.

The bloodshed continues, from Rafah, completely destroyed, to Jabalia and Beit Hanoun, devastated and bombed with rockets, drones, and bombs. Hospitals are running out of essential supplies, and water and food are running low in markets, while the wounded and sick are dying in hospitals that are out of service.

Save Gaza from the massacre...!

Israeli occupation forces launched an arrest campaign in various areas of the West Bank and occupied Jerusalem at dawn on Monday morning.

In Nablus, military vehicles stormed the northern Jabal area of the city, raided a house, searched it, ransacked its contents, and arrested Rami al-Badawi.

A force of infantry soldiers also stormed several neighborhoods inside Balata camp, including Al-Jammasin and Al-Badoud. They also stormed a number of homes there, searching them and ransacking their contents. They arrested the young man, Ahmed Abu Dhraa.

In Ramallah, the occupation forces arrested Ibrahim Al-Saba' and his son Ahmed after raiding their home in Beitunia and ransacking its contents.

In occupied Jerusalem, the occupation forces arrested freed prisoner Aseed Nasser Al-Zeir after raiding his home and ransacking its contents in Qalandia camp.

Eight civilians were killed and dozens injured on Monday as a result of the occupation's bombing of various areas in the Gaza Strip.

Local sources reported that a citizen and his wife were killed in the bombing of a tent in the Al-Mawasi area, west of Khan Yunis, in the southern Gaza Strip.

Five citizens were killed and others injured when the Israeli occupation forces bombed the home of the Baraka family in the Al-Zana area of Bani Suhaila, east of Khan Yunis, in the southern Gaza Strip.

Citizen Nael Hilmi al-Nakhala succumbed to his injuries a few days ago when the occupation targeted a vegetable stall in Deir al-Balah, central Gaza Strip.

The Israeli occupation forces blew up a number of houses east of Al-Tuffah, east of Gaza City. The Israeli occupation forces' artillery shelled heavily east of Al-Zeitoun, southeast of Gaza City. The Israeli occupation forces' vehicles and quadcopter drones opened heavy fire east of Al-Shuja'iyya and Al-Tuffah neighborhoods, east of Gaza City.

Since October 7, 2023, the Israeli occupation forces have launched an aggression against the Gaza Strip, resulting in the deaths of 51,201 citizens, the majority of whom were children and women, and the injury of 116,869 others. This is a preliminary toll, with a number of victims still buried under the rubble and on the streets, unable to be reached by ambulances and rescue teams.

Israeli occupation forces demolished two homes in the town of Ni'lin, west of Ramallah, on Monday morning.

Local sources reported that occupation bulldozers demolished the homes of brothers Nael and Raed Reda Surur, after storming the town and surrounding the two houses.

By Ilan Pappe –   

The Palestinians do not have the luxury for Western moral panic to have its say or impact. Not caving in to this panic is one small but important step in building a global Palestine network that is urgently needed.

The responses in the Western world to the situation in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank raise a troubling question: why is the official West, and official Western Europe in particular, so indifferent to the suffering of the Palestinians?

Why is the Democratic Party in the US complicit, directly and indirectly, in sustaining the daily inhumanity in Palestine—a complicity so visible that it probably was one of the reasons they lost the election, as the Arab American and progressive vote in key states could, and justifiably so, not forgive the Biden administration for its part in the genocide in the Gaza Strip?

This is a pertinent question, given that we are dealing with a televised genocide that has now been renewed on the ground. It is different from previous periods in which Western indifference and complicity were displayed, either during the Nakba or the long years of occupation since 1967.

During the Nakba and up to 1967, it was not easy to get hold of information, and the oppression after 1967 was mostly incremental and, as such, was ignored by the Western media and politics, which refused to acknowledge its cumulative effect on the Palestinians.  

But these last eighteen months are very different. Ignoring the genocide in the Gaza Strip and the ethnic cleansing in the West Bank can only be described as intentional and not out of ignorance. Both the Israelis’ actions and the discourse that accompanies them are too visible to be ignored, unless politicians, academics, and journalists choose to do so. 

This kind of ignorance is, first and foremost, the result of successful Israeli lobbying that thrived on the fertile ground of European guilt complex, racism and Islamophobia.  In the case of the US, it is also the outcome of many years of an effective and ruthless lobbying machine that very few in academia, media, and, in particular, politics dare to disobey.

This phenomenon is known in recent scholarship as moral panic, very characteristic of the more conscientious sections of Western societies: intellectuals, journalists, and artists.

Moral panic is a situation in which a person is afraid of adhering to his or her own moral convictions because this would demand some courage that might have consequences. We are not always tested in situations that require courage, or at least integrity. When it does happen, it is in situations where morality is not an abstract idea but a call for action.

This is why so many Germans were silent when Jews were sent to extermination camps, and this is why white Americans stood by when African Americans were lynched or earlier on enslaved and abused.  

What is the price that leading Western journalists, veteran politicians, tenured professors, or CEOs of well-known companies would have to pay if they were to blame Israel for committing a genocide in the Gaza Strip?

It seems that they are worried about two possible outcomes. The first is being condemned as antisemites or Holocaust deniers, and secondly, they fear that their honest response would trigger a discussion that will include the complicity of their country, or Europe, or the West in general, in enabling the genocide and all the criminal policies against the Palestinians that preceded it.

This moral panic leads to some astonishing phenomena. In general, it transforms educated, highly articulate, and knowledgeable persons into total imbeciles when they talk about Palestine. It disallows the more perceptive and thoughtful members of the security services from examining the Israeli demands to include all Palestinian resistance on a terrorist list, and it dehumanizes the Palestinian victims in the mainstream media.

The lack of compassion and basic solidarity with the victims of genocide was exposed by the double standards shown by mainstream media in the West, and in particular by the more established newspapers in the US, such as The New York Times and The Washington Post. When the editor of Palestine Chronicle, Dr. Ramzy Baroud, lost 56 members of his family—killed by the Israeli genocidal campaign in the Gaza Strip—not one of his colleagues in American journalism bothered to talk to him or show any interest in hearing about this atrocity. On the other hand, a fabricated Israeli allegation of a connection between the Chronicle and a family in whose block of flats hostages were held triggered a huge interest by these outlets and attracted their attention.

This imbalance in humanity and solidarity is just one example of the distortions that moral panic brings with it. I have little doubt that the actions against Palestinian or pro-Palestinian students in the US, or against known activists in Britain and France, as well as the arrest of the editor of the Electronic Intifada, Ali Abunimah, in Switzerland, are all manifestations of this distorted moral behavior.

A similar case unfolded just recently in Australia. Mary Kostakidis, a famous Australian journalist and former prime-time weeknight SBS World News Australia presenter, has been taken to the federal court over her—one should say quite tame—reporting on the situation in the Gaza Strip. The very fact that the court has not dismissed this allegation upon its arrival shows you how deeply rooted moral panic is in the Global North.

But there is another side to it. Thankfully, there is a much larger group of people who are not afraid of taking the risks involved in clearly stating their support for the Palestinians, and who do show this solidarity while knowing it may lead to suspension, deportation, or even jail time. They are not easily found among the mainstream academia, media, or politics, but they are the authentic voice of their societies in many parts of the Western world.

The Palestinians do not have the luxury for Western moral panic to have its say or impact. Not caving in to this panic is one small but important step in building a global Palestine network that is urgently needed—firstly to stop the destruction of Palestine and its people, and second, to create the conditions for a decolonized and liberated Palestine in the future.

By Michael Beckley

Since the end of the Cold War, the United States has largely been expected to follow one of two foreign policy paths: preserve the country’s position as the leader of the liberal international order or withdraw and adjust to a post-American, multipolar world. But as I argued in Foreign Affairs in 2020, the most likely trajectory was always a third: become a rogue superpower, neither internationalist nor isolationist but aggressive, powerful, and increasingly out for itself.

U.S. President Donald Trump has given this vision sharp definition by raising tariffs to levels that echo the infamous Smoot-Hawley Act of 1930, slashing foreign aid, snubbing allies, and proposing to seize foreign territory, including Greenland and the Panama Canal. Yet Trump is more accelerant than architect, channeling long-simmering frustrations with global leadership and deeper structural forces pulling U.S. strategy inward. The real question now is not whether the United States will continue to go its own way but how—and to what end.

Understanding the drivers of this shift is no longer a matter of academic debate. It’s essential for shaping what comes next. Left unchecked, Washington’s unilateral turn could destabilize the world and undermine its own long-term power. But if recognized and redirected, these forces could form the foundation of a more focused and sustainable strategy; one that sheds the overreach of liberal hegemony without surrendering the core strengths of a liberal order.

WHY NOT GO IT ALONE?

One reason the United States is going rogue is because it can. Despite decades of declinist warnings, American power remains formidable. The country’s consumer market rivals the combined size of the markets in China and the eurozone. Half of global trade and nearly 90 percent of international financial transactions are conducted in dollars, funneled through U.S.-linked banks—giving Washington the power to impose crippling sanctions. Yet the United States has one of the least trade-dependent economies in the world: exports account for just 11 percent of GDP (a third of which go to Canada and Mexico) compared with the global average of 30 percent. U.S. firms supply half of global venture capital, dominate the production of life necessities such as energy and food, and generate more than half of global profits in high-tech industries, including semiconductors, aerospace, and biotechnology—nearly ten times China’s share. The United States relies on China for high-volume industrial inputs—base chemicals, generic drugs, rare earths, and low-end chips—but China is far more dependent on the United States and its allies for high-end technologies and food and energy security. Both sides would suffer in a rupture, but China’s losses would be harder to replace.

Top of Form

Bottom of Form

Militarily, the United States is the only country that can fight major wars thousands of miles from its shores. Roughly 70 countries—accounting for a fifth of the world’s population and a third of its economic output—depend on U.S. protection through defense pacts and require U.S. intelligence and logistics to move their own forces beyond their borders. In a world so deeply dependent on the U.S. market and military, Washington has immense leverage to revise the rules—or abandon them altogether.

The United States has not only the means to strike out alone but also, increasingly, the motive. The American-led liberal order has outlived its original purpose, growing into a maze of burdens and vulnerabilities. It didn’t fail, but it triumphed over threats that no longer exist: the devastation of World War II and the spread of communism. By the early 1950s, the Soviet Union controlled nearly half of Eurasia and fielded double the military power of Western Europe. Communist parties, committed to abolishing private property, controlled a third of global industrial output and won up to 40 percent of the vote in major Western democracies. Under these circumstances, the threat to the American way of life was clear, as was the need to defend a capitalist order. That strategy worked. The West became prosperous and democratic, and the Soviet bloc collapsed. But success created new problems the old order couldn’t solve.

Many of the U.S. allies Washington helped protect, for instance, are today incapable of bearing major burdens. Sheltered by U.S. security guarantees, countries across western Europe—as well as Canada and Japan—have slashed defense spending, expanded welfare states, and grown deeply entangled with Chinese markets and Russian energy. Many U.S. allies struggle to secure their own peripheries, let alone uphold global stability. And when crises erupt, they still turn to Washington—to enforce freedom of navigation in the South China Sea in the face of Chinese aggression, to arm Ukraine against Russia, or to protect shipping from Houthi attacks in the Red Sea. Countries that once anchored the liberal order have become dependents—draining U.S. power instead of reinforcing it.

Washington has immense leverage to revise the rules—or abandon them altogether.

Worse, by facilitating the integration of Russia and China into the liberal order, the United States empowered its most dangerous adversaries. Both regimes benefited from a U.S.-led alliance system that pacified their historical rivals in Germany and Japan, curbed nuclear proliferation, and secured global trade routes. With their flanks and supply lines relatively secure, they began redrawing the map of Eurasia by force: Russia through invasions of Georgia and Ukraine; China through militarized island building in the South China Sea, encroachments on India’s territory, and escalating threats against Taiwan.

They also gained access to Western markets, institutions, and networks—then exploited that access to hack, bully, and loot the system. Russia launders oligarchic wealth through Western banks, spreads disinformation, and weaponizes energy to fracture Europe. China shields its domestic market while flooding others with subsidized exports, spending ten times as much on industrial policy as the average for countries that belong to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. China now dominates strategic manufacturing sectors such as shipbuilding, drones, electronics, and pharmaceuticals—and is weaponizing that dominance to coerce the United States and its allies by cutting rare-earth exports, threatening drug supply chains, swarming Taiwan with drones, and flooding Europe with underpriced electric vehicles. At home, Beijing censors foreign ideas; abroad, it exploits the open Internet to steal intellectual property, plant malware in Western infrastructure, and spread propaganda. It assumes leadership roles in institutions such as the UN Human Rights Council only to subvert the liberal norms they were built to uphold. What was once a cornerstone of U.S. strategy—openness—has become a Trojan horse.

Moreover, the liberal order has become harder to control. After World War II, Washington supported decolonization and integrated new countries into global markets and institutions, fueling globalization and the “rise of the rest” and doubling the number of sovereign states. But success came at a cost. As new players proliferated, authority fractured and veto points multiplied. Institutions that once amplified U.S. influence—including the UN, the World Trade Organization, and the World Bank—have devolved into arenas of gridlock and anti-American posturing.

At home, the consequences have been equally corrosive. Globalization fueled growth but hollowed out American industries and concentrated the gains. Between 2000 and 2020, U.S. industrial output (excluding semiconductors) fell nearly ten percent, and one in three factory jobs disappeared. Nearly all net job growth went to the richest 20 percent of zip codes, leaving much of the country behind. The social fallout has been staggering: rising disability claims, drug overdoses, and prime-age workers dropping out of the labor force at Great Depression–level numbers. Many wounded communities retain political clout thanks to an electoral system that amplifies rural voices over urban majorities. The result: a hard pivot away from liberal internationalism and toward protectionism and border controls.

THE GATHERING STORM

As I argued in 2020, two powerful trends—demographic change and burgeoning automation—are remaking the global landscape and reinforcing the drift toward American unilateralism. Rapid demographic change is weakening great powers in Eurasia and destabilizing swaths of the developing world. Meanwhile, new technologies are reducing the United States’ need for foreign labor, energy, and large military bases. The result is a growing asymmetry: mounting disorder and weakening allies on one side and rising U.S. self-sufficiency and strike-from-a-distance capabilities on the other. As that gap widens, Washington will face stronger temptations to go it alone.

Beginning with demography, the United States is the only great power whose prime-age workforce is projected to grow throughout this century. By 2050, the workforces of the major economies of Eurasia will lose around 200 million adults aged 25 to 49—the cohort that drives productivity, military recruitment, and economic growth—with declines of 25 to 40 percent in many countries. By 2100, the figure will exceed 300 million, with China alone projected to shed 74 percent of its prime-age workforce. The share of seniors will more than double in most countries by midcentury, pushing support ratios (the number of workers per retiree) to ruinous levels; China’s, for example, will fall from ten to one in 2000 to under two to one by 2050. Demographic decline is already shaving more than a percentage point in annual growth from major Eurasian economies, and debt-to-GDP ratios have ballooned above 250 percent on average. As other economies shrink and strain, the U.S. economy will become more central to global growth and its fiscal base and military manpower more robust in relative terms.

Yet the United States is unlikely to turn its demographic edge into a new era of liberal hegemony. Instead, demographic disruption is raising the risks to allied defenses by fueling a dangerous imbalance: autocratic rivals are militarizing despite population declines, while democratic allies are rearming slowly, constrained by aging electorates and mounting welfare obligations. As the Eurasian balance tilts toward the autocracies, the risks to U.S. defense commitments continue to rise.

This pattern is already visible. Russia, China, and North Korea are doing what struggling autocracies have long done: turning to the military to secure their regimes. When growth slows and unrest threatens, dictators funnel resources to the armed forces to suppress dissent, deter rivals, and ensure loyalty within the ranks. The Soviet Union followed this path in the 1970s and 1980s, doubling defense spending even as its economy and population stagnated. Today, Russia is doing the same—devoting eight percent of GDP to defense, slashing civilian budgets, and replacing battlefield losses in Ukraine at a rate of 25,000 to 30,000 troops per month. China, despite a collapsing workforce, is carrying out the largest peacetime military buildup since that of Nazi Germany in the 1930s. North Korea, although impoverished and aging, continues to pour resources into weapons and war.

Trump is tearing down the very system that has kept the peace for generations.

Meanwhile, democratic allies are struggling to keep pace. Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, and countries in Europe are rearming slowly, held back by shrinking tax bases and aging electorates that prioritize social spending over defense. Taiwan’s conscription pool is projected to halve by 2050. Japan, South Korea, and Ukraine are struggling to meet recruitment goals. British, French, and German forces have stagnated or declined. The result is a gathering storm: autocracies gearing up for conflict; democracies responding with too little, too late; and a United States increasingly unsure of whether defending distant allies is worth the mounting risks.

That growing U.S. aversion to foreign entanglements will deepen as the developing world slides further into demographic turmoil. Whereas rich countries are aging and shrinking, much of the global South is exploding in size. Africa alone will add over a billion people by 2050—mostly in countries already grappling with poverty, weak governance, and climate stress. Youth unemployment exceeds 30 percent in many of these states, and education systems are collapsing. Roughly half the countries in Africa are in debt distress, and one-quarter are in active conflict, with similar trends unfolding in the Middle East and South Asia. Surges in the youth population—hitting in states where capacity is weakest—are driving instability, extremism, and mass migration. As migrants flee for the Americas and Europe, they are fueling populist backlash and reinforcing the United States’ instinct to wall itself off.

Meanwhile, new technologies are making that instinct not just plausible but seductive. Drones, long-range bombers, cyberweapons, submarines, and precision missiles potentially allow the United States to strike targets across the globe while relying less on large, permanent overseas bases—which are increasingly vulnerable to adversaries armed with similar technologies. As a result, the U.S. military is shifting from a force geared to protect allies to one focused on punishing enemies by launching strikes from U.S. territory, deploying automated kill zones of drones and mines near adversaries’ borders, and sending nimble expeditionary units to hit high-value targets and slip away before taking casualties. The goal is no longer deterrence through presence—it’s destruction from a distance.

This same logic is reshaping the U.S. economy. Automation and AI are shrinking the demand for foreign labor. Additive manufacturing, or 3D printing, and smart logistics are compressing supply chains and enabling reshoring. AI is replacing foreign call centers. With increasingly automated factories, cheap energy, and the world’s biggest consumer market, U.S. firms are coming home—not just for security but because it makes business sense. The United States’ reliance on the global economy won’t vanish, but it’s becoming narrower, more selective—and easier to sever when the next global crisis hits. A fortress economy is rising to match a fortress military. And together, they are making disengagement feel both safer and smarter.

This is why a rogue superpower is not a hypothetical—it’s the path of least resistance. The question is no longer whether the United States will go rogue but what kind of rogue it will become. Will it be a reckless, hypernationalist power that lashes out, cuts ties, and pursues limited gain at great long-term cost? Or can it channel its strength into a more strategic posture—one that sheds overreach but preserves the core of the liberal order among a tighter group of capable partners?

A FREE WORLD THAT WORKS

If life were just about money and the goal of foreign policy were to grab it as fast as possible, then Trump might be an ideal leader. By slapping tariffs on friends and foes alike, slashing foreign aid, proposing to seize strategic territory, and telling allies to fend for themselves, Trump’s approach might wring out some extra cash, at least for a while.

But economics isn’t the only game in town. There is also geopolitics. And by treating global affairs like a transactional hustle, the United States risks tearing down the very system that has kept the peace for generations. Trade wars don’t just raise prices. They unravel alliances and push rivals toward confrontation. That’s how the world fell apart in the 1930s: protectionism, fear, and rising powers with no way to grow but through force. Trump officials like to compare China to Japan in the 1980s—a trade partner that can eventually be coerced into making concessions. But China is not a democratic ally under U.S. protection. It is a revanchist, nuclear-armed autocracy that, like the great powers of old, sees economics and security as two sides of the same coin. Its civil-military fusion doctrine more accurately echoes the “rich nation, strong army” ideology of imperial Japan. From Beijing’s perspective, the trade wars Washington is stoking are not mere economic spats. They are an assault on China’s comprehensive national power—and a potential prelude to a shooting war.

And much like Japan before Pearl Harbor, Beijing sees itself facing an economically hostile but militarily vulnerable United States. The U.S. military has just two major bases within 500 miles of Taiwan—both now targeted by Chinese missiles. U.S. ammunition stockpiles would run dry within weeks of a major war. Meanwhile, 77 percent of young Americans are unfit to serve in the military, largely because of obesity, drug use, and lack of education. Trump plans to unveil a $1 trillion defense budget, but rebuilding the U.S. defense industrial base could take years. By hiking tariffs before fixing its military shortfalls, the United States may be picking a fight that it’s not fully prepared to win.

The question is no longer whether the United States will go rogue but what kind of rogue it will become.

Some argue the United States should simply sidestep conflict by sacrificing Taiwan and Ukraine and accepting a world divided into great-power spheres: China in Asia, Russia in eastern Europe, and the United States in the Western Hemisphere. They point to the Cold War, when Washington grudgingly tolerated Soviet domination of eastern Europe, as proof that such arrangements can preserve peace. But the analogy is dangerously flawed. Unlike the Soviet Union after World War II, Russia and China are not defending borders of victory—they’re trying to overturn what they see as borders of defeat. Their territorial claims don’t end with Ukraine and Taiwan; they begin there. Moscow seeks to restore a “Russian world” stretching across eastern Europe and Central Asia. Beijing lays claim to most of the South China and East China Seas and large parts of India. Chinese military officials and propagandists have even floated threats to U.S. territories such as Guam and Hawaii, portraying them as relics of Western imperialism.

Granting China or Russia parts of these spheres would not satisfy them—it would empower them to go for more. And wherever their boots tread, violence and repression will follow. In Ukraine, Russia has bombed maternity wards, tortured civilians, kidnapped children, and looted cultural treasures. In Georgia, Syria, and Chechnya, it leveled cities and propped up brutal regimes. China has crushed Hong Kong’s freedoms, imposed martial law in Tibet, built concentration camps in Xinjiang, and militarized the South China Sea with artificial island fortresses and swarms of maritime militias. An expanded Russian or Chinese sphere would not bring order or prosperity—it would spread the machinery of state terror.

Nor would the expansion stop there. History shows that great powers rarely halt their advance unless stopped by force or geography. Throughout the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, the United States expanded until it dominated the Western Hemisphere and its surrounding seas. Germany and Japan had to be crushed in World War II to end their imperial ambitions. Britain and France, though ravaged by that war, clung to their empires until anti-colonial revolts and U.S. pressure pried them loose. The Soviet Union pressed outward too—arming insurgencies across the developing world, repressing reform movements in Eastern Europe with tanks, and placing nuclear missiles in Cuba. Only sustained Western resistance contained its advance. There is no reason to believe Putin and Xi will prove exceptions to this historical rule.

Even setting aside the security risks, the case for spheres of influence collapses on economic grounds. Outsize wealth has never come from fortress economies. It comes from open, maritime commercial orders that enable sustained, compound economic growth. If the United States were to retreat into continentalism and cede spheres to Beijing and Moscow, it may remain safer and richer than most. But it would be far poorer than it could be and far more likely to face the fires of conflict down the road.

OPPORTUNITY OUT OF CRISIS

A better strategy would not carve up the world with China and Russia but contain them with a consolidated free-world bloc. That project would begin at home. North America already forms the world’s largest free-trade zone. Canada, Mexico, and the United States collectively possess 500 million people, vast energy reserves, and a broad spectrum of industrial capabilities. Deepening this continental core—with shared infrastructure, secure supply chains, and labor mobility—would give the United States a flourishing base from which to compete globally without relying on adversaries.

Overseas, the United States should anchor a layered defense against the axis of autocracies: China, Iran, North Korea, and Russia. Frontline democracies including Poland, South Korea, Taiwan, and Ukraine should be heavily armed with short-range missiles and rocket launchers, mobile air defenses, loitering drones, and mines to repel invasions. Behind them, core allies including Australia, France, Germany, Japan, and the United Kingdom would reinforce the front with longer-range missiles and mobile ground, air, and naval forces designed to strike across the theater and support frontline defense. The United States would serve as the ultimate backstop and enabler, providing satellite intelligence, heavy lift and logistics, nuclear deterrence, and massive air and missile strikes delivered by carriers, stealth bombers, and submarines.

The goal isn’t just to win a great-power contest. It’s to channel it.

This same military alliance also would form an economic bloc. The United States would offer market access in exchange for tangible commitments that allies spend more on defense; decouple from Russia and China in critical sectors such as semiconductors, telecommunications, energy, and advanced manufacturing; and grant U.S. firms reciprocal access to their markets. Trade deals would include joint rules on investment screening, export controls, and industrial subsidies, and would support the co-production of advanced technologies. The aim would not be to resurrect a universal liberal order, but to consolidate a tight economic alliance—one that defends its members, isolates adversaries, and wields collective bargaining power.

If there is a silver lining in today’s grim outlook, it is that crisis creates opportunity. Durable international orders—the Westphalian system of sovereign states, the European peace that emerged from the 1814–15 Congress of Vienna, the post–World War II liberal order—were forged in the heat of great-power rivalry, when fear, not idealism, compelled countries to band together. The same goes for American renewal: throughout its history, the United States has invested at scale only when national survival was on the line. It was the Civil War that drove the rapid expansion of the Northern railroad network, laying the groundwork for later transcontinental lines. Cold War fears, not peacetime consensus, sparked the creation of the interstate highway system and the National Defense Education Act. Military R & D funded the breakthroughs that gave rise to the semiconductor industry, GPS technology, and the Internet. For better or worse, national security concerns have been America’s most consistent engine of public investment.

Today’s rivalry with China and Russia can serve that galvanizing role again, driving action to rebuild infrastructure and industry, harden supply chains, revive the defense industrial base, attract top global talent, and restore civic trust. The goal isn’t just to win a great-power contest. It’s to channel it; to fix what’s broken at home and shape a world that reflects American interests and values. A free world that works—for the United States and for those willing and able to stand with it.

China's Ministry of Commerce announced on Monday that China respects all parties seeking to resolve their economic and trade disputes with the United States through consultation on an equal footing, but it will firmly oppose any party making a deal at China's expense.

Commenting on reports that the Trump administration is preparing to pressure other countries to limit trade with China in exchange for tariff exemptions from the United States, a ministry spokesperson said that China will "take firm and reciprocal countermeasures" if any country seeks to conclude such deals.

The spokesperson added, "The United States has abused tariffs on all its trading partners under the guise of so-called 'equivalence,' forcing all parties to initiate so-called 'reciprocal tariff negotiations' with it."

The ministry affirmed that China is determined and capable of protecting its rights and interests and is ready to strengthen solidarity with all parties. Bloomberg News, citing informed sources, reported that the Trump administration is preparing to pressure countries seeking tariff reductions or exemptions from the United States to limit trade with China, including financial sanctions.

Earlier this month, U.S. Trade Representative Jameson Greer said that nearly 50 countries had contacted him to discuss the hefty additional tariffs imposed by President Donald Trump.

Trump suspended the historic tariffs he had announced on April 2 on dozens of countries, except for those imposed on China, specifically targeting the world's second-largest economy with some of his largest tariffs.

snabusiness

Israeli historian Omer Bartov, a specialist in World War II and the Holocaust, considered the ongoing offensive against the Palestinians "an operation whose goal is to destroy the ability of Palestinians to live in this region as a group." "And by my definition, it is a genocide," said the Brown University (Rhode Island) professor when asked about the current situation in the Middle East.

A critic of the Israeli government, Bartov accused Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of wanting "any criticism of Israel to be immediately transformed into an anti-Israeli and anti-Semitic argument." According to him, "the occupation creates dehumanization. That's what it does. It doesn't just dehumanize those you occupy, it dehumanizes the occupiers." Asked about the Holocaust, the historian replied: "You can't understand anything in history without making comparisons," he said. "If you say the Holocaust is unique, nothing like it happened before, nothing like it happened after. It ceases to be a historical event, it becomes metaphysical," he added.

The main reasons for believing that this wall of power is cracking are: First, the picture regarding Trump is not yet completely clear, although there are numerous hints that there is no blank check for Israel allowing it to do whatever it wants.

Antoine Shalhat

There is a recent belief in Israel that the wall of power surrounding Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is cracking. This wall appeared to be solid following what was considered the success of the war against Hezbollah in Lebanon, which ended with the assassination of Hassan Nasrallah and senior party officials, preceded by the "pager attack."

The cohesion of his government coalition is another consolidating factor, compounded by two other factors: the resumption of the war on Gaza and the assumption of the presidency of Donald Trump. Prevailing assessments indicate that Washington's relations with Israel will be closer and better than they were during the Joe Biden administration, increasing the coalition's chances of survival and cohesion, free from American pressure related to the course of the war. Meanwhile, there are significant expectations and hopes from the Trump administration regarding issues such as Iran, Syria, the annexation of the West Bank, and the stance on Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis.

It is well known that one of the motivations for resuming the war is Netanyahu's desire to do so in order to preserve the survival of his coalition, given two developments related to the fate of this coalition resulting from the prisoner exchange deal between Israel and Hamas last January: First, the resignation of the "Jewish Power" party from the coalition in protest against the deal; second, the threat by Religious Zionism Party leader and Minister Bezalel Smotrich, who refused to join the "Jewish Power" move, to bring down the government if the second phase of the deal is implemented and the war is ended. Smotrich emphasized the necessity of not ending the war before achieving all of its goals. According to Smotrich, he expects the Israeli army, after the end of the first phase of the prisoner exchange deal, to "return to a completely different kind of fighting," and to "occupy the entire Gaza Strip, destroy Hamas militarily and civilian, and return all the abducted soldiers." As for Ben-Gvir, immediately after the resumption of the war, the announcement of the dismissal of the Shin Bet chief, and the imminent dismissal of the attorney general, he announced his return to the coalition government and to the ministries previously held by his party's representatives, most notably the Ministry of National Security.

The most important reasons for believing that this wall of power is beginning to crack are: First, the picture regarding Trump is not yet completely clear, although there are numerous hints that there is no blank check for Israel to do as it pleases. Trump apparently wants to restore American greatness above all else. Although he has floated ideas regarding the Panama Canal and Greenland, he has made it clear that wars are not on his agenda, and that he seeks to normalize Israel's relations with Saudi Arabia and establish a new order in the Middle East. Some assert that Netanyahu has recently received several slaps in the face from the US president, whether regarding Iran, tariffs, or even Turkey.

Second, Trump's slaps coincided with an internal blow from the Israeli Supreme Court, which decided to freeze the dismissal of Shin Bet (General Security Service) Director Ronen Bar. This decision sets a clear line for Netanyahu regarding the limits of his authority.

The letter submitted by the Shin Bet director to the Supreme Court, as well as the testimony submitted by his predecessor, Yoram Cohen, detailed how Netanyahu has been systematically trying for years to harness the Shin Bet's capabilities for his own personal gain, whether to deal with political opponents, silence protests, or help him evade justice. According to one analysis, the letter clearly demonstrates Netanyahu's goal of achieving a one-man rule that eliminates anyone who threatens him.

Perhaps what enables Netanyahu to advance this goal is the presence of a weak opposition to him, and a public sector that has succeeded in instilling fear among its senior officials, just as it has succeeded in instilling fear among the ranks of the security establishment, as was evident last week in the hysterical reaction of the Chief of Staff and the Commander of the Air Force to the letter from the Pilots Forum, which expressed a position on the paramount importance of freeing those held by Hamas in Gaza at the expense of continuing the war.

By Youssef Mnaili, PhD in Political Science from the EUI (European University Institute), researcher at WISER (Institute of the University of the Witwatersrand, South Africa), and associate editor of the journal Settler Colonial Studies.

Since 1967, the West Bank has been administered by Israel under the guise of a supposedly temporary military regime. But this legal fiction has gradually given way to a very different reality: a de facto annexation, carried out through bureaucratic mechanisms and increasing infiltration of the state apparatus by settlers. The transfer of civilian powers in 2022, notably to Minister Bezalel Smotrich, marks a historic turning point: the army is no longer the primary authority. Israeli civilians, engaged in the colonial project, now govern the occupied territory. The distinction between occupation and sovereignty is gradually blurring. Far from proclaiming annexation, Israel is pursuing a discreet but radical policy of territorial integration through decrees, appointments, and budgets. This is a silent transformation that defies international law and redefines the contours of the Israeli colonial regime.

The Apartheid Wall in the Occupied West Bank

The Apartheid Wall in the Occupied West Bank

Since 1967, Israel's occupation of the West Bank has been based on an administrative architecture as dense as it is opaque. Initially conceived as a "temporary" military regime, it has gradually been colonized from within by civilian actors, until it has undergone a profound structural transformation. What we are seeing today, particularly under the current Israeli government, is no longer an occupation in the traditional legal sense of the term, but a creeping annexation that is taking on the characteristics of increasingly assertive civilian governance. This annexation is not achieved through solemn political declarations, but through a prolonged bureaucratic shift, supported by legal mechanisms, transfers of powers, and the gradual takeover of the state apparatus by the settler movement.

Occupation: A Legal Fiction Out of Balance

International humanitarian law defines occupation as a temporary situation. The Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949 requires the occupying power to respect the territorial status quo and ensure the protection of the occupied civilian population. This is an exceptional regime that prohibits any permanent modification of the territory, particularly the settlement of the occupying power's civilian population on conquered land.

However, the situation in the West Bank is a flagrant derogation from these principles. For over fifty years, Israel has established nearly 700,000 settlers in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. The latter benefit from Israeli civil law, while the Palestinians are still governed by military law. This asymmetry produces a legal duality that is anything but temporary. It embodies a logic of racial stratification and segregated governance that contradicts the very principle of occupation under international law.

From Military to Civil Order: Bureaucratic Changes

Israel's management of the West Bank began in 1967 with the establishment of a military command. A founding decree granted the commander-in-chief of the Israeli forces absolute power over the occupied territory. The latter can legislate, govern, appoint, and designate local authorities. This centralization is compatible with international law, as long as it remains an expression of provisional military control.

To implement this governance, Israel established a specific structure: COGAT, the Coordination of Government Activities in the Territories, which was responsible for civil affairs, while the army provided security. At first glance, this arrangement appeared to comply with the rules of international law. But very quickly, civil servants from Israeli ministries were seconded to the West Bank. Responding to a dual hierarchy (their home ministry and the military command), they introduced a hybrid logic into the occupation apparatus.

This hybrid model quickly revealed its limitations: staffing was insufficient, secondments were unpopular, language skills (particularly Arabic) were lacking, and hierarchical conflicts abounded. It was into this bureaucratic vacuum that settlers, starting in the 1980s, infiltrated and gradually took control of entire sections of this administration.

Colonization and Capture of the Administration

Although the colonization of the West Bank began a few weeks after the 1967 war, it was only after the 1973 war that the Gush Emunim movement, driven by a messianic vision, gave new impetus to colonial expansion. The Likud's rise to power in 1977 accentuated this shift. However, two events created tensions between the settlers and the Israeli state: the Elon Moreh affair (1979), in which the Israeli Supreme Court ordered the dismantling of a settlement deemed illegal, and the withdrawal from the Sinai following the Camp David Accords (1979-1982). Faced with these setbacks, the settlers adopted two strategies: radicalization and bureaucratic infiltration.

In 1981, two fundamental military orders brought about a silent transformation. The first granted the settlements a special legal status: they became enclaves governed by Israeli law. The second grants local settler councils powers equivalent to those of municipalities in Israel. At the same time, the Civil Administration was created to strengthen administrative control over the Palestinian population and circumvent the PLO (Palestine Liberation Organization) through cooperative elites called "village leagues." But very quickly, this Administration became a lever of power for the settlers themselves.

Israeli settlers in the Havat Ma'aon settlement, near Hebron

Israeli settlers in the Havat Ma'aon settlement, near Hebron

This shift is crucial: in the area of territorial planning, the settlers managed to take control of the High Planning Council, a decisive body in the declaration of state land, expropriations, and the construction of outposts.

The 2022 Shift: Annexation by Decree

The Israeli government formed at the end of 2022, dominated by the religious far right, is entering a new phase. Bezalel Smotrich, a leading figure of religious Zionism, was appointed Minister of Finance and additional minister in the Ministry of Defense, specifically responsible for the West Bank. In the memorandum of understanding he signed with Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, Smotrich acquired de facto control of the Civil Administration and COGAT.

This transfer of powers was unprecedented. It ended the military chain of command in place since 1967 and transferred key functions to a civilian authority, a member of the Israeli government. The Civil Administration became an administrative executive; its strategy was decided by the ministry controlled by Smotrich.

The appointment of Hillel Roth as civilian vice president of the Civil Administration completed this shift. Roth, a former executive of the NGO Honenu (which supports perpetrators of Jewish terrorism), a resident of violent settlements like Yitzhar, and close to the radical Od Yosef Chai yeshiva, a Talmudic school that symbolizes the fusion of administrative power and a messianic project.

De Jure Annexation and New Realities

The transfer of power to civilians radically changes the nature of the occupation. As long as the army was the formal actor, Israel could maintain the legal fiction of a temporary occupation. Now, it is civilian representatives, members of the government, who decide and implement policy on the ground. This amounts to directly governing a territory that international law still considers occupied.

"What we are seeing today in the West Bank is a normalization of the exception. Israeli governance is no longer military but civilian, no longer provisional but permanent, no longer hidden but acknowledged."

This new configuration has had immediate effects. We are witnessing an intensification of settler violence, facilitated by the lack of military oversight. Settlement expansion is accelerating: 43 new outposts were created in 2023, compared to an average of 7 per year previously. The budget allocated to settlements has doubled, in the midst of a war-related economic crisis. Planning is concentrated in the hands of figures like Roth, who can sign orders for expropriation, destruction, or the regularization of illegal construction.

A situation of permanent exception

What we are seeing today in the West Bank is a normalization of the exception. Israeli governance is no longer military but civilian, no longer provisional but permanent, no longer covert but assumed. Annexation does not need to be proclaimed: it is already there, in decrees, appointments, budgets, and bulldozers.

This shift raises a central political and moral question: what remains of international law when an occupation regime slowly transforms into a settler-colonial government without the international community reacting other than through communiqués?

The case of the West Bank illustrates not only the collapse of an international legal architecture, but also the effectiveness of a bureaucratic colonization strategy. A strategy that shifts borders without declaring them, governs without recognizing them, and annexes without saying so.

Source: YAANI

Dr. Ahmed Younis: Without a genuine international understanding and mutual political and security guarantees, Macron's declaration will be nothing more than a temporary diplomatic pressure card in a game of nations.

Dr. Amjad Abu Al-Ezz: France seeks to play a role in the Middle East and is attempting to return to the region through the Palestinian gateway after the failure of the Lebanese gateway.

Dr. Jamal Shalabi: The reward that Israel might receive in exchange for recognizing the Palestinian state and in exchange for the Saudi condition for the establishment of a Palestinian state would be substantial.

Dr. Amjad Shehab: A good step from a diplomatic and legal perspective, but it remains far from achieving Palestinian national aspirations.

Dr. Tariq Ziad Wahbi: Macron is trying to lead a campaign different from that of Trump, who has gone too far in protecting Israel and its rulers, even from the International Criminal Court.

Although the French position is not new, President Emmanuel Macron recently announced his country's intention to recognize a Palestinian state in June. However, Macron's advisor came out and announced that recognition of a Palestinian state is conditional upon a cessation of hostilities, the release of hostages, and an end to Hamas's rule in the Gaza Strip.

Macron's announcement came at the height of the occupying power's war of extermination against the Palestinian people, particularly in the Gaza Strip. It also denounced international law and political agreements signed with the Palestinian side, declared its rejection of the establishment of a Palestinian state, and imposed facts on the ground that make the establishment of a Palestinian state an elusive goal.

Writers, analysts, and academics who spoke to Al-Quds.com said that France is seeking to play a role in the Middle East and is attempting to re-enter the region through the Palestinian cause after the failure of the Lebanese one. They emphasized that without genuine international understanding and mutual political and security guarantees, Macron's announcement will be little more than a temporary diplomatic bargaining chip in a game of nations.

Macron's announcement of his intention to recognize the State of Palestine is not final.

Lebanese academic and political analyst Dr. Ahmed Younes says, "Anyone who carefully examines the wording of the announcement issued by French President Emmanuel Macron regarding his country's intention to recognize the Palestinian state next June, despite the symbolic and political dimensions of this announcement, will discover that it is not a final decision, but rather is linked to complex political conditions, foremost among which is the recognition of Israel by Arab countries, and a clear reference to Saudi Arabia, which rejects normalization before the establishment of an independent Palestinian state."

Younis asserts that the French statement came at a sensitive time, with escalating regional tensions, the ongoing war in Gaza, and declining confidence in the international track toward a two-state solution. Formally, Macron appears to be seeking to revive this political solution, but in substance, the conditions for recognition he proposed raise questions about its seriousness, timing, and motives.

Younes points out that Macron's linking France's recognition of a Palestinian state to Arab states' recognition of Israel is a condition that is inconsistent with the region's political reality, particularly since Saudi Arabia—the state Macron seems to be explicitly alluding to—requires the establishment of an independent Palestinian state with East Jerusalem as its capital before any normalization with Israel. Could Macron be setting a condition he knows will not be met, in order to give Paris a diplomatic way out of making a real decision?

An upcoming international conference in New York

Younis believes that Macron's statement also came ahead of an upcoming international conference in New York, co-chaired by France and Saudi Arabia, with the aim of "reviving" the two-state solution. He said, "Macron clearly indicated his desire for French recognition to be part of a 'collective movement,' that is, a comprehensive political deal that includes Arab normalization with Israel, international recognition of Palestine, and regional security guarantees, particularly against Iran, which he described as "rejecting Israel's existence."

He added: "If we go back a little, we see that France has never been far from supporting the two-state solution. From President François Mitterrand's speech to the Knesset in 1982, to its support for UN resolutions on Palestine, Paris has always adopted the classic European position based on the establishment of a Palestinian state within the 1967 borders. In fact, in 2010, France raised the level of Palestinian representation in its country, naming the head of its mission "ambassador."

Younes continued, "But what's new in Macron's announcement isn't the direction, but rather the linking of Palestinian recognition to gains for Israel. This is a shift in French political language, reflecting either a retreat from the traditional European independence, or an attempt to play the role of a balanced mediator between East and West, Arab and Israeli, American and Iranian."

French recognition won't change much.

He pointed out that this statement and French recognition will not change much. According to the 1933 Montevideo Convention, a state does not require external recognition to exist under international law. However, politically, the declaration by France, a permanent member of the Security Council and one of the first countries to recognize Israel in 1949, carries significant symbolic significance that could pave the way for another wave of European recognitions.

He said: Although the United States continues to oppose international recognition of Palestine, as was clearly demonstrated by its veto of the Algerian draft resolution at the Security Council in 2024, European moves of this kind could increase political pressure on Washington and restore momentum to the Palestinian cause on the international stage.

An attempt at diplomatic positioning in a turbulent international moment

In this regard, he points out that President Macron's statements will not constitute a fundamental shift in French policy, but rather reflect an attempt to position himself diplomatically at a turbulent regional and international moment. He said: "It is a declaration that sends multilateral messages: to the Palestinians and Arabs, that Paris continues to support their state; to Israel, that recognition will not come for free; to the United States, that France wants a role in shaping the future of the Middle East; and to Iran, that Paris will stand clearly against its rejection of Israel's existence."

Dr. Younis concluded his statement to Al-Quds.com by asserting that conditional recognition, as proposed, remains nothing more than a declaration of intent. He said, "Without genuine international understanding and mutual political and security guarantees, this declaration will be little more than a temporary diplomatic bargaining chip in a game of nations open to all possibilities."

I hear a lot of noise but I don't see any flour

For his part, Dr. Amjad Abu Al-Ezz, a European affairs specialist at the Arab American University, said: “As usual, the famous saying applies to France: ‘I hear a lot of noise, but I don’t see anything.’ Today, we are witnessing a decline in French enthusiasm for recognizing a Palestinian state, as a result of pressure exerted by Tel Aviv after Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu called French President Emmanuel Macron. As a result of this call, the French president’s advisor stated that recognition of a Palestinian state is conditional on a cessation of hostage-taking, the release of hostages, and the end of Hamas’s rule in the Gaza Strip.”

Abu al-Ezz added: "Since 1980, France has declared its support for the establishment of a Palestinian state, but it has not implemented what it calls for, neither at the individual French level nor at the European level. In 1980, Hamas did not exist, and there were neither weapons nor prisoners. Yet, France did not recognize the Palestinian state."

Abu al-Ezz asserts that this position is not new, but rather a continuation of previous positions. Since the Venice Declaration in 1980 and the subsequent positions of the European Union—currently led by Germany—European countries, led by Germany and France, have continued to emphasize in their statements the necessity of establishing a Palestinian state living side by side with Israel. However, these statements have never gone beyond paper, and are repeated in all statements by the European Council and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, without any real impact on the ground.

France is not serious about recognizing a Palestinian state.

As for France, Abu al-Ezz says, it seeks to play a role in the Middle East and is attempting to return to the region through several gateways, one of which was previously Lebanon, by attempting to sponsor a ceasefire agreement between Hezbollah and Israel, but it was later marginalized.

He adds: Now, France is trying to return through the Palestinian gateway by proposing the idea of recognizing the state. This initiative, by the way, was proposed by the French president's advisor during his visit to Ramallah about three weeks ago, and I met him personally. The goal was to present a "comprehensive vision" similar to the American proposal, and there is a kind of French-American competition over this issue. This was evident in the call between President Macron and both Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi and Jordanian King Abdullah during their stay in Cairo.

Abu Al-Ezz wondered, "Will this initiative ever see the light of day?" expressing his belief that the challenges are immense.

He says: "If France were truly serious about recognizing a Palestinian state, it would not have tied recognition to impossible conditions that cannot be met in the near future, such as an end to the war or an end to Hamas rule. In fact, these conditions represent a kind of escapism and a response to Israeli political pressure."

Why don't they admit it now?!

He continued: "The French today say they will 'recognize,' but the question is: Why don't they recognize now, as Spain, Norway, Belgium, Slovenia, and Ireland have done? Why link recognition to complex conditions?"

He believes that France is selling a political illusion, expressing hope that Macron will be able to achieve what he proposes and convince his European Union partners to adopt this position.

Concluding his statement to Al-Quds, Abu al-Ezz asserted that dealing with Saudi Arabia as an alternative to persuading the Europeans is evidence of France's weak ability to influence the EU, adding, "The French president should have started by halting arms exports to Israel, rather than simply issuing statements. He should also have persuaded his partners in the European Union to adopt the recognition of a Palestinian state."

France is trying to find a foothold in the region.

In turn, Dr. Jamal Shalabi, a professor of political science at Hashemite University in Amman, said that France is attempting to return to the Middle East, not only through Lebanon—as it did when it brokered the Israeli-Lebanese ceasefire agreement—but also through the central issue of the Middle East, the Palestinian cause.

He added, "In light of American hegemony and control over the keys to this issue, France is trying to find a foothold in cooperation with one of the current pillars of the Palestinian file, namely the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. He believes that normalizing relations between Israel and Saudi Arabia would be the greatest and most important achievement, if it is achieved."

Al-Shalabi continued: "It is true that there is a wave of Abrahamic normalization, and it is important for Israel, but it does not compare in importance to Saudi Arabia, which owns the Two Holy Mosques and has an effective regional role in the Middle East and the Gulf, in addition to its important economic role in the fields of energy, oil, and gas, in addition to its geopolitical position."

He believes that President Macron's main goal today is to support the Palestinian cause, not only through the European portal, but also through the Arab portal led by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

He said, "Hence, President Macron's idea of calling for an international conference, announced during his meeting in Saudi Arabia last December, affirmed the idea of recognizing the Palestinian state, but through an international conference to be held in New York on June 15 of this year."

A diplomatic and academic committee affiliated with the French Foreign Ministry

He pointed out that this conference represents a French-Saudi attempt, firstly, to demonstrate that two major powers, the Arab world and Europe, are working in the same direction, and secondly, to demonstrate the genuine desire of these two countries to reach a ceasefire and recognize the Palestinian state.

He said that France has formed a "diplomatic and academic committee" directly linked to the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs, tasked with detailed preparations for the conference, which is expected to witness broad Arab, European, and international participation. This committee consists of eight prominent members, representing a combination of deep diplomatic experience and analytical academic vision. They include three former French ambassadors who held sensitive positions in countries involved in the conflict: Israel, Syria, and Libya; and five academics specializing in Middle Eastern affairs and international relations. In parallel, the committee has worked to build a strong strategic partnership with the Gulf Research Center in Saudi Arabia, represented by Dr. Abdulaziz bin Saqr, one of the most prominent research and intellectual figures in the region, and who heads one of the most important Saudi research centers that deeply reflects the Saudi vision and foreign policy orientations.

Al-Shalabi believes that France's recognition of the Palestinian state, if achieved, will lead to comprehensive European recognition. He added, "It is true that countries such as Spain, Slovenia, and Ireland have recognized the Palestinian state, but France's recognition will carry greater weight, just as Saudi Arabia's importance in the normalization process."

France seeks to balance its positions

He believes this development will represent a major political achievement for the Palestinian cause after the recent events in Gaza.

On the other hand, Dr. Shalabi believes that France seeks to achieve a balance in its positions, both domestically and internationally, particularly toward Israel. France is home to approximately 500,000 Jews, who constitute an influential segment with economic, cultural, and media power, playing a prominent role.

He continued: "Therefore, this French move also comes as a message to this segment, stating that in exchange for recognizing the Palestinian state, Israel will receive security, normalization, and important guarantees, and therefore it must move forward in this direction."

He also explained that this step sends a message to Israel that recognition of a Palestinian state will be met with normalization, and that normalization is valuable because it doesn't only concern Saudi Arabia, but also includes the entire Arab and Islamic world, from Indonesia and Malaysia to Kuwait, Oman, Mauritania, Algeria, Tunisia, and others.

Al-Shalabi emphasized that the reward Israel might receive in exchange for recognizing the Palestinian state, and in exchange for the Saudi condition for the establishment of a Palestinian state, would be substantial. Whether this state is based on UN resolutions (such as Resolutions 242 or 338) or on the aspirations of the Palestinian people, what matters is the existence of a state that can unite the Palestinian people and prove to the world that it actually exists.

Conditional French recognition of the Palestinian state

French affairs analyst Dr. Amjad Shehab said that French President Emmanuel Macron's proposal to recognize a Palestinian state—meaning that France might recognize the State of Palestine next June—remains conditional. However, it simultaneously expresses the French president's opposition to the policy of eliminating Palestinians in Gaza, and his opposition to Israeli policy in general. This announcement represents a retreat from France's pro-Israel stance since Operation Protective Edge on October 7.

He pointed out that the French position remains cautious, oscillating between a desire to adhere to the humanitarian dimension and a reluctance to take decisive positions on the political level.

He added, "These statements represent a very important step regarding the Palestinian issue, issued by the first major Western country, as France is the most important political country on the European level."

He continued: Although talk of recognizing a Palestinian state still does not actually exist on the ground, as the Israeli occupation controls all the Palestinian territories occupied in 1967, on which the Palestinian state is supposed to be established, the state in question here remains "hypothetical," and France would like to recognize it conditionally, in a clear expression of its rejection of the liquidation of the Palestinian cause, the elimination of the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip, and its rejection of the reshaping of the Middle East through aggression, massacres, and destruction. On the contrary, through this position, France affirms its support for a peaceful solution.

Conference on Palestine at the United Nations in New York

Shehab indicated that France, in partnership with Saudi Arabia, intends to organize a conference on Palestine at the United Nations headquarters in New York, in an attempt to reach a formula for "mutual recognition": that is, France and other European countries would recognize the (hypothetical) State of Palestine, in exchange for Saudi Arabia and other Arab countries—which have not yet recognized Israel—recognizing the occupying state.

However, he noted that French diplomatic efforts remain difficult to implement. He said that a year ago, several European countries, such as Spain, Ireland, and Norway, jointly recognized the State of Palestine, while the official French position under Macron remained: "We will recognize at the appropriate time," despite numerous calls within France for simultaneous recognition with these European countries.

Macron and Gaullist diplomacy

Shehab wondered: What prompted the French president to take this step, at a time when the United States—during the Trump presidency—opposes the two-state solution? He said: There is an explanation for this, namely that continued silence would have made the official French position awkward, even complicit, and would have contradicted the historical French position known as "Gaullist diplomacy," which considers Western France the best ally of Arab states. This step appears to represent an attempt to revive the traditional French-Arab policy that disappeared since the end of Jacques Chirac's presidency in 2007.

He noted that President Macron is attempting to play a balanced role, in keeping with his political vision: on the one hand, against Hamas, and on the other, with Israel. He has called on Arab countries to normalize relations with Israel in exchange for French and perhaps other European countries recognizing a hypothetical Palestinian state, instead of taking immediate French and European measures or imposing sanctions on Israel to halt the massacres in Gaza and halt settlement activity in the West Bank and Jerusalem.

Shehab concluded his statement by saying, "From this perspective, this step is good from a diplomatic and legal perspective, but it remains far from achieving Palestinian national aspirations."

An announcement that should have come during the Chirac era.

For his part, Lebanese international relations researcher Dr. Tariq Ziad Wahbi said that President Macron's announcement recognizing the Palestinian state should have come a long time ago, especially given France's positive engagement with the Palestinian issue since the era of President Chirac, who, along with the late President Arafat, began paving the way for a number of European countries to recognize the Palestinian state.

He believes that what Macron wanted was a return to the Arab League resolutions of the 2002 Beirut Conference, which included the slogan "peace for land," in other words, recognition of a Palestinian state in exchange for normalization with Israel.

Wahbi emphasized that the past few days, with the excessive American presence in this file and its unfairness to the Palestinians, led to various Arab-Israeli paths, leading to the so-called Abraham Accords, which stipulated normalization with a number of influential Arab countries in the Palestinian file, leaving only the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, which linked the settlement of its relations with Israel to the recognition of the Palestinian state.

The two-state solution has become an unattainable dream.

He pointed out that everyone is facing a dilemma, namely that the two-state solution, with Israeli practices, has become an unattainable dream as long as the United States and even the European Union have not taken decisions against settlements in the West Bank. The Gaza war has proven that Israel can at any time change the geographical map, seize Palestinian lands and turn them into a security belt protecting Israel.

Wahbi explained that, after his meeting with President Sisi and King Abdullah, Macron sought to push his country and the European Union to open the door to recognition as a diplomatic tool, despite the fact that the second part of the recognition hinges on Arab recognition of Israel. What's striking about this is the absence of any Palestinian official at the Cairo meeting, most of whose agenda items pertained to Palestine and the Palestinian people.

He considered this to be another indication that France's choices also follow the approach of some hardline Zionists who do not recognize the existence of Palestine.

He pointed out that the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia had carefully evaluated the outcomes of the Abraham Accords, which provided the countries involved with the accord with a form of trade openness with the State of Israel, without, for example, holding it accountable for its actions against civilians in Gaza and the West Bank after October 7.

Wahbi concluded by saying: "We must acknowledge that President Macron is trying to lead a campaign that is different from what President Trump is doing, who has gone too far in protecting Israel and its rulers, even from the International Criminal Court after the United States pressured its judges. France and the European Union are pursuing a flexible diplomatic path that does not disturb Israel and reassures the Arabs that it is capable of reconciling all parties."

A massive explosion rocked the Manshiyya neighborhood of the Nur Shams refugee camp, east of Tulkarm, on Sunday evening, as the Israeli aggression against the camp continues for the 71st consecutive day.

According to local sources, a fire broke out in a house following the explosion, followed by a thick plume of smoke. Details of the incident remain unknown due to the tight siege and the area's emptiness following the forced displacement of residents.

In a related development, Israeli occupation forces forced a number of families this evening to evacuate their homes east of the Dhnaba suburb, specifically in the area near Jabal al-Nasr inside Nour Shams camp. The affected families included: Fayez al-Huwaiti, al-Attar, Sami al-Zayet, and al-Shaaban.

In the same context, today, occupation bulldozers began leveling streets in the Jabal al-Nasr area of the camp, while simultaneously raiding a house near al-Nasr Mosque, searching it, and interrogating its residents.

In another development, occupation forces deployed their vehicles and infantry units in the northern neighborhood of Tulkarm, and took up positions around the garage complex and Shuweika roundabout, where they arrested young men, assaulted a number of them, and arrested Majdi Hassan, Ibrahim Abu Shanab, Qusay Abu Shanab, and Samer Allan, before later releasing the two young men, Qusay and Samer.

The occupation forces also set up a military checkpoint on Nablus Street, specifically in the area opposite the entrance to Nour Shams camp, where vehicles were stopped, searched, and prevented from passing.

It's worth noting that the aforementioned street was rehabilitated this morning by Public Works and Municipality crews, under the direct supervision of Tulkarm Governor Abdullah Kamil, and in cooperation with the Palestinian Liaison Office.

A young man was martyred Sunday evening by Israeli occupation forces at the entrance to the "Homesh" settlement, built on Palestinian land, south of Jenin.

The Ministry of Health stated that the General Authority for Civil Affairs was informed of the death of Suleiman Fawaz Manasra (24 years old), a resident of the town of Qabatiya, after occupation soldiers fired live bullets at him at the entrance to the "Homesh" settlement, and that his body was detained.

Local sources reported hearing heavy live fire at the entrance to the settlement built on lands in the town of Silat al-Dhahr, south of Jenin. Eyewitnesses reported seeing a body lying on the ground and a gathering of occupation forces around it.

The occupation forces also closed the road between the cities of Jenin and Nablus, and the entrance to the town of Bazariya, alleging that a shooting operation had been carried out in the area.

With the martyrdom of Manasra, the number of martyrs in Jenin Governorate since the beginning of the Israeli aggression on the city and camp of Jenin has risen to 39.

Israeli occupation forces stormed the towns of Saida and Allar, north of Tulkarm, on Sunday evening.

According to local sources, three Israeli occupation vehicles stormed Sidon and patrolled its main streets before heading towards Allar, where they stationed themselves in the "Al-Ras" area between the two towns. No arrests were reported.

Today, Sunday, settlers attacked citizens' property in the Wadi Qana area, near the town of Deir Istiya, northwest of Salfit.

According to local sources, a group of settlers vandalized agricultural property owned by the following citizens: Jihad Mansour, Qassem Mansour, Abdul Razzaq Mansour, Nasser Mansour, and Salah Mansour.

The sources explained that the attacks included the destruction of agricultural materials and the cutting and breaking of a number of trees. They noted that these attacks are part of the ongoing settlement escalation targeting Palestinian lands and property in Wadi Qana, in an attempt to impose a fait accompli on the ground.

Israel expressed concern about the possibility of the US administration's retreat from its stance toward Iran, following the second round of indirect talks between US and Iranian officials in Rome, which concluded with an agreement to begin developing a framework for a potential nuclear agreement.

The Sultanate of Oman, which is mediating between the two countries, announced that the talks aim to reach a binding agreement that guarantees Iran's complete denuclearization and the lifting of sanctions, while preserving its ability to develop peaceful nuclear energy.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said in his speech hours after the conclusion of US-Iranian talks that he is "committed" to preventing Iran from possessing nuclear weapons.

The Israel Hayom website reported, citing a source close to the White House, that talks between the United States and Iran are expected to collapse soon. A non-governmental Israeli source said he had a conversation with a senior US official, during which the latter confirmed that "Israel has no reason to be concerned about the progress made in the talks with Iran." According to the US official, the negotiations will likely collapse once Washington presents its full list of demands. The source added that the conversation focused on the ongoing talks between US envoy Steve Witkoff and Iranian representatives regarding Iran's nuclear program, reiterating that Israel has no need to fear these developments.

The Israeli source, citing a US official, said that President Trump "is fully aware of the Iranian threat and is handling the negotiations in his own way." The Israeli official predicted that "the talks with Iran will collapse within weeks once Washington presents its full demands, which include dismantling the nuclear program based on the Libyan model, halting the development of ballistic missiles, and ending the activities of Iranian proxies in the Middle East."

The source added, "We must leave Trump free rein. He knows what he's doing." He emphasized that the United States has not given up on the basic demands set by the Trump administration.

Israel insists that any negotiations with Iran must lead to the complete dismantling of its nuclear program.

This came as Reuters reported, citing an Israeli official and two informed sources, that Israel does not rule out launching an attack on Iranian nuclear facilities in the coming months, despite US President Donald Trump informing Netanyahu that the United States is not currently prepared to support such a move.

Over the past several months, Israel has proposed a series of options to the Trump administration for attacking Iranian facilities, some of which are planned for late spring and summer, according to the sources. The sources say the plans include a combination of airstrikes and special forces operations of varying intensity, and would likely hinder Tehran's ability to use its nuclear program for military purposes for months, a year, or more. The New York Times reported on Wednesday that Trump told Netanyahu in a White House meeting earlier this month that Washington wanted to prioritize diplomatic talks with Tehran and that he was not prepared to support a strike on Iranian nuclear facilities in the short term.

Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Sa'ar denied reports that Trump intervened to stop an Israeli operation against Iranian nuclear facilities.

"I am a member of the Security Council and all the sensitive forums, and I don't recall such a decision being taken. I don't think such a decision was ever taken," Sa'ar told the British newspaper The Daily Telegraph. "But Israel is committed to preventing Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. If this goal can be achieved diplomatically, we accept it."

Sa'ar expressed concern about the possibility of the next US administration weakening its resolve toward Iran, but pointed to a post by US negotiator Steve Witkoff on the X platform last week, in which he emphasized his desire to dismantle the Iranian nuclear program, both in terms of enrichment and weapons.

Sa'ar said, "I believe the current administration is committed to dealing with this issue and has made it a priority. More important than that is the goal: Iran must not possess a nuclear weapon."

He added, "We have seen how Iran assisted Russia during its war in Ukraine, with weapons, drones, and intelligence," warning of "the great danger of enabling the world's most extremist regimes to possess the world's most dangerous weapons." He emphasized that Iranian missiles are already capable of reaching Europe.

Sa'ar warned of nuclear proliferation in the region if Iran acquires a nuclear weapon, saying: "A nuclear arms race will begin in the Middle East... and this will have serious repercussions for security, not just in the region, but in the world."

He continued: "Iran has attacked Israel twice with hundreds of missiles, and uses proxies like Hezbollah, Hamas, and the Houthis to destabilize the entire Middle East. If it did all this without a nuclear umbrella, what could it do if it obtained a nuclear umbrella?"

The Israeli minister concluded by warning that Iran is not fulfilling its international obligations: "Iran has always flouting its commitments. I don't rule out the possibility that it will seek partial agreements to avoid a radical solution. We are speaking directly with the Americans, as well as with our European friends. Iran is currently in a position of relative weakness, and this must be exploited to achieve the goal, not given a reprieve until circumstances change."

Israel's Channel 14 reported that "the new agreement being negotiated may be better for the Iranians than the one signed during the Obama era, despite Trump's declaration of a tough stance toward Tehran." It added, "Sanctions are expected to be lifted, billions will be pumped in, and terrorist arms, from Hamas to the Houthis, will return to activity. Moreover, Iran's proxies are still active in Iraq, Yemen, and even Africa, indicating that the danger has not disappeared, but is on the rise again... Experts are arriving, equipment is being smuggled in, and the money is still there. Not in the quantities it was in the past, but it is completely enough to keep the system alive and breathing."

She added, "The agreement demonstrates the contours of Obama's policy, despite Trump's rhetoric, and raises security concerns for Israel, which appears isolated in the confrontation."

For its part, Israel's Channel 13 reported that "the Israeli leadership is monitoring developments in the negotiations and is pressuring Washington not to sign an agreement that would allow Iran to acquire nuclear capabilities, even if they are civilian." It added, "Many Israeli officials want these talks to fail, or for them to be accompanied by an American threat to use force."

At least three Palestinians were killed and others injured in an Israeli airstrike early Sunday morning that targeted a house near the al-Sawarha cemetery, west of Nuseirat in the central Gaza Strip. This comes as the Israeli occupation continues its war of extermination against the Gaza Strip, which it resumed on March 18.

The Israeli occupation government, headed by Benjamin Netanyahu, insists on continuing its war of extermination, which has been raging since October 7, 2023, despite mounting demands on the Israeli street to halt the war and return the Israeli detainees in the Gaza Strip. Thousands of people took part in a mass demonstration in Tel Aviv's Prisoners' Square on Saturday evening, demanding the return of the detainees. Netanyahu said on Saturday that he is determined to continue the war, rejecting Hamas' demands for a ceasefire. He stressed that the war will not stop until its full goals are achieved, foremost among which are "eliminating Hamas, returning the kidnapped soldiers, and ensuring that the Gaza Strip does not pose a threat to Israel's security."

Yesterday, Saturday, witnessed the death of the first occupation soldier since the resumption of the war, as the Israeli occupation army announced the death of an officer and the serious injury of three other soldiers, including a female officer, during battles in the northern Gaza Strip. For its part, the Al-Qassam Brigades, the armed wing of the Hamas movement, announced yesterday, Saturday, that its fighters carried out a "complex ambush" against an Israeli force in the Al-Tuffah neighborhood east of Gaza City, which resulted in deaths and injuries among its ranks. This brings the number of soldiers whose deaths the Israeli occupation army has acknowledged since the beginning of the war of extermination it is waging on Gaza on October 7, 2023, to 847, including 408 since the start of the ground operation on the 27th of the same month.

The Civil Affairs Authority informed the Commission of Prisoners' and Ex-Prisoners' Affairs, and the Palestinian Prisoners' Club, of the death of prisoner Nasser Khalil Radaideh (49 years old) from the town of Al-Ubeidiya, in the Israeli Hadassah Hospital, after he was transferred yesterday from Ofer Prison. He is added to the list of martyrs of the prisoner movement who have risen as a result of the organized crimes practiced by the Israeli occupation prison system in an unprecedented manner since the beginning of the ongoing genocide.

Radaideh had been detained since September 18, 2023, after being shot by the occupation forces at the time.

The committee and the club said that Radaideh is the second martyr among prisoners to be declared dead in occupation prisons within four days. He is married and has seven children. He spent a period in Shaare Zedek Hospital following his arrest and severe injury, but his health later stabilized, according to information available to the institutions and based on visits conducted to him at the time.

With the death of detainee Radaideh, the number of martyred prisoners and detainees since the beginning of the war of extermination has risen to 65, whose identities are known, amid the ongoing crime of enforced disappearance. Among them are at least 40 martyrs from Gaza, making this the bloodiest phase in the history of the prisoners' movement and our people. Thus, the number of martyrs from the prisoners' movement whose identities are known since 1967 has reached 302 martyrs to date, while the number of martyred prisoners whose bodies are still being held has reached 74 martyrs, including 63 martyrs since the beginning of the extermination.

The Commission and the Club stressed, in a joint statement, that the increasing number of martyrs among prisoners and detainees will take a more dangerous turn with the continued detention of thousands in the occupation’s prisons, and their continued exposure to systematic crimes, most notably: torture, starvation, assaults of various kinds, medical crimes, sexual assaults, and the deliberate imposition of conditions that lead to their infection with serious and contagious diseases, such as scabies, in addition to the unprecedented policies of theft and deprivation.

The statement added that the martyrdom of detainee Radaideh constitutes a new crime added to the record of Israeli brutality, which has perpetrated all forms of crimes against prisoners with the aim of killing them. These crimes constitute another aspect of the ongoing genocide.

The Commission and the Club held the occupation fully responsible for the martyrdom of detainee Radaideh, and renewed their demand for the international human rights system to move forward in taking effective decisions to hold the occupation leaders accountable for the war crimes committed against our people, and to impose sanctions on the occupation that would force it into clear international isolation, and restore the human rights system to its fundamental role for which it exists, and put an end to the terrifying state of impotence that afflicted it during the war of extermination, and end the state of exceptional immunity that the world has granted to the occupying state, considering it above accountability, accountability and punishment.

A child was shot by Israeli occupation forces on Sunday evening during a raid on the eastern part of Nablus.

According to medical sources, the occupation forces stormed the popular housing area east of the city, which led to the outbreak of clashes that included the firing of live bullets and tear gas canisters, resulting in a 16-year-old child being injured by live bullets in his back. He was subsequently transferred to the hospital, where his condition was described as critical.

Qatari Minister of State for Foreign Affairs Mohammed Al-Khulaifi expressed his country's frustration on Sunday with the slow progress in the Gaza ceasefire negotiations, while stressing Doha's commitment to continuing its efforts to revive the agreement despite the difficulties.

This came in an interview with Agence France-Presse, during which he indicated that Qatar "has been working in recent days to try to bring the two sides together and revive the agreement they had agreed upon," following a new round of negotiations that failed to produce an agreement, despite nearly a month having passed since the resumption of the war on Gaza.

"We are certainly frustrated by the slow pace of the negotiation process... This is an urgent matter, and lives are at stake if the military operation continues day after day," Al-Khalifi said, according to a report by Agence France-Presse on Sunday.

Qatar, along with the United States and Egypt, is mediating the ceasefire negotiations between Israel and Hamas. The first phase of the agreement went into effect in mid-January, before Israel announced the resumption of the war and refused to move to the next phase of the agreement on March 18.

In response to Israel's repeated criticism of Doha and its role, Al-Khalifi said, "We have been receiving this type of criticism and negative comments since the beginning of our involvement (in mediating to end the war)," noting that "the criticisms we constantly hear from Benjamin Netanyahu himself are baseless and often just noise."

Doha had previously described Israeli media attacks against it as a "smear campaign," denying the validity of an investigation attributed to the Shin Bet security service that alleged that Qatari aid to Gaza was used to bolster Hamas's military capabilities.

In this context, the Qatari International Media Office stressed last March that "no aid was delivered to either the political or military wings of the movement."

Responding to allegations made by Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu during an interview with the Christian television channel Daystar during his recent visit to Washington, in which he accused Qatar of inciting against the United States and Zionism on American universities, Al-Khalifi said, "Everything Qatar does is transparent," adding that "Netanyahu's allegations regarding Qatar's educational partnerships have been refuted more than once."

Regarding international mediation, Al-Khulaifi pointed to the development of Qatar's role in the conflict in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. He described the meeting held last March between Congolese President Felix Tshisekedi and his Rwandan counterpart, Paul Kagame, in Doha as "an important step toward calming the conflict." He noted that Qatar "has succeeded in building a flexible line of communication between the two sides, and we hope to achieve further successes, which you will hear about in the coming days."

Regarding the Syrian issue, Al-Khulaifi said that Qatar intends to discuss the sanctions imposed on Damascus with the US side following the overthrow of Bashar al-Assad's regime. It will also discuss with its regional partners the issue of increasing public sector salaries and potential Qatari funding for gas supplies to Syria.

Today, Sunday, the Israeli occupation forces targeted journalists in front of Jenin camp with tear gas bombs.

Local sources reported that the occupation forces fired tear gas bombs at journalist Raya Arouq, a correspondent for Al-Alam News Channel, and photographer Mohammed Abdel Khaleq, while they were in front of one of the entrances to Jenin camp to cover the occupation's aggression on the camp.

It added that the occupation forces are preventing press crews from entering the camp or approaching its outskirts to cover and transmit images of the destruction to homes, buildings, and civilian property.