Palestinian child Thayer Hamayel, 12 years old, revealed horrific details of his arrest journey that began at dawn on April 14th. The child stated in his testimony that the occupation forces took him from his home, initiating a series of forced transfers and harsh interrogations that reflected a tragic reality experienced by children inside Israeli detention centers.

Thayer's suffering began in the 'Al-Asour' camp near his town, where he was left alone in the open, facing severe cold for a full hour without any consideration for his age. Following that, he was transferred to 'Jaba'it' camp, located northeast of Ramallah, where he was thrown into a very narrow room with another prisoner for several hours under conditions lacking the most basic human necessities.

Sources reported that the child was subjected to serious physical and psychological abuses during his interrogation at the 'Binyamin' interrogation center, including severe beatings and attempts at strangulation. Thayer stated that the interrogators accused him of belonging to armed organizations and described him as a 'saboteur,' while keeping his hands bound with painful restraints throughout the interrogation to increase pressure on him.

After the interrogation, Hamayel was transferred to 'Ofer' prison west of Ramallah, where the policy of abuse and ill-treatment continued during the transfer process. The child indicated that the prison administration exerted humiliating psychological pressure on him, reaching the point of forcing him to kiss the Israeli occupation flag under threat, in a blatant violation of international child rights conventions.

Thayer described the daily life in the 'Cubs Section' of Ofer prison as characterized by deliberate cruelty, especially regarding the quality of food and the rough treatment by the jailers. He explained that the administration follows daily punitive measures that include removing mattresses from young detainees from early morning until afternoon, forcing them to sit on the hard floor throughout that period.

This testimony comes at a time when field data indicates an escalation in the repression against Palestinian prisoners, whose number is approximately 9600. Among these detainees, 350 children and 86 women are held in conditions described by human rights organizations as a vengeful journey lacking adequate food, medicine, and blankets, especially in light of the current situation.

According to reports from prisoner affairs institutions, the number of administrative detainees has reached record levels, totaling 3532 people, which is the highest historically. The presence of 1251 detainees under the designation of 'unlawful combatants' was also recorded, a number that does not include all detainees from the Gaza Strip who are held in secret camps belonging to the occupation army, away from legal oversight.

I was beaten and choked during the interrogation, and harsh accusations were leveled against me while my hands were tied the entire time.

Official sources reported the departure of a new relief plane from Sharjah International Airport on Friday, loaded with more than 100 tons of essential food supplies and humanitarian aid destined for the residents of the Gaza Strip. This flight is part of the 'Hamid Air Bridge' initiative, which aims to enhance the urgent humanitarian response to the escalating crisis in the Strip and provide basic needs for affected families.

These relief efforts came under the direct directives of Sheikh Humaid bin Rashid Al Nuaimi, Member of the Supreme Council and Ruler of Ajman, and in coordination with 'Operation Gallant Knight 3'. This step reflects the UAE's continuous commitment to supporting Palestinian brethren and providing intensive relief support to face the difficult living challenges imposed by the current reality in Gaza.

For his part, Hamoud Saeed Al Affari, Coordinator of Relief Operations in 'Operation Gallant Knight 3', stated that the arrival of this plane coincides with the organization of the 'Thawb Al Farah 2' event, a mass wedding aimed at celebrating more than 300 grooms from the Strip. Al Affari affirmed that these initiatives seek to bring joy to the hearts of the residents while providing the necessary material and food support for daily life to continue.

Al Affari explained that the 'Hamid Air Bridge' initiative represents an additional lifeline that embodies the UAE's deep-rooted approach of giving towards the Palestinian cause. He pointed out that efforts are not limited to food only, but include an integrated package of humanitarian and medical services that are being implemented on the ground to ensure aid reaches those in need in various areas of the Strip.

In the context of medical support, sources noted the continued operation of the Emirati field hospital inside Gaza and the floating hospital in the Egyptian city of Arish, both with a capacity of 100 beds. These medical facilities include specialized staff in general surgery, orthopedics, pediatrics, and intensive care, to provide urgent healthcare to the injured and sick.

Regarding sustainable water solutions, 6 desalination plants continue to regularly pump potable water to the residents of the Gaza Strip to address the severe water scarcity crisis. These plants are a pivotal part of the relief infrastructure launched by the UAE to ensure the basic needs of the population are met and to avoid environmental and health disasters resulting from water pollution.

In turn, Hassan Al Obaidli, Director of Community Support and Development Department at the International Charity Organization, confirmed that the organization is working in coordination with charitable institutions in Ajman to operate a continuous air and sea bridge. He explained that the current shipment includes 3300 food parcels, and is part of a comprehensive plan to send 1000 tons of various aid in the coming period.

Al Obaidli indicated that the organization is keen to meet the urgent food needs of the most affected groups by the humanitarian crisis in the Strip. He expressed his appreciation for the Emirati leadership, which places humanitarian work at the forefront of its priorities, affirming that the state will remain proactive in extending a helping hand and assistance to those in need in all exceptional circumstances.

In the same context, Ahmed Abdullah bin Malik, Director of Community Life Support Department at Al Etihad Charity Foundation, stated that contributing to this initiative translates the leadership's vision in promoting the values of solidarity and compassion. He affirmed that the foundation primarily focuses on food support as a top priority to alleviate the living burdens on the affected in Gaza and to establish the UAE's global humanitarian message.

This relief journey comes within the Hamid Air Bridge initiative to alleviate the daily suffering of thousands of Palestinian families under the current circumstances.

The Turkish state faces a complex diplomatic and military test amidst the raging war against Iran, as Ankara strives to maintain the policy of neutrality that has characterized its modern history. Observers note that decision-makers in Turkey are recalling the experience of World War II to avoid siding with any party, fearing a repeat of the Ottoman Empire's collapse, which resulted from mistaken strategic choices in the past.

Despite Turkey's efforts to play the role of an influential regional power, especially after the geopolitical changes in Syria in late 2024, it still lacks sufficient economic and military tools to impose its conditions. The air defense crisis stands out as one of the biggest challenges, as the purchase of the Russian S-400 system led to American sanctions that deprived Ankara of advanced technology such as F-35 fighters.

Field developments in March 2026 revealed the fragility of Turkish air protection, as NATO interceptor aircraft took on the task of shooting down Iranian missiles that penetrated Turkish airspace. These missiles targeted vital facilities, including Incirlik Air Base and a NATO radar system, putting Ankara in an awkward position between its Atlantic commitments and its desire not to provoke Tehran.

Analytical sources confirm that Ankara categorically refused to provide any logistical support for the American-Israeli military campaign against Iran and prevented the use of its airspace for offensive strikes. This stance stems from Turkey's desire to maintain a 'competitive coexistence' relationship with its eastern neighbor, a relationship whose roots extend to the Treaty of Qasr-e Shirin signed in the 17th century.

The Turkish leadership fears that the collapse of the regime in Tehran could lead to widespread chaos and the influx of millions of refugees across the border, which could destabilize the already strained Turkish economy. Ankara also believes that the existence of a stable Iranian state, even if an adversary, is far better than a fragmentation scenario that could fuel Kurdish separatist tendencies in the region.

Regarding the Kurdish issue, the war in Iran threatened the fragile peace process that began in Turkey in 2025, as Ankara fears that external powers might exploit Iranian Kurds. Turkish officials expressed concern about the Trump administration's intentions to arm Kurdish factions, which could bring tensions with Washington to unprecedented levels and undermine efforts to politically integrate the Kurds.

On another note, the Israeli military rise in the region after the fall of the Assad regime in Syria represents a major strategic concern for Ankara, which now views Tel Aviv as a direct threat. Turkish politicians believe that Israeli movements in Syria and Lebanon aim to encircle and contain Turkey, especially with the strengthening of Israeli defense cooperation with Greece and Cyprus.

Turkish-Israeli rivalry is no longer just a political dispute but has turned into a long-term strategic animosity that is difficult to overcome under the Netanyahu and Erdoğan governments. Ankara watches with concern as Israel transforms into the sole dominant power in the region, reducing Turkey's room for maneuver in the Eastern Mediterranean gas files and the future of the new Syrian regime.

Analyses indicate that Turkey prefers the '2015 nuclear deal' model as a framework for dealing with Iran, rather than the maximum pressure policy adopted by Washington. An Iran constrained by international agreements serves Turkey's commercial interests and opens up economic prospects for it towards Central Asia via the South Caucasus corridors, away from the disruptions of southern shipping routes.

To emerge from this crisis in a stronger position, experts suggest the necessity of accelerating legal and political reforms related to the Kurdish issue within Turkey to fortify the domestic front. Granting broader powers to Kurdish municipalities and enacting laws that allow militants to lay down their arms could close the door to any external attempts to exploit this sensitive issue during wartime.

Ankara must also strengthen security coordination with Baghdad and Damascus to ensure border stability and protect trade and energy routes connecting Turkey to the Arab Gulf states. The stability of Iraq and Syria represents the first line of defense for Turkish national security and prevents these countries from becoming arenas for settling scores between major and regional powers.

Amidst political fluctuations in Washington, it seems that the wisest course for Turkey is to strengthen its ties with European defense structures and NATO, while focusing on building an independent national defense industry. Self-reliance in air and missile defense has become an urgent necessity that cannot be postponed in light of increasing missile threats.

Observers believe that opening the border with Armenia and developing the 'Middle Corridor' could give Turkey a central role in a post-war system based on trade links rather than crises. This strategic step would reduce the Turkish economy's dependence on troubled regions and make Ankara an indispensable bridge between East and West.

In conclusion, a policy of 'tactical hedging' and passive neutrality may not be enough to protect Turkey from impending geopolitical earthquakes, requiring proactive diplomacy and courageous decision-making. Turkey's ability to adapt to the new regional order will determine whether it emerges from this era as a leading power or as a state besieged by crises from all sides.

Merely avoiding being drawn into war is no longer the best way for Turkey to advance its interests in a turbulent neighborhood; rather, it must act proactively to ensure it emerges in a stronger position.

Demonstrations against the occupation government witnessed a strange incident reflecting a state of excessive security tension, as police officers confiscated the flag of Hungary from one of the participants. This step was taken on the pretext that the three colors of the Hungarian flag, red, white, and green, match the colors of the Palestinian flag, which could lead to what the police described as 'provocation'.

According to Hebrew press sources, the incident took place at the vital 'Karkur' junction in the northern regions, during weekly protests demanding the departure of the current government. Despite the demonstrator's attempts to clarify that the flag represents a friendly European country and carries no political connotations related to the Palestinian conflict, police officers insisted on their position, claiming that passersby might misunderstand the symbol.

The sources reported that the demonstrator tried to reach a settlement with the security force present at the scene by offering to remove the flag and return it to his private vehicle to avoid any friction. However, the occupation police officers categorically rejected this proposal and insisted on seizing and confiscating the flag immediately. It was not returned to its owner until after the demonstration was dispersed and the protest activity completely ended.

This incident comes in the context of a broader campaign led by the occupation authorities to restrict the raising of any Palestinian national symbols in public spaces, where crackdowns on demonstrators raising the Palestinian flag are frequent. Observers believe that the confiscation of foreign flags merely due to color similarity reflects the peak of security sensitivity and confusion in dealing with visual symbols that evoke the Palestinian cause.

It is worth noting that current laws do not explicitly prohibit raising the Palestinian flag, but political-level instructions to the occupation police grant field commanders broad powers to confiscate it under the pretext of 'maintaining public order'. The Hungary flag incident reveals an expansion in the use of these pretexts to include any manifestations that might suggest solidarity with Palestinians, even if it is merely a coincidence in the colors of another country's flag.

Some may not understand that.. colors can cause provocation to the public.

Various areas in southern Lebanon witnessed a bloody military escalation on Monday, as Israeli aircraft launched a series of airstrikes that resulted in the martyrdom of four people, including a woman. Medical sources confirmed that the attacks also led to 51 people sustaining various injuries, reflecting the continued field tension despite international efforts for de-escalation.

These attacks come amidst a truce announced by US President Donald Trump on April 17, which was supposed to last for ten days before being extended for an additional three weeks. Despite these understandings, Israeli forces continued their military operations, exceeding the declared decisions regarding the cessation of air attacks on Lebanese territory.

In an official statement, the Lebanese Ministry of Health clarified that the toll of victims from the Israeli shelling included children and women, with three children and six females among the 51 wounded. The injuries were distributed among several hospitals in the south, where medical teams are working to provide necessary first aid to the injured under difficult field conditions.

On the ground, local sources reported that the Israeli army did not limit itself to airstrikes but also carried out demolition operations of buildings in the towns of Hanin in Bint Jbeil district and Shiheen in Tyre district. These operations caused widespread destruction of property and infrastructure, increasing the suffering of local residents in those border areas.

Intensive airstrikes included the towns of Majdal Zoun and the area between Qana and Siddiqin, in addition to targeting the towns of Haddatha, Baraachit, and Haris in Bint Jbeil district. These raids coincided with intensive overflights by warplanes and reconnaissance aircraft in the skies of southern Lebanon, causing a state of panic among civilians.

In Nabatieh district, the Almaan - Shoumaria area was subjected to intermittent Israeli artillery shelling, targeting forests, open areas, and areas surrounding residential homes. These Israeli military movements come within what local sources describe as continuous violations of the Washington-sponsored ceasefire agreement.

For its part, the Israeli army claimed in a statement that it targeted more than 20 Hezbollah infrastructures in the Beqaa and southern Lebanon regions. The statement alleged that the attacks targeted sites for the production and storage of combat means and missile launch platforms, in an attempt to justify targeting civilian areas where martyrs and wounded fell.

Israeli claims contradicted the field data documented by the Lebanese Ministry of Health, which confirmed the direct civilian casualties as a result of the shelling. Israel continues its policy of targeting Lebanese villages and towns, claiming the presence of military targets in populated areas, which official Lebanese reports deny.

It is worth noting that the Israeli aggression on Lebanon, which began on March 2, has left a heavy toll of victims, reaching 2509 martyrs and 7755 wounded. The ongoing military operations have also caused the displacement of more than 1.6 million people from their homes, creating a worsening humanitarian crisis in various Lebanese governorates.

Today's Israeli enemy raids on southern Lebanon resulted in the martyrdom of 4 people, including a woman, and 51 injured, including 3 children and 6 females.

The military confrontation launched by US President Donald Trump in cooperation with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu against Iran is approaching its third month. Despite the intensity of military operations, described as a blatant violation of international law, the field still witnesses escalating operations despite attempts at de-escalation and opening negotiation channels that have not yielded tangible results so far.

Field data confirms that the strategic objective set by the White House since the first week of the war, which was to overthrow the Iranian regime, has failed. State institutions in Tehran have shown a high capacity for resilience and absorbing major military shocks that directly and unprecedentedly targeted command and control centers.

The martyrdom of Supreme Leader Imam Ali Khamenei, along with a group of senior military and political leaders, represented the toughest test for the Islamic regime. Nevertheless, Iran managed to overcome the shock of loss by rapidly reorganizing its leadership ranks, which was evident in the election of Imam Mojtaba Khamenei as the country's new leader to ensure the continuity of political and military decision-making.

The confrontation was not limited to inside Iran but extended to include widespread military coordination with regional forces in Lebanon, Yemen, and Iraq. This axis, joined by the Gaza front, which shares the same fate, put additional pressure on American and Israeli calculations, making a military decisive victory elusive.

Observers believe that Trump, who aspired to control the timing of the war's end as he started it, found himself facing a completely different reality. Iranian components, including the Revolutionary Guard, army, and Basij, united behind the new leadership, supported by millions of popular marches, which deprived Washington of the ability to impose surrender terms or end the conflict according to its own vision.

Recent Islamabad negotiations revealed the extent of the American dilemma, as Trump was forced to withdraw his delegation after confirming the change in the balance of power on the ground. This withdrawal came as a result of the US administration's realization that the results intended by the decision to launch the war on February 28 had not been achieved, but rather led to completely opposite outcomes.

The White House is currently in a state of hesitation between the option of comprehensive escalation to destroy Iranian infrastructure and the desire to avoid a resounding political defeat. This confusion is evident in the continuous threats to strike power stations, bridges, and hospitals, countered by a keenness to keep the doors of Pakistani mediation ajar to preserve what remains of military prestige.

Analytical sources indicate that American military power, despite its immense destructive capability, has become politically ineffective at this stage. Waving the threat of occupying the Strait of Hormuz or blockading Iranian ports is no longer sufficient to extract diplomatic gains; rather, it has become a means of escaping the dilemma of field stagnation surrounding the attacking forces.

Trump's options have become confined to a narrow circle, where every potential path carries severe political or economic losses without guarantees of profit. In this deadlock, Washington finds itself gradually approaching acceptance of the terms set by Tehran for a ceasefire, which represents a significant retreat from the initial American demands.

The American position is further complicated by the exacerbation of internal crises in the United States and the shaking of the global economy due to the ongoing war. Moreover, increasing pressure on pro-Israel lobbies has begun to tangibly affect the US administration's reputation and influence in international forums, especially with the continuation of massacres and destruction.

On the other hand, Benjamin Netanyahu faces existential challenges amid successive military failures on the Lebanese front. These failures, coupled with fierce resistance in the Gaza Strip, have made the Israeli ally an additional burden on the American strategy in the region, rather than a partner in achieving a quick victory.

The shift in regional power balances has proven that destructive power alone does not create a sustainable political reality. Iran, despite deep wounds and the loss of its historical symbols, has proven that its institutions are capable of operating under the harshest conditions, making Trump's bet on a rapid collapse a losing bet by all measures.

The coming days remain pregnant with possibilities, as Trump seeks to secure an exit that saves face before the American voter and the world. However, the price demanded by Tehran and its allies for a ceasefire seems exorbitant and requires American concessions that could change the face of balances in the Middle East for decades to come.

Ultimately, this war shows that the policy of maximum pressure and direct military action has reached a dead end. The resistance shown by the targeted peoples and regimes has redefined the rules of engagement and forced major powers to reconsider their tools of influence and impact in a region that does not accept coercive dictates.

Trump decided to be the decision-maker for starting and ending the war, but he faced the failure of overthrowing the regime behind which the Iranian people united.

US President Donald Trump held a high-level meeting with his senior national security advisors on Monday to discuss a new Iranian proposal aimed at breaking the deadlock in the current crisis. The Iranian offer includes reopening the Strait of Hormuz to international navigation, in exchange for Washington lifting the naval blockade imposed on Iranian ports for some time.

White House spokeswoman Caroline Leavitt confirmed that the Iranian proposal is currently under discussion and evaluation within the US administration. Leavitt stated in a press conference that the President met with his security team immediately after reports of the offer, but she declined to disclose Trump's final stance on accepting or rejecting this initiative.

For his part, Secretary of State Marco Rubio expressed strong reservations about the proposal, indicating that the current Iranian position does not meet US expectations and demands. Rubio stated in media remarks that Tehran's condition for prior coordination or obtaining permission to pass through the strait is not a true opening of the international waterway through which one-fifth of the world's oil passes.

Rubio stressed that the United States cannot accept a system that seeks to normalize its control over international waterways and impose fees or conditions on their users. He affirmed that the US administration rejects leniency with Tehran's attempts to impose a new reality that grants it decision-making authority over who is allowed to cross the strategic Strait of Hormuz.

Press reports indicated that the White House meeting also addressed the stalemate in diplomatic negotiations and the available options for dealing with the upcoming stages of the conflict. The US administration appears to be balancing military and economic pressures with the possibility of reaching an agreement that ends maritime threats in the region.

Informed sources reported that there is increasing confidence within the Trump administration in the effectiveness of the naval blockade imposed on Iran and its direct impact on its economy. In contrast, there is a kind of skepticism about the ability of current Iranian negotiators to make substantial concessions that achieve the goals set by Washington for a sustainable resolution of the crisis.

Leaked data indicates that the conditions put forward by Tehran in its latest proposal are still far from the 'red lines' drawn by the Trump administration. The White House spokeswoman affirmed that these lines are completely clear to the Iranian side and to public opinion, and there is no intention to backtrack on them under the current circumstances.

According to media sources, the Iranian proposal aims to separate the navigation and current war file from the nuclear file, so that the strait is opened and military operations are ended first. Tehran proposes postponing negotiations related to its nuclear program to a later stage, which Washington may consider an attempt to buy time and alleviate economic pressure.

Sources from Washington reported that American rhetoric has escalated in recent hours regarding the completion of the naval blockade as a key pressure tool. President Trump believes that this card is the most effective in forcing Tehran to comply, especially with the increasing technical and economic difficulties facing the Iranian oil sector as a result of the halt in exports.

Trump had previously warned that Iran's oil fields and crude pipelines would face a major crisis due to the accumulation of quantities that cannot be discharged. The US President went so far as to predict that these wells might explode due to the pressure from oil accumulation, which he sees as a decisive pressure tactic in the coming days.

The US administration faces a legal challenge in the form of the 60-day constitutional deadline for military operations, which is nearing its end this month. Extending these operations requires a vote from Congress, which may face political obstacles given the current divisions over the utility of continued military escalation.

In an attempt to circumvent this restriction, a team of lawyers in the US administration is studying constitutional loopholes that might allow Trump to continue operations without returning to Parliament. The next few weeks are considered crucial in determining the course of the conflict, whether by moving towards a political settlement based on the Iranian proposal or continuing with the option of a comprehensive naval blockade.

If what they mean by opening the strait is coordinating with Iran and obtaining its permission, otherwise they will attack you, then this is not opening the strait.

The Ukrainian Ministry of Foreign Affairs announced a new diplomatic escalation towards Tel Aviv, summoning Israeli Ambassador Michael Brodsky for a formal reprimand session. This move comes after the detection of Russian cargo ships arriving at Israeli ports, laden with agricultural products that Kyiv asserts were plundered from its occupied territories.

Ukrainian Foreign Minister Andriy Sibiga clarified that bilateral relations should not be harmed by what he described as 'illegal trade' practiced by Russia. Sibiga indicated that his country has repeatedly warned against accepting these shipments, considering Israel's silence on these violations to raise deep questions about the nature of the partnership between the two sides.

In response, Israeli Foreign Minister Gidon Sa'ar reacted sharply on social media platforms, stating that international relations are not managed via 'Twitter'. Sa'ar claimed that the Ukrainian side had not provided concrete evidence or formal requests for legal assistance before resorting to media escalation, emphasizing that Israel adheres to the rule of law.

Field reports indicate that the Russian vessel 'Panormitis' indeed docked in Haifa port last Sunday, carrying massive quantities of wheat. Ukrainian diplomatic sources confirm that this ship is the second of its kind in just two weeks, reflecting a recurring pattern of Israeli disregard for Ukrainian warnings.

Kyiv warned that the continued unloading of these shipments would have 'dire consequences' for the future of bilateral relations between the two countries. Ukrainian sources considered Israel's current stance to be an act of ingratitude, especially after the steps Ukraine had taken to support Israel in international forums and against its regional adversaries.

It is worth noting that Ukraine had made strategic decisions in favor of Israel, including designating the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps as a terrorist organization. Ukrainian authorities also tightened laws related to combating antisemitism, steps that aimed to strengthen the alliance with Tel Aviv in the face of Russian pressure.

Despite official Israeli denials, an investigative journalistic report revealed documents proving Israel's reception of at least four Russian ships this year. Shipping movement data and satellite images showed that these ships were carrying grain originating from areas controlled by Russian forces in Ukraine.

The investigation confirmed that the stolen wheat is being sold within Israeli markets to local buyers, making Israel an indirect partner in circumventing sanctions. The value of recently arrived shipments is estimated at millions of dollars, providing Moscow with a crucial financial lifeline amidst the international economic blockade imposed on it.

Sources also revealed that Russian ships use sophisticated jamming techniques to conceal their true navigation routes and avoid international detection. These deceptive methods aim to camouflage the origin of the goods and facilitate their entry into ports that do not strictly adhere to origin verification protocols, including Haifa port.

In a related context, reports indicated that 2023 saw the arrival of seven other ships with strong suspicions surrounding the origin of their cargo. It appears that Israel has become a preferred destination for the disposal of these goods, exploiting loopholes in the international sanctions regime led by the United States and the European Union.

Observers believe that this crisis places Israel in an awkward position with its Western allies, who impose strict restrictions on trade with Russia. While Tel Aviv tries to maintain a delicate balance in its relations with Moscow, increasing Ukrainian pressure may force it to take a clearer stance.

The protest note that Kyiv will deliver to the Israeli ambassador includes specific demands to stop receiving any suspicious ships in the future. Ukraine emphasizes the need for transparent investigations into the origin of the grain that entered Israeli markets, considering that 'profiting from stolen goods' is unbecoming of a country that claims adherence to international law.

These developments come at a sensitive time in the conflict in Ukraine, as Kyiv seeks to dry up Russian funding sources by all available means. The grain sector is one of Ukraine's most important economic resources, making the defense of ownership of these crops a matter of national security for it.

In conclusion, the question remains about the extent to which Israeli law enforcement authorities will respond to Ukrainian requests in the coming days. Either Tel Aviv will take measures to restrict the arrival of these ships, or the crisis will escalate further, potentially leading to the withdrawal of ambassadors or a reduction in diplomatic representation.

It is not honorable for Israel to profit from stolen goods, and ignoring legitimate Ukrainian demands is a slap in the face.

Israeli occupation forces withdrew from Qalandia camp and Al-Ram town, north of occupied Jerusalem, after a wide-ranging military operation that lasted for about 18 continuous hours. The invading forces left behind widespread destruction of private and public property, in addition to sending direct threat messages to residents via paper leaflets and loudspeakers.

Local sources from inside the camp reported that the occupation army carried out a mass arrest campaign targeting more than 80 Palestinians of different ages, who were taken blindfolded and handcuffed to field interrogation centers. The majority of the detainees were later released after undergoing harsh interrogations under threat and abuse.

During the hours of the raid, Israeli forces converted a number of inhabited homes into military barracks and observation points, after forcing their owners to evacuate them. Military bulldozers also closed vital streets and main entrances with earth mounds and concrete blocks, completely isolating the area from its surroundings.

Citizen Muhammad Abu Ghoush recounted details of eight hours he spent in detention, where soldiers stormed his home at four in the morning and took him with other young men to a residential complex that had been emptied of its residents. Abu Ghoush explained that the area officer directly threatened him with arresting his family members before deciding to release him after hours of psychological pressure.

For his part, journalist Saif Al-Qawasmi stated that Al-Ram town is subjected to almost daily incursions, but this time was different in terms of the duration of the siege and the closure of all access points. Al-Qawasmi pointed out the occupation's use of drones to heavily drop tear gas canisters towards citizens who tried to move between neighborhoods.

In another testimony, citizen Muhammad Bazie spoke about forcing his sister and her four children to leave their home at gunpoint to turn it into a military point. Bazie considered that these practices aim to spread terror among refugees and push them towards forced displacement by creating an unsafe and repellent living environment for residents.

Camp residents confirmed that the acts of sabotage were not limited to homes, but also included smashing shop doors and destroying infrastructure in narrow streets. Residents also observed intensive drone flights monitoring movements within the camp's alleys throughout the military operation, which was described as the most violent in months.

In turn, the media advisor to the Jerusalem Governorate, Maarouf Al-Rifai, explained that the strict siege began at dawn on Monday and directly targeted the families of martyrs and released prisoners. Al-Rifai added that most of those subjected to field arrests reported being severely beaten and deliberately humiliated before being released in batches.

Al-Rifai indicated that the occupation deliberately used loudspeakers to broadcast intimidating messages threatening residents with more collective punishments if the resistance continued. He considered this policy a clear condemnation of the occupation's attempts to impose a new security reality in the areas surrounding occupied Jerusalem and isolate it from its Palestinian depth.

In a related context, the Jerusalem Affairs Department of the Palestine Liberation Organization condemned the dangerous field escalation in the towns of Al-Ram, Kafr Aqab, and Qalandia camp. The department said in a statement that what is happening is a systematic policy to dismantle the Palestinian social fabric and impose a coercive security reality aimed at liquidating the Palestinian presence in Jerusalem.

The department stressed that targeting humanitarian facilities, such as storming an UNRWA clinic and destroying its contents, constitutes a blatant violation of international laws. It added that these attacks come within the framework of fighting institutions that provide essential services to Palestinian refugees to weaken their steadfastness in their camps.

Observers believe that the timing and intensity of these incursions are linked to broader plans aimed at liquidating the refugee issue, starting with targeting the camps, which are considered strongholds of refuge. These military operations are part of attempts to consolidate the isolation of Jerusalem through the apartheid wall and permanent military checkpoints such as the Qalandia checkpoint.

Finally, medical sources confirmed that field teams dealt with several cases of suffocation due to tear gas, in addition to contusion injuries resulting from beatings. Despite the withdrawal of military vehicles, tension still prevails in the area amid fears of renewed incursions in the coming hours.

Forcing people to leave their homes creates a state of fear and terror, and the occupation aims to create a repellent environment to displace camp residents.

In the alleys of the Old City of Jerusalem, stories intertwine with ancient stones to form a memory resistant to obliteration, despite attempts to change the historical narrative of the place. Historical testimonies indicate that the division of the city into religious quarters (Muslim, Christian, Jewish) is a new, alien concept to Arab culture, imposed by Europeans during the Mandate period to reinforce policies of separation.

Sources reported that this division was unknown a century ago, where urban and social overlap was the dominant feature. Mosques are located in the heart of the Christian Quarter, and churches line the Via Dolorosa in the Muslim Quarter, reflecting a complex reality that transcends any attempt at forced separation between beliefs and residents.

The historic 'Sharaf Quarter' is a striking example of this transformation. What is known today as the Jewish Quarter represented only a small percentage of the quarter's area before 1948. With the 1967 Naksa, the occupation authorities demolished the historic Maghariba Quarter and expanded control over Palestinian properties in the area to build a new settlement neighborhood.

The Omar Mosque stands today as the sole and silent witness to what remains of the features of the Sharaf Quarter, whose Arab identity has been erased. Beside this mosque, the dome of the 'Tiferet Israel' synagogue rises in an attempt to impose a new visual scene that competes with the city's historic domes, as part of a fierce struggle over symbols and visual identity.

There are numerous human stories that embody the legal conflict, most notably the story of the Burqan family, who possess Ottoman documents proving their ownership of their home for two centuries. Despite the Israeli judiciary's recognition of the family's ownership, it issued a decision prohibiting non-Jews from residing in that area, a legal paradox that legitimizes demographic replacement.

Lawyer Mohammed Dahleh, specializing in settlement issues, explained that these settlement outposts within Arab neighborhoods represent a significant security and economic burden. Settlers cannot live there without strict security and 24-hour surveillance cameras, costing the occupation budget enormous sums to secure their unnatural presence.

Numerically, historical data reveals that Jewish ownership in Old Jerusalem did not exceed 2% of the total properties until the mid-1960s. However, this control expanded through seizure and research into old documents, in addition to the immense economic pressures exerted on the indigenous population to push them to leave.

Jerusalemite 'Abu Khadija' recounts part of these pressures, revealing that he received financial offers amounting to 40 million dollars in exchange for giving up his property. His response was decisive in refusing to sell, emphasizing that these properties are Islamic endowments that no one has the right to dispose of, and that the role of the residents is limited to being guardians of this trust.

Researchers in Jerusalem affairs believe that the settlement project within the Old City has not fully achieved its demographic goals, despite all inducements. The majority of seized buildings have been converted into religious schools temporarily inhabited by students, or properties owned by wealthy Jews living abroad, making the neighborhood lack normal social life.

Jerusalem today is fighting what can be called a 'war of views,' an Israeli attempt to control the city's general landscape from above. By building high domes near the Al-Aqsa Mosque and the Dome of the Rock, the occupation seeks to mislead visitors and tourists into believing in an overwhelming Jewish identity for the city, ignoring thousands of years of Arab civilization.

Experts confirm that the language of the people, the sounds of the call to prayer, and the arches of the Old City remain the true identity that cannot be erased by flags or military checkpoints. The occupation tries to highlight its presence through artificial symbols, while the walls and alleys speak an authentic Arab, Islamic, and Christian language that needs no proof.

Palestinian steadfastness within the Old City is not limited to physical survival but extends to preserving the collective consciousness of rejecting division. Jerusalemites realize that the battle is a battle of demographics and control over public space, and that every home preserved is a first line of defense for the Al-Aqsa Mosque and the Church of the Holy Sepulchre.

Despite all geopolitical transformations, the relationship between the Jerusalemite and their place remains an organic relationship that cannot be divided, as residents prefer to live in difficult conditions within the Old City rather than leave it. This steadfastness has thwarted many plans that aimed to empty the city of its original inhabitants and turn it into a closed religious museum.

In conclusion, Old Jerusalem remains an ongoing story of daily resistance, where residents write its chapters with their patience and steadfastness in the face of change. It is a city that refuses to be summarized in modern maps or neighborhood names imposed by force of arms, so that its original spirit remains the only constant truth amidst the rubble of transformations.

"Oh good people, how can we sell something we don't own? How can we sell something that is an Islamic endowment? We are just guardians here."

Washington – Said Arikat – 28/4/2026

News Analysis

The recent statements by US Secretary of State Marco Rubio reveal the extent of the dilemma faced by President Donald Trump's administration after the disruption of the latest round of negotiations with Iran, and the transformation of the Strait of Hormuz into an open conflict zone threatening the global economy. Instead of presenting a diplomatic vision to end the tension, the US administration chose the language of dictates and threats, then was surprised that the war it waged with Israel did not result in Iranian surrender, but rather an escalating international crisis.

Rubio stated that the United States cannot accept Iran controlling who passes through the Strait of Hormuz or imposing fees on passing ships. His remarks appeared to be an attempt to portray Washington as a protector of freedom of navigation, forgetting that the crisis itself did not exist before the American-Israeli war on Iran at the end of last February. The strait was operating normally, and markets were relatively stable, before Washington and Tel Aviv decided to open a military confrontation under the pretext of the Iranian nuclear program.

Reports indicated that Tehran offered an interim agreement to reopen the strait in exchange for ending the US naval blockade on Iranian ports, and postponing the more complex nuclear issues to a later stage. However, the US administration dealt with the proposal with great hesitation, reflecting internal confusion between those who want a quick exit from the crisis, and those who insist on continuing the policy of maximum pressure, even at the expense of the global economy.

The irony is that Washington talks about rejecting Iran's "blackmail" of maritime passages, while it itself practices a military blockade and uses naval force to impose political conditions. When the United States uses fleets to prevent Iran-linked ships from sailing, it is not much different from the logic it claims to reject, but rather gives Tehran an additional argument to present itself as a victim of external aggression.

Domestically, the war has begun to turn into a political burden for Trump. The rise in fuel prices in the United States directly affected the American voter, making the question more pressing: Why is Washington fighting a new war in the Middle East while the American citizen suffers from inflation and the cost of living? This question becomes more acute the longer the crisis continues without clear achievement.

In Europe, Western capitals have shown increasing resentment towards the American approach. European countries find themselves facing a new energy crisis, at a time when they were trying to avoid being drawn into an additional conflict. German Chancellor Friedrich Merz's statements, in which he described the United States as being "humiliated" in front of the Iranian leadership, reflected the extent of tension within the Western camp itself.

The deeper truth is that the Trump administration repeated an old strategic mistake: the belief that military force alone can impose complex political arrangements. But experiences extending from Iraq to Afghanistan have proven that wars may open the doors to chaos, but they do not create lasting stability. And here is Iran, despite the losses and pressures, still negotiating from a position of equality, not from the position of the defeated.

In the UN Security Council, France warned that allowing the transformation of maritime passages into tools of blackmail or militarization would create a dangerous precedent threatening global trade. However, this warning also applies to US policy itself, because the militarization of the strait did not start from a vacuum, but from the decision of war and escalation.

Perhaps the most dangerous aspect of the scene is not merely the closure of a strait or the rise in oil prices, but Washington's readiness to drag the world into a widespread economic crisis in service of Israel's regional calculations. By waging this war in response to Israeli demands, the United States has shown a willingness to ignite a broad conflict that could extend beyond the Gulf, for objectives that do not serve international stability or the interests of the American citizen.

The Hormuz crisis reveals that Washington is still captive to an old colonial perception that considers international passages as purely American spheres of influence. When another country, even a regional one, controls part of the maritime security equation, it is immediately viewed as a threat that must be crushed. This mentality does not recognize new power balances or the fact that the world is no longer unipolar. Therefore, every negotiable crisis turns into a military confrontation. The result is not the restoration of American prestige, but its accelerated erosion, because coercion fails where balanced settlements succeed, and produces stronger resistance instead of the expected political and military submission.

Politically, Trump finds himself facing a fundamental contradiction. He rose to popularity with a promise to end foreign wars and focus on the American interior, but today he returns to the same model he criticized. The average American voter does not care much about the details of the Strait of Hormuz, but he cares about the price of gasoline and the grocery bill. And with each day the crisis continues, the image of the president capable of decisive management erodes. If he does not achieve a quick breakthrough, the war may turn into an electoral burden that haunts him, just as the Middle East wars haunted his Republican and Democratic predecessors electorally later on.

As for Israel, the biggest strategic beneficiary of the escalation, it is once again pushing Washington towards a battle that drains others. Every American preoccupation with confronting Iran means easing pressure on Tel Aviv's policies in Palestine and the region. Moreover, turning Iran into the primary threat gives Israel a wider margin to expand its military and political influence. However, this approach is short-sighted; because it links American interests to a narrow regional agenda, and pushes the United States to bear the financial, military, and diplomatic costs, while Israel reaps security gains without paying the real price alone or bearing the full consequences of the escalation.

By: Said Arikat

April 28, 2026

News Analysis

Washington, D.C- For more than two years, official Washington has labored to avoid one word: genocide. It has preferred softer formulations—“humanitarian crisis,” “tragic consequences,” “disproportionate force,” “mistakes in war.” But language can only conceal reality for so long. When Wendy Sherman, former Deputy Secretary of State (to Sec. of State Anthony Blinken) under President Joe Biden, said on Monday, April 27 on Bloomberg’s Mishal Husain Show, that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had led Israel and its allies down a road that had “in essence created a genocide in Gaza,” she pierced the wall of euphemism.

Even though Sherman later retreated into legal caution—saying she could not determine whether Gaza was “literally a genocide”—the political significance of her first statement remains immense. Senior American officials do not casually use such terms. They do so when facts have become too overwhelming to ignore.

Sherman’s remarks matter not simply because of who she is, but because they reflect a growing recognition inside the Democratic Party and broader American establishment that the devastation of Gaza cannot be explained away as collateral damage. Entire neighborhoods were erased. Hospitals were destroyed or rendered inoperable. Universities, bakeries, mosques, churches, water systems, refugee camps, and civilian infrastructure were systematically targeted or reduced to rubble. Tens of thousands of Palestinians—men, women, and children—were killed, with many more buried under ruins, missing, maimed, or dying slowly from hunger and disease.

This was not merely war. It was the destruction of a society.

The Evidence Was Never Hidden

Those arguing that genocide is too strong a word often pretend intent is unknowable. But intent in Gaza was repeatedly stated in public by Israeli officials, ministers, military commanders, and soldiers.

Israeli leaders described Palestinians in dehumanizing terms, spoke of cutting off food, water, electricity, and fuel to an entire population, and called for Gaza to be flattened, emptied, or permanently transformed. Senior ministers openly advocated population transfer. Some lawmakers demanded the use of overwhelming force without distinction between militants and civilians. Soldiers posted videos celebrating demolition, humiliation, and collective punishment.

When perpetrators announce their intentions, the world cannot claim uncertainty.

Genocide, under international law, is not only mass killing. It includes acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group—through killing, inflicting destructive conditions of life, causing serious bodily or mental harm, and preventing the group’s continued existence. Gaza’s starvation siege, forced displacement, medical collapse, and relentless bombardment fit disturbingly within that framework.

Ben Rhodes Said the Quiet Part Loudly

Former Obama deputy national security adviser Ben Rhodes also acknowledged what many in Washington knew but would not say plainly: that statements by Israeli officials provided evidence of genocidal intent. This was a striking admission from a figure deeply embedded in the national security establishment.

Rhodes’s intervention matters because it undercuts the fiction that only activists, academics, or critics of Israel raised these concerns. When former insiders begin citing genocidal rhetoric by Israeli leaders themselves, the debate shifts from ideological accusation to documentary evidence.

The issue is no longer whether people used the word. The issue is why so many refused to hear it.

Washington’s Complicity

Sherman also said, crucially, “we have been part of it.” That may be the most honest sentence uttered by a former Biden official on Gaza.

The United States armed Israel, shielded it diplomatically, vetoed ceasefire efforts, repeated discredited talking points, and treated every Israeli escalation as self-defense while demanding endless Palestinian restraint. American bombs, aircraft parts, intelligence support, and political cover enabled the campaign.

Without Washington’s backing, the scale and duration of Gaza’s destruction would have been far harder to sustain.

This is why the debate over terminology matters. If genocide occurred, then American complicity becomes not a policy disagreement but a moral and legal scandal of historic proportions.

Netanyahu Was the Vehicle, Not the Whole Story

It is tempting for establishment voices to place all blame on Netanyahu personally. Certainly, he bears direct responsibility. His government included some of the most extremist figures in Israel’s history, many of whom openly embraced ethnic cleansing fantasies.

But reducing Gaza’s catastrophe to one man is another evasion.

The assault was supported by major sectors of Israel’s political system, military command structure, and much of its media environment. It was tolerated—often enthusiastically—by successive Western governments. Netanyahu may have driven the vehicle, but many others supplied fuel, maps, and diplomatic escort.

A Shift Too Late

Sherman’s comments signal that rhetoric once considered taboo is entering mainstream Democratic discourse. That shift is real—but painfully late.

Where were these voices when families were crushed under rubble? When children underwent amputations without anesthesia? When famine warnings spread? When aid workers and journalists were killed? When refugee tents were bombed after civilians had been ordered to flee there?

Moral clarity after the destruction is safer than moral clarity during it.

The Historical Reckoning Ahead

Years from now, commissions, courts, historians, and survivors will document what happened in Gaza in granular detail. The archive already exists: official statements, drone footage, satellite imagery, testimony from doctors, journalists, aid workers, and soldiers themselves.

The central question may not be whether genocide occurred, but why so many powerful people insisted on semantic hesitation while the evidence accumulated in plain sight.

Wendy Sherman’s statement matters because it reveals cracks in the old consensus. But history will ask more than who eventually spoke. It will ask who armed, excused, delayed, rationalized, and obstructed accountability while Gaza burned.

And on that question, Washington’s record is already written.

Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi arrived in the Russian city of St. Petersburg, where he held an important meeting with President Vladimir Putin at the Boris Yeltsin Presidential Library. This visit comes as part of an intensive diplomatic tour aimed at mobilizing international support and discussing new proposals to de-escalate tensions in the region.

During the meeting, Russian President Vladimir Putin affirmed his country's determination to continue strengthening strategic relations with Tehran in various fields. Putin indicated that Moscow would do its utmost to support Iranian interests and achieve stability for the countries of the region, emphasizing the importance of joint coordination in these complex circumstances.

Araghchi handed the Russian President a special message from the Supreme Leader of the Islamic Republic, expressing his country's appreciation for Russia's continued support. The Iranian minister described the partnership between Tehran and Moscow as strategic and strong, stressing the necessity of continuous consultation on the developments of the current war and political changes.

The meeting coincided with the circulation of information about a new Iranian proposal that primarily focuses on reopening the Strait of Hormuz to international navigation. The proposal includes postponing the discussion of the details of the Iranian nuclear program to a later stage, in an attempt to defuse the escalating economic and military crisis.

These diplomatic moves came after the failure of the second round of negotiations that were scheduled between Tehran and Washington in the Pakistani capital, Islamabad. Araghchi attributed this failure to what he described as 'exaggerated demands' from the American side, which hindered the progress made in previous rounds.

Informed sources reported that Iran conveyed written messages to the American administration through the Pakistani mediator, clarifying Tehran's red lines. These messages included the Islamic Republic's vision on nuclear issues and navigation security in the Strait of Hormuz, despite Tehran's assertion that it is not part of direct negotiations.

International press reports stated that the new Iranian proposal aims to end the state of war and open the vital shipping lane in exchange for political and economic gains. However, estimates indicate the difficulty of Washington accepting this offer, especially given the American administration's insistence on a comprehensive agreement that ends the nuclear program.

Araghchi had begun his tour from Islamabad, where he met with senior Pakistani officials to discuss ways to ensure safe passage for ships in the region. He then moved to the Sultanate of Oman to consult with Sultan Haitham bin Tariq on the safety of navigation, describing it as a global issue of utmost importance.

In a related context, the Iranian minister held a phone call with his Turkish counterpart, Hakan Fidan, to coordinate regional positions regarding the crisis. Through these contacts, Tehran seeks to create a regional front that supports its proposals aimed at alleviating the international pressures currently imposed on it.

On the American side, President Donald Trump canceled a scheduled visit by a high-level delegation to Pakistan, which was supposed to include his son-in-law, Jared Kushner. Despite this cancellation, Trump left the door open for the possibility of direct communication with the Iranians if they wished to reach an agreement that satisfied his aspirations.

The international community awaits a meeting of the UN Security Council in New York to discuss maritime navigation security in the Strait of Hormuz. This strait is a vital artery for the global economy, as about one-fifth of the world's oil and liquefied gas production passes through it, making its closure a direct threat to energy security.

Observers believe that the Iranian proposal to postpone the nuclear file aims to buy time and reduce the military and political pressure exerted on it. In contrast, Washington insists that any agreement must be final and comprehensive, ensuring the complete and permanent dismantling of Iranian nuclear capabilities.

Pakistan plays a pivotal role as a mediator between Tehran and Washington, striving to prevent the region from sliding into a comprehensive military confrontation. Pakistan's national security is closely linked to the stability of the situation in Iran, which prompts Islamabad to pressure both parties to make mutual concessions.

All eyes remain on the outcomes of the Security Council meeting and what Russian and Chinese moves in the region may yield. While Iran attempts to maneuver through partial proposals, the international position remains divided on how to deal with Iranian nuclear ambitions and navigation threats in Hormuz.

Bilateral Russian-Iranian relations are a strategic and enduring partnership, and we seek to coordinate with our friends on the developments of the current stage.

Legislative circles in the United States have witnessed a new move aimed at providing legal cover and exceptional privileges to American citizens serving in the ranks of the Israeli occupation army. This move comes through a bill numbered H.R. 8445, which seeks to make fundamental amendments to existing federal laws to include this category of dual nationals.

This legislative proposal is led by Republican Congressmen Guy Reschenthaler and Max Miller, who affirmed that the initiative directly aims to support Americans involved in Israeli military operations. The bill's sponsors pointed out that more than 20,000 American citizens are currently participating in military service with the occupation, considering it Washington's duty to provide them with legal protection.

The proposed bill focuses on expanding the scope of two basic federal laws. The first is the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA). This law grants military personnel immunities against eviction from homes or property seizure, in addition to lowering interest rates on personal loans and debts during their service period.

As for the second pillar of the project, it is the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA), which guarantees those who join military service the right to return to their civilian jobs immediately after their duties end. Under the proposed amendment, service in the occupation army will be treated as qualifying military service for these guarantees within the American labor market.

This step is a notable departure from prevailing legal norms in the United States, where military privileges are exclusively linked to service within the US Armed Forces. According to the definition in federal law, 'veteran' status is granted only to those who served under direct US military command or within officially recognized international alliances.

Specialized reports indicate that the American legal system has never before granted benefits based on its citizens' foreign military activities. Citizens serving abroad retain only their acquired rights within the country and are not entitled to claim additional benefits as a result of their involvement in foreign armies, which the new project seeks to change.

Historically, Washington has not granted any similar programs to Americans who participated in international conflicts within the ranks of foreign forces such as the French Legion or, more recently, Ukrainian forces. Successive US administrations usually emphasize that citizens who choose to serve in the armies of other countries bear full legal and financial responsibility for their personal decisions.

Currently, soldiers in the Israeli occupation army receive a package of benefits funded by the occupation budget and approved by the Knesset, including monthly salaries and support for housing and education. The new American proposal attempts to add a second layer of protection for these soldiers, with its consequences borne by institutions, companies, and banks within the United States.

Observers warn of the legal repercussions of this legislation, as it creates new legal obligations for American employers and banks towards individuals serving another country. It also opens the door to future claims that may include expanding healthcare and military retiree benefits to include these individuals, thus burdening the federal system.

The project sparks sharp division, as critics see it as breaking the principle of linking privileges exclusively to loyalty and service under the American flag. In contrast, defenders of the law insist that American citizenship should be the primary criterion for providing protection, especially when it comes to service with a close strategic ally of the United States.

More than 20,000 American citizens are currently defending Israel, and this legislation aims to ensure that everything possible is done to support them.

The Israeli occupation authorities announced today, Monday, new punitive financial measures against the Palestinian Authority, which included the seizure of clearance funds and the deduction of the vast majority of them. This step comes amid a severe financial crisis afflicting Palestinian institutions, threatening their ability to meet their obligations towards employees and vital sectors.

Bezalel Smotrich's office, the Israeli Minister of Finance, confirmed that Tel Aviv decided to deduct the largest part of the tax revenues collected on behalf of the Palestinian side during the current month. The Israeli statement claimed that these deductions aim to settle outstanding bills and debts owed to Israeli entities, a step that reflects the current government's hardline approach.

Clearance funds are known as the taxes and customs duties imposed by Israel on goods imported into the Palestinian territories through ports and crossings it controls. Under economic agreements, Israel collects these funds for a specific commission, to be transferred monthly to the Palestinian Authority's treasury.

Digital data revealed that the total revenues collected this month amounted to about 740 million shekels, equivalent to approximately 248 million dollars. However, the Israeli Ministry of Finance deducted 590 million shekels from this amount, which represents about 80% of the total assumed monthly revenues.

Israeli sources justified this massive deduction by stating that it would go to cover outstanding debts to electricity and water companies and environmental bodies affiliated with the occupation. The measures did not stop at the deduction only, but also included freezing the remaining balance of funds and preventing its access to the Palestinian government's accounts in Ramallah.

These decisions fall within a systematic policy pursued by Smotrich since he took office, aimed at financially restricting the Palestinian Authority in response to its diplomatic moves. This policy specifically targets punishing the Palestinian side for its recourse to the International Criminal Court and UN institutions to prosecute the occupation.

For his part, Palestinian Prime Minister Mohammed Mustafa stated that what Israel is doing represents a comprehensive siege that does not stop at the borders of the Gaza Strip, but extends to suffocate the West Bank and Jerusalem. Mustafa considered that the use of financial tools as a political pressure tool is part of the colonial schemes aimed at undermining the Palestinian entity.

The Palestinian official explained that the pace of Israeli deductions has escalated unprecedentedly during the past year, as Tel Aviv refrained from regularly transferring tax revenues. He described these measures as 'another face of the occupation,' stressing that the government is seeking through international channels to pressure for the release of these financial rights.

Official reports indicate that the total Palestinian funds held by Israel have reached record levels, with previous government sources estimating the amount at about 4.4 billion dollars. This continuous detention has led to the Authority's inability to fully pay public sector employees' salaries for long periods, and increased the indebtedness of local banks.

In light of this escalation, the Palestinian economy faces existential challenges with the accumulation of debts to the private sector and the decline in citizens' purchasing power. The Palestinian government continues its attempts to provide the minimum basic needs, amid warnings of an imminent collapse of the service system if the Israeli piracy of funds continues.

These deductions have escalated in recent months, representing another occupation aimed at subjugating our people by economically suffocating the West Bank.

Russian President Vladimir Putin, during his reception of Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi in St. Petersburg, affirmed that Moscow is committed to doing everything necessary to serve Iran's interests and the stability of the region's countries. Putin praised what he described as the steadfastness of the Iranian people in their struggle for national sovereignty, expressing his hope that Tehran would overcome this sensitive phase to achieve comprehensive and lasting peace.

The Russian President revealed that he had received a special message from Iran's Supreme Leader, Mojtaba Khamenei, last week, emphasizing that Russia would leverage its diplomatic weight to end tensions in the Middle East. Putin also reiterated his country's determination to strengthen its strategic partnership with the Islamic Republic, considering coordination between the two countries a fundamental pillar of regional security in the current circumstances.

For his part, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi expressed his country's appreciation for Russia's continuous support, describing relations between Tehran and Moscow as a strategic partnership moving towards further deepening. Araqchi explained that the Iranian people have proven their ability to confront American pressures and aggressions, affirming that his country possesses sufficient will to overcome current hardships and preserve its sovereign gains.

In a notable development, media sources quoted Araqchi as confirming that Iran had received an offer from the United States for bilateral talks, indicating that the relevant authorities in Tehran are currently studying this proposal. This announcement comes at a time when the region is witnessing intensive diplomatic movements aimed at de-escalation and avoiding a widespread military confrontation.

Informed sources in the Russian capital reported that Putin's statements carry clear messages of support for Iran's right to self-defense, despite ruling out direct military intervention at present. The sources indicated that Moscow seeks to convey a message to the international community and Washington that current peace paths have reached a dead end, requiring the adoption of new and different approaches.

Araqchi had arrived in Russia as part of an extensive diplomatic tour that included Pakistan and Oman, with the aim of reviewing field and political developments and increasing the level of coordination with allies. These Iranian moves aim to mobilize international support for its position in the face of increasing security challenges, and to ensure political cover from major powers such as Russia.

In a related context, the Kremlin spokesman announced Russia's full readiness to play a mediating role in settling disputes related to Iran, stressing that the Russian goal is to establish guaranteed and sustainable peace. This Russian desire comes amid growing fears of the region sliding into a comprehensive conflict that could affect energy supplies and global security in general.

Political readings of the St. Petersburg meeting indicate that the alliance between Moscow and Tehran has become more cohesive in the face of Western policies, as both sides seek to exchange support on thorny issues. While Tehran is studying the American offer for negotiations, Russian guarantees remain an influential factor in determining the form of Iran's upcoming response and the foreign policy directions of the Islamic Republic.

The Iranian people are fighting bravely and heroically for their sovereignty, and Russia will do everything in its power to bring peace to the Middle East as soon as possible.

Washington – Said Arikat – 27/4/2026

In a striking development with serious political and legal implications, the US State Department, in an official statement issued last week, admitted that the United States is engaged in its military conflict with Iran "at the request" of Israel, a rare admission that directly reveals the extent of the Israeli role in pushing Washington towards the confrontation, which the administration has named "Operation Epic Wrath."

The statement was issued by the State Department's legal adviser, Reed D. Rubenstein, in an attempt to provide legal cover for the ongoing war. The American official said that the United States "is engaged in this conflict at the request of its Israeli ally and within the framework of collective defense, in addition to exercising its inherent right to self-defense."

This statement, despite its legal phrasing, seemed closer to a political acknowledgment that the decision to go to war was not stemming from a direct threat to American national security, but rather a response to considerations related to Israel's security and its regional calculations. This brings back to the forefront an old question in Washington: To what extent does Israel shape the priorities of the world's first superpower?

The use of the term "collective defense" indicates an attempt to rely on Article 51 of the United Nations Charter, which stipulates the right of states to individual or collective self-defense if subjected to armed attack. However, this justification faces fundamental flaws, as there is no binding mutual defense treaty between the United States and Israel, unlike Washington's agreements with NATO countries.

More complicated is that many observers point out that the United States and Israel initiated the attack on Iran, which weakens the logic of "self-defense." US Secretary of State Marco Rubio had previously stated that Washington acted because Israel was preparing to strike Iran, and that a potential Iranian response might include American bases in the region.

Thus, the administration's logic is based on a preemptive premise: attacking Iran because Iran might later respond to an Israeli attack. This is a logic that international legal experts see as a loose expansion of the concept of legitimate defense, allowing for preventive wars under open pretexts.

Rubenstein also reiterated the White House's traditional argument that the United States has been in a continuous conflict with Iran for decades, based on attacks carried out by Tehran-allied groups against American forces in the Middle East. However, this narrative ignores a long history of mutual confrontation, including Washington's support for Iraq under Saddam Hussein during the Iran-Iraq War in the 1980s, as well as continuous sanctions, covert operations, and economic pressures.

Domestically in the US, this admission may raise new questions within Congress regarding war powers and the legality of the administration's involvement in a broad conflict without clear legislative authorization. It also provides the administration's opponents with valuable political material to argue that American soldiers are being dragged into conflicts that serve the interests of another country before American national interest.

Regionally, the message received by Arab and Islamic capitals is that Washington is no longer an arbiter or a potential mediator, but a direct partner in a security project led by Israel. This understanding weakens what remains of the United States' image as a balancing power and strengthens trends towards seeking alternative alliances.

The statement reveals that the US-Israeli relationship has long since transcended the boundaries of a traditional alliance to the level of direct influence on decisions of war and peace. When Washington declares that it is fighting at Israel's request, it implicitly acknowledges that the ally's calculations have become part of the American decision-making mechanism. This shift not only weakens the independence of foreign policy but also sows doubts among other allies who may ask: Are American interests weighed by a national standard or solely by Israel's security and political priorities?

Reliance on the concept of "collective defense" in this case opens a wide door for reinterpreting international law according to power balances. If it becomes possible to wage war because an ally feels threatened or plans an attack, the lines between deterrence and aggression quickly blur. This approach may later be used by other powers to justify similar interventions, which means weakening the United Nations system itself, and transforming international legitimacy into a selective tool that major powers use when they wish and ignore when they want.

The essence of the danger is that the United States, when waging war in response to Israeli demands, shows a willingness to engage in a broad regional confrontation that extends beyond the direct conflict with Iran to the ignition of multiple arenas in the Middle East. Such a path not only threatens regional security but also exposes the global economy to severe disruptions in energy markets, trade, and supply chains, exacerbating existing crises. And when this happens to serve Israel's priorities, the cost of the decision transcends politics to affect global stability as a whole.

The announcement by former occupation government head, Naftali Bennett, of the launch of his new political party has sparked a wave of questions within Israeli political circles. This move comes as part of Bennett's efforts to return to the political scene and lead a front primarily aimed at ousting Benjamin Netanyahu from power.

Observers believe that Bennett's recent moves may serve his personal ambitions in confronting his rivals within the opposition camp, specifically Gadi Eisenkot. However, there are fears that this strategy could weaken the overall opposition's ability to attract new voting blocs from outside its traditional bases.

In recent statements, Bennett emphasized his right-wing identity, considering that the coalition led by Netanyahu with Deri and Smotrich does not represent the true right. Bennett claims to lead what he described as the 'Zionist Right,' asserting that Netanyahu's defeat can only be achieved through a strong right-wing alternative.

Bennett's political thesis is based on the necessity of giving the center-left priority in overthrowing the ruling bloc, believing that change requires different thinking from prevailing patterns. However, this vision clashes with the reality of his close alliance with Yair Lapid, leader of the 'Yesh Atid' party, which raises suspicion among right-wing voters.

Reports indicate that the alliance between Bennett and Lapid could lead to counterproductive results, as some fear the alienation of moderate liberal right-wing voters. Right-wing supporters raise serious questions about the ability of this joint party to convince them to vote for it given the existing ideological contradictions.

Strategically, the opposition was supposed to work in parallel tracks to attract those dissatisfied with the current government. The perception leaned towards an alliance between Bennett and Liberman to attract the right, while Lapid and Eisenkot would strengthen the center base, and Yair Golan would gather left-wing votes.

However, Bennett's recent move may give him immediate gains by acquiring the 'Yesh Atid' voter base and its massive financial resources. Lapid's party currently holds 24 seats in the Knesset, representing a political weight that Bennett seeks to leverage in his favor in the upcoming election battle.

In contrast, Yair Lapid finds himself in a position where he needs to maintain his political entity amidst declining popularity in recent polls. This new alliance opens offensive fronts for Netanyahu, who will strive to portray Bennett as a tool in the hands of the left to alienate right-wing voters from him.

Concerns arise among some voters about the ambiguity of Bennett's future positions, with some wondering if he will rejoin Netanyahu after the elections. These doubts are reinforced by conflicting statements about Bennett's ability to withstand the temptations of returning to a traditional right-wing coalition under political pressure.

Bennett claims that the majority of the Israeli public has aligned with right-wing positions, especially in security and political aspects during the war. However, he faces criticism for not providing clear answers on issues of Jewish identity, economy, and judiciary, which are matters that concern the contemporary right-wing voter.

The real test of Bennett's credibility remains his relationship with his former partner, Ayelet Shaked, who has begun to distance herself from his new political path. Center-left voters view Shaked with great suspicion, while right-wingers see her as a figure who has lost her ability to influence after the 'government of change' experience.

In the last elections, Shaked garnered over 56,000 votes, a voting bloc that Bennett fears losing entirely. These voters represent a segment that refused to vote for Netanyahu and Smotrich but still cling to their right-wing roots, which may not find a place in the Bennett-Lapid alliance.

Analysts believe that the absence of genuine representation for figures like Shaked within the new party may close the door to the return of 'soft' right-wing voters. While Lapid enters the alliance through the front door, traditional right-wing leaders find themselves marginalized or outside Bennett's electoral calculations.

Political readings concluded that Bennett's failure to attract the minimum of Shaked's former base will inevitably mean his failure to represent the right. Despite his supporters' claims of having a solid base of former coalition voters, field movements indicate the difficulty of penetrating Netanyahu's camp at present.

Only the right can defeat Netanyahu, and the current coalition does not represent the true Zionist Right.

Questions are escalating about Israeli credibility in light of the rapid field developments in southern Lebanon, where Tel Aviv promotes itself as a guarantor of stability and prosperity for Middle Eastern societies. However, documented reports and images from the field reveal the falsity of these claims, with severe damage recorded to Christian and Islamic religious and historical sites alike.

In the town of Shamaa, in the Tyre district, occupation army bulldozers demolished the historic 'Shimon HaTzadik' shrine on April 13. The occupation did not stop at the bulldozing operation but followed it with a subsequent airstrike that completely destroyed the site, despite its great historical symbolism for the Christian presence in the southern region.

Geographic investigations and satellite image matching conducted by media sources confirmed that the targeted shrine had undergone previous restoration operations after being partially damaged in earlier confrontations. This systematic targeting indicates a desire to obliterate the cultural and religious landmarks that characterize the social fabric in the Lebanese border villages.

In another incident that sparked widespread anger, activists and journalists circulated a photo documenting an Israeli soldier using an axe to smash a statue of Christ in one of the southern towns. This photo, published on April 19, reflects hostile behavior that goes beyond the declared military objectives of Israeli ground operations.

Visual analyses and spatial comparisons indicated that the incident of smashing the statue occurred inside a house in the Christian town of Debel, located about four kilometers from the border. Israeli forces have been present in this geographical area since early March, placing direct responsibility on the field military leadership.

International circles reacted to these violations, forcing the Israeli army to open a superficial internal investigation that ended with lenient disciplinary measures. Only two soldiers were suspended from work for one month without being discharged, which observers considered an attempt to absorb anger without real accountability for desecrating religious symbols.

Within the context of Israeli justifications, the occupation army claimed in late March that Hezbollah elements were using a church in the town of Khiam for military purposes. The occupation published a video claiming to document armed activities inside the church, in an attempt to legitimize targeting civilian and religious objects in the area.

However, scrutiny of the landmarks visible in the video and comparing them with the reality on the ground showed that the location is the Mar Elias Church in Khiam. The occupation authorities have repeated these accusations since the end of last year, having previously claimed the existence of tunnels and weapons in the vicinity of the church without providing conclusive and independent evidence to prove the validity of these claims.

These practices put Israel in direct confrontation with international humanitarian law, which emphasizes the need to protect civilian objects of a religious and cultural nature. Articles 52 and 53 of Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions prohibit attacking places of worship or using them in the war effort, considering them a red line that must not be crossed.

Furthermore, the 1954 Hague Convention obliges conflicting parties to protect cultural property, while the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court goes even further. The Statute classifies intentionally directing attacks against buildings dedicated to religious purposes as a war crime, unless those buildings have been converted into actual and proven military objectives.

International humanitarian law stipulates the protection of civilian objects of a religious and cultural nature, and prohibits targeting or damaging them unless they are used for legitimate military purposes.

Recent statements by US President Donald Trump regarding the seizure of Iranian oil have sparked a wave of controversy, as he considered that these resources should generate huge sums of money for the American treasury. Trump threatened to destroy oil infrastructure if it could not be controlled, mimicking the scenario of pressure exerted on Venezuela. Tehran responded firmly, asserting that the Iranian people would stand against any attempts to plunder their national wealth.\n\nObservers believe that Trump's rhetoric is not a new invention, but rather a crude expression of a deeply rooted American policy that refuses to grant economic sovereignty to countries liberated from colonialism. Since the end of World War II, Washington and its European allies have sought to maintain colonial economic structures despite granting formal political independence. This was recognized early on by national liberation leaders such as Ghana's Kwame Nkrumah, who warned of the absence of true independence.\n\nThe Bandung Conference in 1955 represented the first major collective challenge from Asian and African countries against Western hegemony and the insistence on economic plunder. These countries demanded the inclusion of the right to economic self-determination in UN charters, which the United States fiercely opposed. Arab delegations from Syria, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia played a pivotal role in pushing for the entrenchment of this right as an integral part of human rights.\n\nHistorically, Washington has not hesitated to sponsor military coups to overthrow leaders who asserted sovereignty over their natural resources. Among the most prominent of these operations were the overthrow of Mohammad Mosaddegh in Iran in 1953 after he nationalized oil, and Jacobo Árbenz in Guatemala in 1954. Imperialist powers also targeted Gamal Abdel Nasser in Egypt after the nationalization of the Suez Canal through the Tripartite Aggression in 1956.\n\nIn Latin America, the coup against Salvador Allende in Chile in 1973 was a stark example of American intervention to protect commercial interests. Henry Kissinger justified this intervention with his famous statement in which he refused to let Washington stand idly by in the face of what he described as "reckless" choices by the people. These incidents reveal that the conflict has always revolved around who has the right to dispose of national wealth.\n\nBy 1962, Third World countries succeeded in extracting UN Resolution 1803, which affirms permanent sovereignty over natural resources. However, the United States continued to use its financial and military tools to undermine this principle on the ground. International institutions such as the IMF and the World Bank continued to act as tools to impose neoliberal policies that serve global capital.\n\nZimbabwe's experience is a unique model in confronting settler colonialism, where Robert Mugabe sought to reclaim lands seized by white settlers. His country faced harsh Western sanctions and media demonization campaigns as soon as the privileges of the white minority were touched. Despite the pressures, 80% of agricultural land was redistributed, leading to a rapid deterioration of relations with the United Kingdom.\n\nIn South Africa, the price of ending political apartheid was the retention of "economic apartheid." Imperialist powers ensured that the wealth of whites was not nationalized and redistributed to its rightful African owners. Thus, the African National Congress adopted neoliberal policies that preserved the interests of large corporations and international capital.\n\nComparing the Iranian and Venezuelan cases indicates a disparity in the ability to resist, as Tehran possesses military capabilities and a more cohesive systemic structure. While Washington succeeded in undermining the legitimacy of the Venezuelan government by supporting a loyal opposition, its similar attempts in Iran failed. Iran's military power plays a decisive role in deterring direct American and Israeli ambitions.\n\nAmerican policy towards Venezuela and Iran today reflects a historical continuity that is not linked to the identity of the president in the White House. Whether the administration is Democratic or Republican, protecting the interests of large corporations and controlling energy sources remains a top priority. What Trump is doing is merely removing the diplomatic mask from old and ongoing imperialist practices.\n\nWashington has used the "right of conquest" and international agreements to legitimize the plunder of peoples' resources from the 19th century to the present day. In many cases, international "aid" was linked to the extent to which developing countries committed to opening their markets and resources to foreign investments. Any attempt to deviate from this path was met with coups or suffocating economic sanctions.\n\nHistorical facts confirm that the "New International Economic Order" demanded by developing countries in the 1970s remained mere ink on paper. Western powers succeeded in thwarting proposals to promote economic equality and address historical injustices. Instead, the globalization system was strengthened, perpetuating the South's dependence on financial policies set by Washington and Brussels.\n\nIn conclusion, it appears that the plunder of Third World resources is the fundamental pillar upon which the contemporary American imperial system rests. Trump's "crude" statements are merely an echo of the policies of Kissinger and other architects of American hegemony over the past decades. The struggle for economic sovereignty remains the true essence of all political and military conflicts witnessed in the region and the world.\n\nThe US plunder of Third World resources is not a new development, but a continuation of imperialist policies since World War II.

The Palestinian bloodshed in the Gaza Strip has not ceased, despite more than half a year passing since the announcement of the supposed ceasefire. Field data confirms that the Israeli army continues to target the Strip with almost daily airstrikes and artillery shelling, coinciding with a continuous expansion of closed military zones.

Data from the Ministry of Health in the Strip indicates that 811 people have been killed and approximately 2278 others injured since the agreement came into effect on October 10, 2025. This reality proves that the war has not ended, but rather transformed into a new pattern aimed at exhausting the population and destroying the foundations of life.

On the humanitarian front, the occupation authorities are practicing what local officials describe as 'hunger engineering' by fully controlling the movement of goods. Israel deliberately reduces the number of trucks allowed to enter to less than half the number stipulated in the humanitarian protocols attached to the agreement.

Hassan Abu Riyala, Undersecretary of the Ministry of Economy in Gaza, stated that the occupation is entrenching a monopoly policy by restricting supplies to a limited number of traders. This measure has led to exorbitant price increases and a severe shortage of basic commodity stocks, threatening the collapse of food security for the residents.

In the context of undermining internal stability, the Israeli army has intensified its direct targeting of Palestinian police officers tasked with protecting convoys and securing the internal front. The occupation recently admitted to assassinating six police officers under flimsy security pretexts without providing any evidence to support its claims.

Political analysts believe that targeting police personnel falls within an Israeli strategy aimed at pushing the Strip towards comprehensive chaos. Through these strikes, Israel seeks to make the living environment unsustainable, thereby pressuring the population towards forced displacement options.

Geographically, the occupation is accelerating the pace of land encroachment through what is known as the 'Yellow Line,' a military belt extending up to seven kilometers deep. Recent movements have led to an additional 37 kilometers being encroached upon, bringing 60% of Gaza's area under direct military control.

This geographical expansion has transformed the Strip into isolated enclaves, where the army has erected yellow concrete blocks to define its permanent deployment areas. Despite the agreement stipulating a full withdrawal in the second phase, field indicators confirm the occupation's intention to remain permanently east of this line.

Politically, the 'National Committee for Gaza Management' faces complete paralysis due to Israel's categorical refusal to allow its members into the Strip. This committee, composed of 12 technocrat members, was formed under an international vision for reconstruction, but it has remained isolated in Cairo.

Experts in Israeli affairs confirm that preventing the committee's entry aims to prevent the return of any form of Palestinian civil or political administration. Tel Aviv wishes to maintain a status quo characterized by direct military occupation without bearing any responsibilities towards civilians.

In a remarkable field development, the role of armed militias cooperating with the occupation and active in areas adjacent to the Yellow Line has emerged. These groups use five focal points as their headquarters under the protection of the Israeli army, where they are used to carry out assassinations and gather intelligence.

These groups are considered part of the indirect control pattern that the occupation is testing to manage the security domain remotely. This method aims to create a state of psychological and social instability among citizens, while providing fire cover for collaborators when needed.

On the other hand, Israel continues to procrastinate in implementing the requirements of the second phase of the agreement, linking them to the condition of 'disarming the resistance.' Researchers believe that this condition is unrealistic and is used as a pretext to evade commitments related to opening crossings and comprehensive reconstruction.

In contrast, Palestinian forces adhere to their position rejecting disarmament in light of the continued occupation and military incursions. It appears that Gaza has entered a phase of 'sustainable conflict' where livelihoods and medical needs are used as political pressure tools amidst a fragile truce that is violated daily.

Israel uses the siege as a tool to torture the residents of Gaza, and completely controls the details of life to create a distorted economic reality.

The Israeli political arena witnessed a dramatic shift with the announcement by former prime ministers, Naftali Bennett and Yair Lapid, of the launch of a new electoral alliance under the name 'Together We Win'. This move comes at a sensitive time, aiming to reorder the opposition's cards and form a united front capable of ending Benjamin Netanyahu's dominance in power.

Observers described this alliance as a 'political marriage' necessitated by circumstances, as both parties seek to bridge gaps in their popularity and confront the continuous rise of other competitors within the same camp. Through this step, Bennett aims to present himself as a right-wing leader acceptable to the center and left, thereby facilitating the attraction of undecided voters.

In his first statements following the alliance, Naftali Bennett affirmed his commitment to his right-wing identity and his rejection of relying on Arab parties to form any future government. He also stressed that his top priority would be holding those responsible for security failures accountable, pledging to form an official investigation committee into the events of October 7 immediately upon taking office.

For his part, Yair Lapid considered standing with Bennett a necessary step to rectify what he described as the deviation in the path of the Hebrew state. Lapid indicated in closed-door discussions that toppling Netanyahu requires presenting a figure with a right-wing background, which explains his concession of leadership of the list to his former partner in the 'government of change'.

Despite the momentum generated by the announcement, initial opinion polls conducted by media sources showed that the new alliance might lose four seats compared to the strength of the two parties individually. The biggest beneficiary of this decline appears to be General Gadi Eisenkot, whom a segment of voters sees as a more stable alternative with a clearer political vision.

Analyses suggest that one of the unannounced goals of the alliance is to exert intense pressure on Eisenkot to force him to join the list and accept Bennett's leadership. However, Eisenkot remains silent about his final position, content with blessing the move without making any commitments to join this new bloc.

Bennett and Lapid also seek to dispel the fears of anti-Netanyahu voters who dread a repeat of the 'Gantz scenario', where some fear Bennett's return to an alliance with the Likud after the elections. Lapid's presence in the alliance, with his firm rejection of sitting with Netanyahu, serves as a safety valve for this concerned segment of the public.

On the ruling right-wing camp, this alliance raises questions about the reaction of the far-right parties led by Ben Gvir and Smotrich. It is probable that this rapprochement in the opposition will push the current coalition parties to strengthen their technical unity to prevent wasted votes and ensure their continued hold on power.

Within the Palestinian interior, the alliance sparked mixed reactions among political leaders in the 48 territories, with MP Ahmad Tibi considering the move expected. Tibi affirmed that this development necessitates accelerating the rebuilding of the Joint List to ensure strong and influential Arab representation in the next Knesset.

In turn, Sami Abu Shehadeh launched a scathing attack on Bennett's discourse, describing it as extremist and dangerous towards the Arab community and its rights. Abu Shehadeh believed that betting on change from within the Zionist camp is a losing bet, emphasizing that Arab unity is the only way to reclaim rights and confront marginalization policies.

Experts believe that the success of this alliance depends on its ability to present a convincing 'shadow government' to the Israeli public, which is looking for charisma and experience. Netanyahu, despite all crises, still maintains the image of a 'magician' and an experienced leader in the eyes of a wide segment of Israelis, which makes the task difficult for the duo Bennett and Lapid.

The results of the ongoing war on the Gaza and Lebanon fronts play a crucial role in determining the fate of these alliances and Netanyahu's political future. If the military bleeding continues without achieving clear objectives, popular pressure could topple the current government before the scheduled elections, giving the opposition a golden opportunity.

Questions also arise about Netanyahu's health and its impact on the scene, with some believing that the recent revelation of his illness may pave the way for a tactical withdrawal. Should Netanyahu decide to resign, the political map would witness an earthquake that could reshuffle the cards away from the current 'Bennett-Lapid' alliance calculations.

Ultimately, the 'Together We Win' alliance will remain under scrutiny in the coming months, awaiting the outcome of field and political developments. This bloc will have to prove its ability to overcome the ideological contradictions between liberal secularism and religious Zionist right-wing to convince voters of its leadership capabilities.

On my first day as prime minister, we will form an official investigation committee into the events of October 7.

Recent human rights estimates and official statistics have revealed a tragic escalation in the human cost of the war waged by the United States and Israel on Iran, with the number of civilian casualties exceeding two thousand. International reports confirmed that this confrontation has resulted in one of the bloodiest disasters in the Middle East in recent years, with losses concentrated among the most vulnerable groups.

According to collected data, the majority of victims were not military personnel, but included children, women, paramedics, journalists, and civilian workers. These military operations began with a surprise attack on February 28, leading to significant confusion in counting and documentation due to continuous shelling and inaccessibility to some areas.

Figures released by health ministries and independent human rights organizations indicate that at least 2,100 civilians were killed directly as a result of the airstrikes. Sources explain that this number is likely to rise significantly as operations continue to retrieve victims from under the rubble of civilian buildings and service facilities targeted in several countries.

Inside Iran, human rights sources documented the killing of 1,701 civilians, representing a large portion of the total death toll, which has exceeded 3,400 people since the outbreak of the war. Local officials explained that about 45% of the total victims are ordinary civilians who were not involved in any military activity, reflecting the violence of the airstrikes.

In Lebanon, the Ministry of Health announced a heavy toll of 2,496 deaths due to continuous Israeli airstrikes since early March. The ministry indicated that approximately a quarter of these victims are women, children, and medical staff, highlighting the indiscriminate targeting of military objectives and densely populated civilian facilities.

The distribution of female victims included 503 deaths, among them 251 in Iran and 248 in Lebanon, in addition to four women in the occupied West Bank who died from missile shrapnel. These figures reflect the widening scope of the conflict to include a broad geographical area beyond the borders of countries directly involved in the armed conflict.

The childhood sector was the most affected, with 413 children killed in this war, 248 in Iran and 165 in Lebanon. Incidents of targeting schools and educational areas were repeated, leading to horrific massacres against students who were in their classrooms or engaged in sports activities in civilian facilities.

Journalistic and humanitarian work was not spared from targeting, as at least nine journalists were killed in raids targeting southern Lebanon and its major cities. Medical sources also recorded the killing of 91 workers from ambulance teams and the health sector, at a time when hospitals are suffering from complete exhaustion and a severe shortage of essential medical supplies.

On the other hand, Iranian missiles and drones caused civilian deaths in Israel and Gulf countries, with Israel recording 23 deaths. In the UAE, at least 10 people were killed, including migrant workers, in addition to reports of deaths and injuries in Saudi Arabia, Oman, and Bahrain due to missile interceptions.

Among the painful human stories, the incident of the killing of Lebanese paramedic Hassan Badawi stood out while he was performing his duty transporting an injured person in the town of Beit Yahoun. Badawi, a father of two, was one of dozens of paramedics who paid with their lives for their commitment to humanitarian work under intense shelling that did not differentiate between an ambulance and a military vehicle.

In Iran, the story of the child Raha Zirayi shook public opinion after she was killed in a raid targeting her elementary school in Hormozgan province. The raid, which resulted in the killing of 165 people, mostly children, occurred very shortly after the decision to close schools was issued, preventing parents from rescuing their children from under the rubble.

Migrant workers in the Gulf region also faced increased risks, as many were forced to continue working to earn a living despite security threats. Among them was Bangladeshi worker Saleh Ahmed, who was killed in Ajman by missile shrapnel while delivering water, leaving behind a family he had supported for a quarter of a century.

In the Lebanese city of Tyre, veteran journalist Ghada Al-Dayekh was killed under the rubble of her home after a distinguished career in radio work. Raids also targeted Al-Akhbar newspaper correspondent Amal Khalil and three other journalists near the town of Jezzine, despite clear signs indicating their journalistic identity and their vehicles designated for media work.

Field reports conclude by emphasizing that the effects of this war will not end with a ceasefire but will remain etched in the memory of the people through the stories of the victims. The transformation of civilians into fuel for this regional confrontation places the international community before its legal and moral responsibilities to protect civilian facilities, medical teams, and media personnel.

Civilians, including children, women, and paramedics, found themselves in the heart of a war that crossed borders to strike the stability of the entire region.

Leaked testimonies from soldiers in the Israeli occupation army have revealed horrific details concerning the commission of massacres and atrocities against Palestinian civilians during the ongoing genocide in the Gaza Strip. Press sources reported that these confessions included brutal practices such as premeditated killing and systematic looting, leading to psychological breakdowns and self-alienation among the forces participating in military operations.

Haaretz, the Hebrew newspaper, confirmed that a number of soldiers now feel shame and disgust at the actions they committed or witnessed in the field, which has led some of them to leave the country permanently or resign from military service. Reports clarified that these deep violations have left unhealing psychological scars, as these individuals suffer from a severe moral dilemma as a result of their participation in targeting innocent people and destroying infrastructure.

Mental health experts described this situation as a 'moral injury' that has begun to appear on a much wider scale than was recorded in previous wars, warning that it could turn into a real 'tsunami' threatening the military establishment. However, military censorship and Hebrew media continue to avoid publicly addressing this issue, fearing the collapse of the mental image promoted by the occupation for its army before the international community.

Sources quoted a reserve mental health officer questioning how these confessions could be reconciled with official claims that the army is 'the most moral in the world.' The officer indicated that acknowledging the extent of the crimes committed would necessarily lead to the collapse of the official narrative, which prompts the military leadership to deal with these crises in secret, away from the awareness of the Israeli public.

Testimonies included harsh incidents such as direct firing on unarmed civilians, humiliating mistreatment of Palestinian detainees, and widespread looting of citizens' property within the Strip. Reports confirmed that some soldiers involved in these massacres have already been admitted to psychiatric wards after their mental condition deteriorated, as they live in a conflict between their need for help and their fear of being branded as traitors.

Hebrew reports warned that ignoring these psychological crises could lead to a sharp increase in suicide rates among discharged soldiers, demanding that the Ministry of Defense and the army take responsibility for those they sent to the battlefields. The newspaper stressed the need to look directly at the true meanings of war and the failures and crimes it entails, which come at a high cost in lives and souls, holding the political leadership fully responsible for these orders.

In a related context, the occupation army continues its daily violations despite talks of ceasefire agreements, as it works to expand buffer zones and launch raids targeting areas it claims are safe. Military operations continue to destroy all vital sectors in Gaza, deepening the humanitarian crisis and confirming the occupation's insistence on completing plans for displacement and comprehensive destruction.

According to the latest statistics from the Ministry of Health, the number of Palestinian martyrs has risen to more than 72,587, while the number of injured has exceeded 172,587 since the start of the aggression. Data indicates that thousands of missing persons are still under the rubble, while the occupation continues to violate field understandings, leading to the fall of hundreds of additional martyrs even after the announced dates for calm.

If we publicly admit that a large number of soldiers suffer from moral injuries, how will that align with the image of an army that claims to be the most moral in the world?

From the very first moment of his inauguration on January 20, 2025, US President Donald Trump revealed the features of a new political era based on reshaping the landscape in Washington. Trump did not content himself with merely arranging the White House; instead, he moved towards building a network of influence that relies entirely on personal loyalty and proximity to the family circle, thereby bypassing the traditional decision-making centers he had often clashed with during his first term.

Trump's second administration is characterized by a notable presence of billionaires, media stars, and figures whose political rise is owed to their direct relationship with the President. This shift reflects Trump's desire to circumvent what he calls the 'deep state' and obstructive bureaucracy, by surrounding himself with individuals he trusts to implement his 'America First' vision without hesitation or complex institutional review.

Trump's family is no longer just moral support; it has become an integral part of the structure of influence and decision-making in Washington. Although some of them do not hold official positions, their influence passes through direct proximity to the President and the ability to manage sensitive files from behind the scenes, which sometimes gives them power exceeding the authority of official ministers.

Jared Kushner, the President's son-in-law, stands out as one of the most influential figures in Middle East affairs despite his absence from the official government structure. Informed sources confirm that Kushner acts as a back-channel communicator and undeclared advisor, leveraging his previous experience in leading the 'Abraham Accords' path to arrange strategic contacts with regional leaders.

In a move that drew widespread criticism, Trump appointed Charles Kushner, Jared's father, as the US Ambassador to France. This appointment comes despite Charles's controversial legal record, reinforcing the impression that family loyalty has become a criterion that supersedes traditional diplomatic considerations in the distribution of high-ranking positions.

Massad Boulos, the Lebanese-American businessman, entered the spotlight with his appointment as a senior advisor for Arab and Middle Eastern affairs. Boulos, who is related by marriage to the Trump family, has become the main link with political and financial elites in the Middle East and North Africa, building on his previous activity during the election campaign.

On the economic front, Trump granted businessmen central executive positions, transforming the 'private sector mindset' into a governmental approach. Howard Lutnick, former CEO of 'Cantor Fitzgerald,' took over the Ministry of Commerce to lead strict tariff policies, especially in the open trade confrontation with China.

At the Treasury Department, Trump enlisted Scott Bessent, founder of 'Key Square Group,' to be the link between the administration and financial markets. These appointments aim to reshape the relationship between the state and the business sector, with a focus on tax policies that serve Trump's protectionist economic vision.

The inclusion of Elon Musk in the administration, through the 'Government Efficiency Management' project, marked the peak of the intertwining of money and power. Although Musk's experience ended with his departure from the position months later due to sharp disagreements, it left a deep impact on how Trump attempted to dismantle the federal administrative apparatus and reduce expenses using confrontational methods.

Conservative media was not absent from the appointments scene, as Trump chose Pete Hegseth, a former Fox News anchor, to take over the Ministry of Defense portfolio. This choice sparked considerable controversy in military circles due to Hegseth's limited administrative experience, but Trump defended him as a voice representing the conservative popular base.

In a related context, Karoline Leavitt emerged as the youngest White House Press Secretary in history, representing the new media face of the administration. Leavitt's mission is not limited to conveying news; she works within a communication apparatus that seeks to bypass traditional media and focus on alternative platforms and influencers close to the President's views.

Supporters of this approach believe that Trump is carrying out a necessary 'revolution' to cleanse Washington of the stagnation and bureaucracy that hinder change. For them, relying on trusted individuals is the only way to ensure the implementation of the electoral program that millions voted for, away from the 'conspiracies' of permanent state employees.

Conversely, critics warn that prioritizing loyalty over expertise weakens American institutions and transforms the state into a private 'fiefdom.' The intertwining of financial and family interests with political decisions raises fundamental questions about transparency and accountability, making it difficult to separate the public interest from the interests of the narrow circle surrounding the President.

Trump's second administration represents an unprecedented test for the American political system and its balance of power. Between the speed of decision-making and the constant clash with existing structures, Washington today seems governed by the rhythm of one man, relying on a closed circle of allies to manage the affairs of the world's superpower.

Trump returned to the White House even more inclined to surround himself with people he considers loyal to his vision and capable of moving institutions in the direction he desires.

The results of the operational investigations conducted by the occupation army revealed new details about the military failure to confront the Palestinian resistance attack on Kibbutz 'Holit' on October 7, 2023. The investigations acknowledged that the field forces completely failed to protect the settlers, leading to the death of 13 people, including soldiers and settlers, and the capture of 6 others as prisoners to the Gaza Strip.

The report, based on field testimonies and video clips, confirmed that about 60 Palestinian resistance fighters managed to storm the kibbutz at exactly 6:59 AM after blowing up the eastern security fence. Despite the initial movements being detected, the military response was completely absent, leaving the kibbutz residents to face the attack alone for long hours without any external intervention.

Official documents revealed an incident described as 'fleeing the field,' where patrol vehicles arrived in the vicinity of the kibbutz at 7:18 AM but left the area after only two minutes. The soldiers justified their withdrawal by receiving reports of their commander being injured at another location, leaving the area completely clear for Hamas fighters to move freely between houses.

The investigation, led by Colonel Elon Peretz, indicated that the occupation army was never prepared for a large-scale attack launched by thousands of resistance fighters on dozens of locations simultaneously. This confusion led to a paralysis in the command and control system, as units that arrived later failed to coordinate their efforts or prevent the resistance fighters from advancing within the settlement.

In controversial details, the investigation stated that the first organized ground forces did not arrive in 'Holit' until 1:53 PM, more than seven and a half hours after the start of the incursion. This significant time delay gave the resistance fighters complete control over the area, enabling them to carry out their tasks and engage with advancing forces from a comfortable position.

The failure was not limited to ground forces but extended to the air force, as an attack helicopter arrived late and hovered for half an hour without success. The report clarified that the helicopter crew fired random shells in an attempt to reveal the locations of the resistance fighters, but failed to identify any target or provide actual assistance to the besieged forces on the ground.

The investigation claimed that some forces that tried to enter early faced simple technical obstacles that prevented their intervention, such as the main gate of the kibbutz not opening. An armored vehicle on its way to the location also broke down, reflecting a state of technical and operational laxity that affected the units deployed in the Gaza envelope during the first hours of the battle.

The findings emphasized that Palestinian resistance fighters showed a high ability to maneuver and hide, as intermittent clashes continued inside and around the kibbutz for up to 30 hours. Even after reinforcements from the 'Golani' Brigade and other units arrived, the resistance fighters continued to pose a direct threat, leading to the injury of several Israeli soldiers with varying degrees of severity.

Informed sources explained that the publication of these results was delayed for about six months due to the need to complete investigations at 40 other engagement points that occurred on that day. The purpose of this delay was to try to formulate operational conclusions that the army could use to rebuild its collapsed defensive system in the southern region.

The investigations included an explicit admission that the 'kibbutz security coordinator' and members of the 'civil defense squad' were killed while trying to fill the void left by the army. The results confirmed that the lack of coordination reached the extent of 'Golani' Brigade forces entering the area without informing other units, which almost led to friendly fire incidents.

The report also noted that a tank crew composed entirely of women eventually had to breach the closed gate to allow the rest of the forces to enter at 2 PM. These details reflect the extent of the chaos that prevailed in the field, where there were no clear orders or activated emergency plans to deal with the breach of the border fence.

In a related context, the investigation indicated that the resistance fighters who stormed 'Holit' were fully aware of the area's terrain and house distribution, enabling them to move effectively. Cameras documented the resistance fighters allowing an Israeli woman and her two children to return, a move the investigation considered part of the field battle management by the attackers.

The committee, whose findings were approved by former Chief of Staff Herzi Halevi, concluded that the failure was comprehensive and not limited to a specific unit. It affirmed that the lessons learned require radical changes in how border settlements are protected, especially given the resistance's demonstrated ability to disrupt surveillance and rapid response systems.

It is worth noting that this investigation is part of a series of detailed investigations conducted by the occupation army into the events of October 7, in which about 1200 Israelis were killed. The army leadership faces significant public and political pressure due to these failures, which revealed unprecedented security and military vulnerabilities in the entity's history.

The Israeli army failed to defend Kibbutz Holit, primarily due to a lack of preparedness for a widespread and simultaneous attack.

The city of Modi'in witnessed an incident that sparked widespread controversy after Israeli police detained British-Israeli writer Alex Sinclair, on the grounds of wearing a religious kippah bearing the symbols of both the Israeli and Palestinian flags. Sources reported that the incident began inside a cafe where the writer usually worked, where he was verbally attacked by an individual who claimed that the kippah violated the law, leading to the immediate summoning of security forces to the scene.

Upon the arrival of the security force, officers informed Sinclair that the symbol he was wearing was illegal, which the writer vehemently denied, asserting that there was no legislative text preventing the combination of flags on clothing or religious symbols. The discussion quickly escalated into a field detention, where the writer was transferred to the police station under threat of physical force, and all his personal belongings, including his mobile phone and laptop, were confiscated.

Sinclair, 53, described the conditions of his detention as shocking and confusing, as he was placed in solitary confinement and denied access to water or communication with his family to inform them of his whereabouts. He indicated that this arbitrary measure continued for several hours without any clear legal justification or formal charges being brought against him, reflecting an escalation in dealing with political symbols that call for coexistence.

The kippah, the subject of the dispute, holds significant moral value for the writer, as he explained that he has been wearing it for nearly twenty years as an expression of his complex identity that combines religious affiliation and a political stance advocating for the recognition of the other. Sinclair considered the security elements' act of cutting the Palestinian flag from the kippah a blatant assault on a religious and personal symbol, and an overstepping of the powers granted to the police in dealing with citizens.

After the investigations concluded, Sinclair was released without any charges, but he was surprised upon receiving his belongings that the kippah had been deliberately damaged by cutting off the part bearing the Palestinian flag. The writer confirmed that the police did not provide any official explanation or receipt proving the confiscation or modification of his property, but rather he was asked to leave the station immediately without completing the legal procedures followed in such cases.

For its part, the Israeli police issued a brief statement acknowledging the incident, indicating that the measures taken against Sinclair fell under the category of 'clarifying the situation' before his release. Police sources avoided commenting on the direct accusations related to the destruction of the kippah or the ill-treatment the writer was subjected to during his detention in solitary confinement.

In a legal response, Alex Sinclair announced that he would file a formal complaint against the police force, accusing them of illegal detention and deliberate destruction of private property. Observers believe that this incident goes beyond being an isolated event, highlighting the increasing tensions within Israeli society towards Palestinian symbols, and the erosion of spaces for freedom of expression and the recognition of different political identities.

Destroying the kippah represents an infringement on a religious symbol of deep value, and what happened reflects broad issues related to the limits of freedom of expression.

International and local concerns have escalated over the fate of human heritage in Lebanon, following a series of Israeli airstrikes that targeted the vicinity of archaeological landmarks in the city of Tyre. This city is one of the oldest continuously inhabited cities in the world, and it has been officially listed on UNESCO's World Heritage list since the 1980s.

Field sources reported that one of the violent strikes resulted in civilian casualties and the destruction of homes located within protected historical areas, causing direct and indirect damage to the archaeological infrastructure. These aggressions come at a time when these sites are supposed to enjoy strict international legal protection that prohibits their violation under any military circumstances.

UNESCO had previously announced the granting of 'Temporary Enhanced Protection' status to 39 cultural sites in Lebanon in response to urgent official requests. This list includes prominent landmarks in Baalbek and Tyre, in addition to the National Museum in Beirut and the archaeological site of Byblos, which dates back approximately 8,000 years.

In details of the aggressions, the 'Al-Bass' archaeological site in Tyre witnessed destruction affecting recently excavated artifacts due to the targeting of a neighboring house, and structures dating back to the Byzantine era were also damaged. The Lebanese Ministry of Culture condemned this behavior, describing it as a systematic aggression against cultural and civilizational heritage that represents the memory of peoples.

Tyre city hosts unique landmarks such as the Roman hippodrome, which is among the largest and best-preserved in the ancient Roman world. It also includes the famous 'Arch of Triumph' which represents a ceremonial entrance to the city dating back to the period of Emperor Hadrian, making its targeting an irreplaceable loss for human history.

For his part, Alwan Sharaf El-Din, Deputy Mayor of Tyre, confirmed that the city has been subjected to repeated aggressions since the 1982 occupation, noting that the occupation is not limited to destruction but also extends to theft. He explained that there is historical evidence of the transfer of stone sarcophagi and golden treasures from the region into the occupied territories during previous periods.

Sharaf El-Din pointed to Israeli attempts to obliterate Lebanese identity through false claims about the affiliation of some historical sites, such as Qalaat Shamaa (Shamaa Castle). This medieval castle was directly targeted, leading to extensive damage to large parts of it, as part of a policy of destroying defensive and historical landmarks.

These sites are subject to the 1954 Hague Convention, which obliges conflicting parties to protect cultural property and not use it for military purposes. However, field facts indicate a complete disregard for these laws, as shells and missiles fall very close to Roman columns and historical walls.

On the humanitarian front, the attacks caused a massive wave of displacement, as Tyre city received thousands of displaced people before it itself became a target for intense raids. In one of the recent massacres, the occupation targeted a residential neighborhood minutes before a ceasefire came into effect, leading to the martyrdom of 23 people under the rubble.

Search and rescue operations continue in the targeted areas amidst extreme difficulties, while Lebanese officials continue to issue distress calls to international organizations. Observers believe that international silence regarding the destruction of antiquities encourages the occupation to continue its 'scorched earth' policy that spares neither humans nor stones.

Archaeological sites in Tyre are not just tourist attractions, but rather civilizational symbols that have been successively inhabited by Phoenician, Hellenistic, Roman, and Islamic peoples. The destruction of these landmarks means erasing layers of human history that contributed to shaping the consciousness of the region and the world throughout the ages.

In Baalbek, the massive complex of Roman temples faces a similar danger, as the ground shakes under the weight of nearby explosions, threatening the collapse of sensitive stone structures. These temples are considered among the finest examples of Roman imperial architecture that have stood for thousands of years before this escalation.

Beirut's National Museum, which houses more than 100,000 artifacts, has also been placed under enhanced protection for fear of direct or indirect attack. The museum's collections document the region's history from the Stone Age to the Mamluk periods, making it a national and global treasure.

In conclusion, Lebanese heritage remains hostage to field developments, amidst continued Israeli violations of ceasefire agreements. Demands persist for effective international mechanisms to hold those responsible for the destruction of global cultural heritage accountable and to ensure that these civilizational crimes are not repeated.

Israel targets humans and stones, and seeks to destroy cultural and civilizational heritage and obliterate the historical identity of the region.

In the name of God, and with reliance on God, the Palestinian woman has decided to enter the municipal and local council elections with full vigor, activity, confidence, and capability; to stand side by side with men in serving the homeland and making decisions, supporting him and being supported by him, consulting him and being consulted by him, sharing opinions with him and having him share opinions with her, drawing strength from him and him drawing strength from her. It is true that Palestinian women had previously participated in elections in 1996, but this time we see them undertaking the experience with greater confidence, larger numbers, higher spirits, stronger determination, more mature experience, and more penetrating insight and vision for matters. With this electoral decision, she is trying to change the wrong societal concepts that have dominated it for long centuries, related to male dominance over administrative decisions, even in matters concerning women. Her candidacy in these elections is nothing but an attempt to restore society to its natural state, as God created it, a state in which male and female complement each other and are not superior to one another, cooperate and do not discriminate, complete each other and do not separate, to form a natural, integrated, and sound society as God intended since the beginning of creation, and as stated in the Book of God: "And that He created the two sexes, the male and the female." The Palestinian woman, with this electoral decision, is seen shattering the outdated myth that has lingered in the minds of the ignorant and backward, that women were created only for the home and children; to tell them with full confidence and reassurance that a woman is a mind before she is a body and a soul, and that she is a human being before she is a nurturer of children and generations. Like men, God has endowed her with intelligence, preparedness, capabilities, and competencies that qualify her to be alongside men in decision-making positions, to study and analyze, to decide and consult, and to defend the issues of her country and homeland as he defends, armed with her knowledge, certificates, struggle, and faith in herself and her cause. Today, by participating in municipal and local council elections, the Palestinian woman is telling Arab society in particular, and the world in general, that what governs the development and survival of society is knowledge and competencies, intellectual power and intelligence, not gender and physical strength; and that what works for the equality of male and female in rights and duties is the democratic system and respect for human beings, not the dictatorial system and dominance. After women throughout history have succeeded in being lawyers, doctors, researchers, scientists, poets, writers, physicists, chemists, and in other fields of science, especially in Palestine, she will undoubtedly succeed in being a mayor, a municipal council member, and a political decision-maker, as experience has shown that women everywhere are capable of sensing the issues of their society, capable of studying and analyzing them, and capable of articulating and defending them like their male counterparts; and for this reason, we have seen her reach the highest positions and ranks, from minister and director to researcher, scientist, doctor, lawyer, and professor, and so on. She is, without the slightest doubt, capable of being an active and influential member in any position she holds, adding to men and not detracting from them, supporting them and not diminishing their status, complementing them and not weakening them, and defending her country, society, cause, and homeland, and not standing by as a mere spectator or only suffering when she loses a brother, son, husband, father, relative, or friend. As sociologists say, two opinions are better than one, and this is what happens when the Palestinian woman takes her place in administrative centers alongside her brother, the man. The look of hope and optimism we saw in the pictures of the female candidates on the election list tells us that the Palestinian woman is determined to work, determined to succeed, and determined to occupy her leading role in society to no less extent than the man's determination; and that is with what she possesses of knowledge and competence, intelligence and shrewdness, experience and high confidence in God and in herself. So congratulations to the Palestinian woman for entering the elections, and congratulations to some for winning mayoralties, and congratulations to you for your self-confidence, and congratulations to you for your faith in your abilities, and congratulations to you for your insistence on proving yourself and serving your community, and blessed be your endeavor to reach the administrative pyramid and decision-making, supporting men in every position and place, and congratulations to Palestinian society for having you as a mother, sister, wife, struggler, mayor, and leader... and so on, from positions that were once exclusive to men, so that you may be a role model for all Arab and foreign girls. So go forth, and may God's eye watch over you, and forward, with our best wishes for you and all winners for all success and progress, and more prosperity in serving your country, people, society, and cause on the path to victory, liberation, and independence.

Seventy-eight years after its establishment, Israel, in the eyes of Palestinians, appears as an entity that has not yet settled on a definitive self-definition. It is not merely a state that has succeeded in establishing its existence, but a project that still fluctuates between contradictory forms, transforming from one stage to another without reaching a moment of balance. Therefore, looking at it today is inseparable from reading this profound transformation in its intellectual, political, and social structure.It can be said that Israel has transitioned, over these decades, from a socialist Zionism with a collective character to a biblical religious Zionism tending towards extremism and insularity. That initial Zionism, despite its hostility, cloaked itself in a modernist discourse and presented its project as part of the Western world and its values. Today, however, we are faced with a different discourse, more inward-looking, and more based on religious texts and historical interpretations that give the conflict an absolute character that does not accept compromises.This transformation was not merely superficial. Israel moved from a relatively open stance to a state of increasing insularity, and from accepting the idea of compromise – even if tactically – to adopting policies based on expansion and rejection. Compromise is no longer a central option; instead, it has been replaced by a vision based on imposing facts by force, and on redefining the conflict as an existential rather than merely political struggle.In the same context, Israel's image as the "exceptional victim" that cannot be touched has receded, gradually entering the sphere of criticism and accountability, and even prosecution in some international circles. The moral aura that surrounded it in its early days is no longer able to fully protect it, especially with the escalation of violence and expansion, and with the exposure of the contradiction between its discourse and its practices.As for the Jewish personality within this entity, there has been a remarkable transition from the inward-looking "Talmudic Jew," content with managing his private affairs, to the "Biblical Jew" who sees himself as an actor in history, tasked with control, expansion, and fighting. This shift reflects a transition from a state of defense to a state of offense, and from retreat to initiative, but at the same time, it opens the door to further clashes.Politically, Israel is no longer what it once was. Instead of institutions that set the general rhythm, we are now witnessing the rise of the individual and the leader, and a gradual decline in the weight of institutions. The democracy that has long been presented as a key feature is undergoing severe tests, with the growth of authoritarian tendencies and the rise of populist forces that tend towards decisive action rather than consensus.In terms of performance, sweeping military victories are no longer the dominant characteristic. Israel now engages in complex rounds, often ending in compromises or attempts to market a "victory narrative," rather than decisive victories on the battlefield. Moreover, the concept of absolute security control has eroded, replaced by a reality of multiple fronts and intertwined threats, making military superiority less capable of resolving the conflict.Socially, Israel has transitioned from a society aspiring to homogeneity to a multi-ethnic and multi-identity society suffering from increasing internal divisions. From the collectivism that characterized its beginnings to the individualism that dominates today, and from a solid national immunity to a state of internal fragmentation, reflecting the failure of the complete integration project.Most significantly, groups that were considered marginal or extremist are now at the heart of the scene; indeed, they are shaping policies and determining directions. This transformation is reshaping Israel from within, pushing it towards greater rigidity, and making "Third Israel" in the occupied West Bank an expression of this new path, where settlement is not just a policy, but an ideology.Despite all the successes Israel has achieved in economy, technology, and military power, it still suffers from a deep identity crisis. It has not yet been able to resolve the question: What does it want to be? A normal state in the region, or an exceptional project above it? This confusion is reflected in its policies, in its relationship with its neighbors, and in its dealings with Palestinians.At its core, it seems that its failure to reach a settlement with the Palestinians is not just a detail, but the knot that hinders its stability. Instead of leading to a review, this failure pushes it towards further extremism and violence, as if it is trying to escape forward.Thus, Israel today stands at a real crossroads. Its continuation on this path may lead to uncomfortable results, not only for Palestinians, but for itself as well. For states, no matter how powerful, cannot live long in a state of open conflict, nor can they establish their stability on the denial of the other.Therefore, the question is no longer just: How do Palestinians see it? But: Where is Israel itself heading, as it changes so rapidly, without finding a definitive point of reference?* Director of the Mediterranean Center for Regional Studies