Despite the escalation in rhetoric, the unprecedented military buildup of American capabilities in the region, and President Donald Trump's "brinkmanship" policy, contrasted with Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei's statements reflecting a tone of defiance and insistence on responding to American and Israeli threats; the pressing question is: Are we on the verge of an imminent military confrontation between Washington and Tehran? What are the chances of the United States succeeding in changing the political regime in Iran? Conversely, what are the limits of Iran's military response capability? Can Iran target aircraft carriers and American bases in the region? And finally, what are the repercussions of all this on the security and stability of the region and the world?

Anyone who reads the scene with a cool eye, away from media sensationalism, will realize that what is happening is closer to "controlled madness" than to a blind rush towards war. The United States fully understands that any comprehensive war with Iran will not be a quick military picnic, nor will it end with a limited surgical strike. Instead, it could open the doors of the region to strategic chaos extending from the Gulf to the Eastern Mediterranean. The experiences of Iraq and Afghanistan are still fresh in American memory, with the costs in money, reputation, and lives.

As for talk of regime change in Iran, it is a slogan that has been repeated in the corridors of American politics for decades, but it has never turned into an executable strategy. The Iranian regime, despite its internal crises and suffocating sanctions, has proven an extraordinary ability to adapt and endure, relying on a cohesive institutional security and military structure, and an impressive network of regional and international alliances.

Conversely, Iran's capabilities cannot be underestimated. Over the past years, Tehran has developed an advanced missile system and has demonstrated its ability to operate in multiple theaters through its regional allies. While targeting American aircraft carriers or major bases would remain a high-cost and extremely risky option, it is not impossible should an open confrontation erupt. Any direct hit on strategic American interests would certainly mean the region entering a spiral of escalation whose outcomes cannot be controlled.

This is precisely where the danger of the situation lies: if war breaks out, it will not remain bilateral between Washington and Tehran, but will affect Gulf security, threaten the stability of Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon, and perhaps extend its effects to global energy markets, threatening the international economy with a new crisis. Therefore, the precise cost-benefit calculations of both parties make the option of a comprehensive war more likely to be brandished than actually implemented.

In my estimation, Trump will continue to mobilize, threaten, and warn, but he will not launch a military strike that leads to a wide regional war. The man realizes that any major slip could turn the tables on him domestically, especially in light of the political crises and scandals pursuing him, and the unrest and decline in support within his party. Despite the image he tries to project of himself as a president who does not hesitate to use force, he is not at all interested in the "Samson option" that would bring down the temple on himself and his adversaries at home and abroad.

It is more likely that this round of escalation will end in negotiated outcomes related to the Iranian nuclear program, which will be marketed domestically in Washington as a political and security achievement. If this happens, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu will not dare to go it alone into a military confrontation with Iran, because any open war could mean the end of his political future, and perhaps plunge the Hebrew state into an existential dilemma, especially given its escalating international isolation after the Gaza war and the growing global calls for a just solution to the Palestinian issue.

As for Iran, it will not initiate a preemptive strike, nor will it seek to ignite a war it does not need at this stage. However, at the same time, it will not stand idly by in the face of what it considers existential threats. It will continue to develop its deterrent capabilities and strengthen its relations with Russia and China, thereby solidifying its position as a significant regional power within an international system that is gradually leaning towards multipolarity.

Iran, in historical memory, is not an emergent state, but the heir to the Persian Empire that once extended its influence over vast areas of the world. It understands that bowing under American pressure would mean undermining its regional project and international standing. Therefore, it will maneuver, negotiate, and accumulate power assets, without rushing into a comprehensive confrontation.

In conclusion: We are facing a calculated escalation, and fiery rhetoric that serves deterrence calculations more than it paves the way for war. A comprehensive military confrontation will not occur, because its exorbitant cost exceeds the capacity of both parties to bear. The Iranian regime will likely emerge with a greater presence and influence, while Washington seeks to save face through a new agreement or understanding. These are precise calculations for a war that is intended to be threatened, not to happen.

Israeli military operations in South Lebanon are escalating, moving beyond direct military objectives towards a broader strategy that observers describe as "diaspora." This policy aims to dismantle the resistance's supportive environment by turning villages and towns into uninhabitable areas, forcing residents into permanent displacement away from their borders.

Sources reported that the Israeli army has moved from targeting military infrastructure to a phase of "urban annihilation." This strategy relies on encroaching on land and destroying vital centers in major cities like Tyre and Nabatieh, to impose a new geographical reality that prevents the return of normal life to those areas in the foreseeable future.

Data indicates that forced displacement has reached approximately 1.2 million people, amid continued intensive raids that have left thousands dead and wounded. Military experts believe that Israel is implementing a "scorched earth" policy extending from south of the Litani River to areas north of Zahrani, to secure a wide buffer zone.

Israeli evacuation warnings include vast areas, reaching one-fifth of Lebanon's total area, reflecting a desire to create long-term demographic change. This measure aims to reduce civilian population density, giving the Israeli army greater freedom in military operations without international political or media restrictions.

Political analysts believe that the goal of displacing southern residents is to create sectarian tensions and imbalances in Lebanon's fragile demographic structure. The displacement of large numbers from a specific social component to other areas could ignite internal conflicts over resources and infrastructure, which Israel is banking on to turn public opinion against the resistance.

In contrast, the resistance is adopting a counter-plan based on social and material support to maintain the cohesion of its supportive environment. Relief and compensation networks are working to strengthen the resilience of the displaced and prevent temporary displacement from turning into a permanent break with the land, considering that staying and returning represent a form of civil resistance.

On the ground, military sources confirm that the displacement has not led to the collapse of the resistance's organizational structure, but rather has increased the fighters' determination to wage a war of attrition. The resistance is currently using advanced technologies, including fiber-optic suicide drones, to thwart Israeli attempts at entrenchment in border villages.

Concerns are growing that Israel is seeking to establish a permanent buffer zone, similar to previous experiences in Gaza and Syria. This trend could turn South Lebanon into a continuous conflict zone, as local residents refuse to give up their right to return to their homes despite the massive destruction that has affected thousands of housing units.

Recent studies have shown that popular support for the resistance in the Shiite community remains strong despite immense economic and psychological pressures. Local opinion polls have shown general rejection of any proposals related to disarmament or surrender to Israeli projects that target the demographic existence of Lebanese components.

Observers believe that Israel is banking on the "rubble doctrine" to make civilians pay a heavy price for their support of the resistance. By destroying the southern suburbs and large parts of the Beqaa, Tel Aviv is trying to send a message that the cost of popular support for the resistance will be the loss of shelter and permanent stability.

On the other hand, experts believe that the decisive factor in this conflict is the Lebanese society's ability to adapt to successive crises. Historical experiences since 1982 prove that military force alone is not enough to break the will of peoples if the social environment maintains its basic cohesion and its ability to rebuild.

There is a real fear in Lebanese political circles that the continuation of the war will change Lebanon's sectarian and political landscape. The absence of a unifying national project to confront these dangers makes the country vulnerable to external interventions that may exploit the refugee crisis to impose specific political agendas that serve Israeli interests.

Informed sources confirm that the resistance has succeeded over the past four decades in building closed communities that are difficult to penetrate militarily or politically. This strong organizational structure is what prevents the success of the Israeli diaspora strategy in achieving its ultimate goals of dismantling the party from within through popular pressure.

Ultimately, the Lebanese scene remains open to all possibilities in light of a major war that transcends regional borders. While Israel is banking on time and military pressure, the resistance is banking on exhausting the enemy on the ground and the steadfastness of its popular base to thwart the project of displacement and permanent occupation.

Israel seeks to create a demographic vacuum that helps it target any human movement and restrict the movement of resistance fighters.

By: Said Arikat

June 5, 2026

Washington, D.C- Francesca Albanese’s ‘When the World Sleeps’ is not simply a political book about Palestine; it is an attempt to rescue human experience from the deadening language of geopolitics. Written during one of the bleakest and most violent periods in recent Middle Eastern history, the book combines memoir, legal reflection, moral philosophy, and testimonial storytelling into a deeply humane work that asks a difficult question: what happens to the world’s conscience when suffering becomes normalized?

The answer Albanese offers is unsparing, but profoundly compassionate.

At the center of the book are ten lives — Palestinians, Jewish intellectuals, activists, and ordinary individuals whose experiences shaped Albanese’s political and moral imagination. Through these portraits, she builds a narrative that is less concerned with abstract diplomacy than with the emotional and ethical consequences of prolonged dispossession, occupation, and war. Rather than treating Palestine as a “conflict” to be managed, Albanese insists on seeing it as a lived human reality endured daily by millions.

This insistence on humanity is what gives the book its unusual emotional power.

Too much writing on Palestine collapses into sterile policy debate or ideological slogan. Albanese avoids both traps. She writes with the clarity of a legal scholar, but also with the emotional intelligence of someone who has spent years listening carefully to people whose stories are routinely ignored, dismissed, or politicized. Her prose is accessible without being simplistic, passionate without losing intellectual rigor. The result is a work that feels urgent but also deeply reflective.

The title itself — When the World Sleeps — captures the book’s central moral argument. Albanese contends that the greatest tragedy is not only the suffering itself, but the gradual normalization of that suffering by governments, institutions, and even public opinion. She argues that Palestinians have become victims not merely of occupation and violence, but of global indifference. The world, in her telling, has not entirely failed to see; it has chosen not to act.

One of the book’s greatest strengths is its ability to bridge law and morality. Albanese is a specialist in international law, and throughout the text she draws upon concepts such as occupation, apartheid, forced displacement, collective punishment, and genocide. But unlike many legal writers, she never allows terminology to become emotionally detached from human consequence. Legal frameworks are constantly tethered to individual stories — children killed in Gaza, families displaced from their homes, prisoners detained indefinitely, parents navigating humiliation at checkpoints.

The book therefore succeeds in translating international law into human language.

Particularly moving are the passages devoted to children in Gaza. Albanese writes about them not as symbols or statistics, but as fully realized individuals whose dreams, fears, and personalities matter. The account of Hind Rajab, the young girl killed after pleading for rescue while trapped in a car surrounded by dead relatives, becomes emblematic of the book’s larger argument: that the modern world has developed an extraordinary capacity to witness unbearable suffering without meaningful intervention.

Yet despite its grief, When the World Sleeps is not nihilistic. Running through the book is a stubborn belief in solidarity, ethical responsibility, and the possibility of moral awakening. Albanese repeatedly highlights Jewish scholars, activists, Holocaust survivors, and dissidents who refused to allow historical trauma to justify oppression. These sections are especially important because they complicate simplistic attempts to portray the book as anti-Jewish or ideologically rigid. Albanese clearly distinguishes between criticism of state policy and hostility toward Jewish identity. Indeed, some of the book’s most admired moral voices are Jewish thinkers committed to universal human rights.

This nuance matters because Albanese writes in a political environment saturated with accusation and polarization. Rather than retreating into defensive caution, she confronts these tensions directly. She acknowledges the immense historical trauma carried by Jewish communities while simultaneously arguing that trauma cannot become a permanent exemption from international law or moral scrutiny. Whether readers agree with every aspect of her argument or not, the seriousness with which she engages these questions gives the book intellectual credibility and ethical depth.

Another striking quality of the book is Albanese’s personal honesty. She does not present herself as an infallible authority speaking from above. Instead, she writes openly about the emotional burden of witnessing violence, the frustrations of institutional paralysis, and the personal cost of speaking publicly about Palestine in increasingly hostile political climates. This vulnerability humanizes the narrative and prevents it from becoming doctrinaire. Readers sense throughout that Albanese is wrestling not only with politics, but with conscience itself.

Stylistically, the book is elegant and often lyrical. Albanese has a gift for moving between intimate scenes and broader political analysis without losing narrative momentum. Some passages read almost like meditations on grief, memory, and moral responsibility. Others carry the sharp precision of legal indictment. This blend of emotional and analytical writing gives the book unusual range.

Importantly, When the World Sleeps arrives at a historical moment when public discourse on Palestine is undergoing profound transformation. Around the world, especially among younger generations, there is growing skepticism toward traditional narratives that frame Palestinian suffering as unfortunate but inevitable. Albanese’s book speaks directly to this emerging moral consciousness. It articulates the frustration many feel toward international institutions that proclaim universal values while appearing selective in their enforcement.

The book’s power ultimately lies in its refusal to let readers remain emotionally distant. Albanese does not want passive sympathy; she wants moral engagement. She challenges readers to examine what it means to live in a world where atrocities can unfold in real time before global audiences that continue, nonetheless, with ordinary life. In doing so, she transforms the Palestinian question from a regional political issue into a broader meditation on international ethics, collective responsibility, and the fragility of human solidarity.

For readers like myself who find themselves deeply aligned with both Albanese’s moral vision and her political argument, When the World Sleeps stands as an important and courageous work of witness — even if others may strongly disagree with its conclusions. I found the book eloquent, deeply compassionate, intellectually serious, and morally urgent precisely because it speaks to something profoundly human beneath the politics: the insistence that Palestinian lives deserve not only humanitarian concern, but full recognition, dignity, justice, and historical acknowledgment. Albanese writes with a clarity and empathy that made the book resonate with me not simply as political analysis, but as a deeply moving appeal to conscience.

In an era saturated with noise, propaganda, and ideological exhaustion, Albanese offers something increasingly rare: a voice animated by moral clarity and genuine human empathy. Whether embraced or contested, When the World Sleeps is likely to remain an important contribution to the growing body of literature documenting both Palestinian suffering and the international community’s failure to confront it honestly. It is a book that refuses indifference — and asks its readers to do the same

The joy of thousands of graduates in the Gaza Strip upon completing their academic journey was incomplete, as they found themselves facing a solid financial wall preventing them from obtaining their university degrees. After years of study and diligence under harsh conditions, accumulated tuition fees have become an obstacle preventing them from entering the job market or applying for scholarships.

Field data indicates that the financial crisis has worsened unprecedentedly due to the ongoing war of annihilation, which has deprived families of their sources of income and shifted living priorities towards securing food and clothing. This reality has made paying university dues an act beyond the financial capacity of most Palestinian families in the besieged Strip.

At the Islamic University of Gaza, statistics show that 5,808 graduates have been unable to receive their certificates due to debts amounting to approximately $5.7 million. These graduates find themselves in a vicious cycle, where they need the certificate to get a job, and they need a job to pay for the certificate.

Al-Azhar University, on the other hand, is suffering from a deeper crisis, with the number of stranded graduates reaching 5,588, with total outstanding fees exceeding $10.8 million. These huge figures reflect the extent of the economic collapse that has affected the middle class and students who relied on their families' savings.

Al-Aqsa University leads the scene in terms of the number of affected individuals, with an estimated 12,000 graduates who have not received their documents. The total value of accumulated fees at this public university is approximately $9.9 million, which places the university administration before major operational challenges.

At the University College of Applied Sciences, 4,127 graduates have not completed their official graduation procedures due to financial dues amounting to $1.7 million. Added to these amounts are other obligations related to higher education loans that pursue graduates and increase their psychological and financial burdens.

Academic sources reported that Palestinian universities in Gaza are themselves experiencing an existential crisis, as their buildings and facilities have suffered widespread destruction during the war. These institutions primarily rely on student fees to cover staff salaries and essential operating expenses necessary for the continuation of the educational process.

Mahmoud Atallah, Director of Student Affairs at Al-Aqsa University, explained that the university is trying to alleviate the burden on students by providing grants and exemptions that have benefited thousands of students. He pointed out that the university allowed students to register for credit hours without immediate payment to help them continue their education despite the lack of income.

For his part, Dr. Mohammed Hamdan from Al-Aqsa University affirmed that the university is making efforts to attract funding projects to release certificates in cooperation with international institutions. However, these initiatives remain limited and cover only a small percentage of graduates due to the strict conditions set by funders.

Khulood Al-Othmani spoke about the suffering of her son, Firas, an information technology graduate, whose certificate has become hostage to a sum of money that the family cannot afford. She explained that her husband's loss of his job as a tailor due to the war made securing a livelihood the top priority, which led to the freezing of her son's professional dreams.

Specialists believe that the continued withholding of certificates contributes to increasing unemployment rates among youth and deprives society of idle scientific competencies. Many job opportunities and external scholarships require the presentation of original documents, which thousands of graduates currently lack.

Sources at the University College of Applied Sciences indicated that the war led to a sharp increase in the number of financially struggling students compared to previous years. They confirmed that the gap between students' financial needs and the ability of relief organizations to intervene is widening alarmingly daily.

The universities find themselves in a difficult equation between preserving the student's right to obtain their certificate and their need for money to ensure their survival as educational institutions. This financial struggle reflects one aspect of the silent suffering experienced by the higher education sector in Gaza under the weight of aggression.

Thousands of graduates in Gaza remain waiting for a radical solution to end the 'hostage certificates' crisis, whether through governmental interventions or widespread international donations. Without the release of these documents, the dreams of an entire generation of Palestinian youth will remain suspended behind the walls of debt-ridden universities.

The certificate has become trapped in university drawers, awaiting payment of fees that my family cannot afford under the suffocating economic conditions.

In Algerian gatherings, a tone of nostalgia for what is known as the 'good old days' is escalating, especially among generations who lived through the pre-independence era or the early years of state-building. The phrase 'Where are those times?' is repeated with striking regret, reflecting a desire to restore the values of discipline and order that many believe were the dominant features of daily life in that period.

Old black and white photographs transform into emotional documents that transcend mere personal memory to become a window into a seemingly more stable world. Proponents of this view believe that schools and public squares witnessed moral and educational discipline that is lacking in the present, where the prestige of the teacher and the educational institution formed the cornerstone of national character building.

Analysts believe that this nostalgia does not target the colonial era itself, but rather aspires to the system of values that governed social relations at the time. The issue concerns the appreciation of work and respect for appointments, and a general feeling that every individual in society knew their role and place precisely, away from the hustle and bustle of modern life and its increasing complexities.

In contrast, a current emerges that sees linking beauty to the past as a fallacy resulting from the decline of knowledge in the face of the culture of display in the current era. The Arab and Algerian citizen may yearn for their youth and the clarity of vision in their old society, where long effort was appreciated, before the values of quick profit and social opportunism overshadowed the general scene.

The gap deepens when moving to public affairs, where part of the current frustration is attributed to decades of centralized administration and fluctuating government policies. Critics believe that the distance between official discourse and the actual needs of society has contributed to reinforcing the image of the past as a safe haven from the anxiety of the present and its accelerating economic challenges.

Observers point out that the management style that restricts decision-making to narrow circles has slowed down the process of openness to new ideas and global transformations. At a time when the world is moving towards innovation and scientific research, a segment of Algerians feels that these areas have not yet received the place they deserve in the national priorities.

Social crises and rising prices appear as immediate catalysts for evoking comparisons between yesterday and today in popular discussions. The image of the disciplined student in old classrooms becomes a symbol of an entire generation that had hope, and the school transforms from a mere building into an idea embodying the order and belonging that people seek in their contemporary reality.

It is necessary to read this phenomenon emotionally, not just historically, for nostalgia often expresses what a person feels more than it expresses the reality of a bitter truth. History reminds us that the past was not without difficulties, class disparities, and harsh restrictions, but human memory naturally tends to filter out pains and retain bright moments.

The Algerian case is characterized by a specificity stemming from the profound and rapid transformations the country has undergone, from colonialism to independence and then the building of the national state. Each of these stages left different imprints on the memory of generations, creating a divergence in views on which periods were the most prosperous and stable for the citizen.

Historical sources confirm that the 'good old days' that some praise carried great suffering, as school enrollment rates among Algerians during the colonial era were very low. Moreover, the educational and university infrastructure was very limited and served only a small segment, making the comparison with the achievements of the independent state numerically unequal.

The fundamental question remains whether the past was beautiful for its own sake, or because we look at it from a safe temporal distance that makes us forget its arduous details. Excessive preoccupation with contemplating images of yesterday may hinder the ability to read the future and its challenges, for nations do not live on memories alone, no matter how beautiful or deeply impactful they may be.

Building the future requires transforming the lessons of the past into a driving force for work, knowledge, and innovation, instead of drowning in a sea of nostalgia. The future is the only page that has not yet been photographed, and its creation requires boldness in imagination and the ability to bravely face the open possibilities of the present.

The future is not made by nostalgia, but by knowledge, work, and imagination that dares to see what has not yet appeared in any album.

The Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas) issued an urgent appeal to all Arab and Islamic parties, stressing the necessity of immediate action to pressure the Israeli occupation to stop the ongoing massacres in the Gaza Strip. The movement affirmed that international silence gives a green light for the continuation of the slaughter targeting unarmed civilians, emphasizing that this moment places everyone before their moral and historical responsibilities.

The movement's spokesperson, Hazem Qassem, stated in a press release that the occupation continues to commit horrific crimes against the residents of the Strip amid a clear inability of guarantor states and international mediators. Qassem pointed out that the so-called Peace Council and international institutions have failed even to issue condemnations commensurate with the scale of the crimes committed, which has encouraged the occupation to persist in its aggression.

The movement called on mediators and international guarantor bodies to exert real and direct pressure on the occupation authorities, which have completely reneged on all previous understandings and agreements. Hamas considered Israel's disregard for efforts to stop the violations as reflecting a premeditated intention to continue the war of extermination and destroy the foundations of life in Gaza.

In a related context, Hamas stressed that the Arab League and the Organization of Islamic Cooperation are required today more than ever to take firm stances that go beyond mere statements. It affirmed that the bloody scenes broadcast live impose on both Arab and Islamic systems the need for field and political action to stop the bleeding of Palestinian blood.

These calls come at a time when Gaza is witnessing a bloody escalation despite a declared ceasefire agreement since October 10, 2025. According to Ministry of Health data, 947 martyrs have fallen and approximately 2,935 others have been injured as a result of continuous Israeli shelling since the agreement came into effect, indicating widespread and grave violations by the occupation army.

It is worth noting that the Gaza Strip is suffering from the repercussions of a comprehensive war of extermination that began in October 2023, resulting in the martyrdom of more than 73,000 Palestinians and the injury of over 173,000 others within two years. The American-backed military operations have also caused the destruction of about 90% of the civilian infrastructure, making the Strip a disaster area lacking the most basic necessities of life.

The continuation of this massacre live on air places all parties, especially the Arab League and the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, before a historical and moral responsibility to act immediately.

The field situation in the Gaza Strip has witnessed a remarkable Israeli escalation in recent days, as occupation forces have intensified their military operations, resulting in an increasing number of martyrs and widespread destruction of infrastructure. These developments coincide with the announcement by the head of the occupation government, Benjamin Netanyahu, to expand the so-called 'Yellow Zone' to include 60% of the Strip's area instead of 52%, with directives issued to reach 70%.

Field data indicates that Netanyahu's current strategy is based on military subjugation of the Strip despite the existence of a declared truce agreement since October 10, 2025. The occupation government treats this situation as an acquired right, exploiting the political and military cover provided by the United States, which has led to the commitment to a ceasefire becoming one-sided, only on the Palestinian side.

Field reports have documented the occupation army committing more than 2,200 violations of the truce agreement since its announcement. These violations have led to the martyrdom of 945 people and the injury of nearly three thousand citizens with varying degrees of wounds. These figures reveal the extent of Israeli disregard for international guarantees and concluded agreements, amidst a complete international silence regarding these continuous violations.

Through this escalation, the occupation authorities seek to create new geographical and demographic realities on the ground, by attempting to seize more of the Strip's land and annex it to the occupied territories. Netanyahu's government does not rule out the possibility of completing the full occupation of the Strip in a blatant violation of all understandings, which places the region before open scenarios of confrontation.

In addition to military pressure, the occupation practices a policy of political and economic blackmail against the residents of Gaza, with the aim of subjugating the popular base and forcing the resistance to surrender its weapons. This policy includes the continuation of the suffocating blockade and preventing the entry of more than half of the agreed-upon quantities of humanitarian aid and basic necessities for the besieged population.

In a related context, the occupation government obstructs the entry of the technocrat committee that was supposed to manage civil affairs in the Strip, and also prevents the start of any real reconstruction operations. These measures aim to keep Gaza in a state of administrative and service paralysis, exacerbating humanitarian suffering and increasing the complexity of the living situation.

Israeli strategy also relies on keeping the Gaza Strip in a state of permanent tension and continuous attrition, to facilitate the transition to an all-out war at any moment Netanyahu deems appropriate. This approach aims to exhaust the vital forces in Palestinian society and prevent the stabilization of security or living conditions, making the Strip an environment that repels its residents.

Informed sources indicate that the occupation seeks to create a very harsh living environment to push residents towards options of forced or voluntary displacement under the weight of hunger and destruction. The occupation also works to support local groups and provide them with logistical support to try to strike the Palestinian social fabric and create internal conflicts that weaken the resistance front.

Observers believe that Netanyahu, through these brutal practices, is trying to achieve a 'military achievement' to present to the Israeli voter as the Knesset elections approach in October 2026. Current opinion polls show a significant decline in the popularity of the ruling coalition, which pushes Netanyahu to escape towards military escalation to save his political future.

Despite the machine of killing and destruction, Netanyahu faces a 'complex' represented by the failure to achieve major strategic goals, foremost among them disarming the resistance or breaking its will. This field failure in Gaza is accompanied by similar failures on the Lebanese front and in confronting the escalating Iranian influence in the region, which increases pressure on the extremist government.

Political circles in Tel Aviv fear that Washington will reach an agreement with Tehran before Netanyahu's government can impose its military reality, and therefore the latter resorts to escalating the situation to keep the conflict open. This behavior reflects a desire to escape an internal 'reckoning' that will inevitably show the failure of military operations to achieve the promised security for settlers.

On the international level, the massacres and the starvation policy have caused an unprecedented isolation of the Israeli entity, as it has become, in the eyes of many countries and human rights organizations, a pariah entity. Israel currently faces a more hostile regional environment and sustained security concerns, despite all attempts at military decisive action that have only deepened the crises.

Netanyahu is expected to continue his escalatory approach at least until the next elections, betting on the time factor to achieve some breakthrough in the wall of resistance. However, elements of reverse pressure have begun to appear clearly, especially with the gradual decline in absolute American cover and the escalation of popular and political pressures in Western capitals.

In conclusion, these Israeli strategies suffer from a clear state of exhaustion within the army ranks, in addition to the disruption of regional normalization paths that Tel Aviv was counting on. This means that these policies may be subject to adjustment or collapse in the face of the steadfastness of the resistance and the field and political developments that may impose themselves in the next stage.

Netanyahu's complex lies not in his ability to kill and destroy, but in his inability to subjugate the resistance and disarm it.

Russian President Vladimir Putin reiterated his country's supportive stance on Palestinian national rights, emphasizing that Moscow fully backs the implementation of relevant United Nations resolutions. Putin clarified that stability in the region can only be achieved through a political process leading to the establishment of an independent and fully sovereign Palestinian state.

During his participation in the plenary session of the Russian Energy Week International Forum, the Russian President stated that the core of the conflict lies in the failure to implement historical international promises. He pointed out that the original vision was based on a two-state solution, yet the Palestinian state has not come into existence despite decades passing since those resolutions.

In the context of discussing the situation on the ground, Putin described the military escalation in the Gaza Strip as 'horrific' and tragic on a humanitarian level. He called on the international community to work diligently to reduce the scale of human suffering and protect civilians, stressing the need to minimize innocent casualties.

The Russian President also addressed the continued Israeli control over Palestinian territories, noting that the retention of large parts of these lands under occupation fuels ongoing tension. He affirmed that the absence of political justice is the primary driver of the successive crises plaguing the Middle East, necessitating a radical and comprehensive solution.

Putin concluded his remarks by emphasizing that East Jerusalem must be the capital of the desired Palestinian state in accordance with international legitimacy. He considered that any attempts to bypass this political entitlement would only complicate the scene, indicating that Russia will continue to press in international forums to achieve the aspirations of the Palestinian people for self-determination.

It is impossible to resolve the current problem without the establishment of a Palestinian state with East Jerusalem as its capital.

A high-level delegation from the leadership of the Hamas movement arrived in the Egyptian capital, Cairo, on Friday evening, on an official mission aimed at launching a new round of discussions related to the ceasefire in the Gaza Strip. The delegation is headed by Khalil al-Hayya, head of the movement in the Strip, with the participation of prominent leaders including Zaher Jabarin, Hussam Badran, and Ghazi Hamad, where the meetings are scheduled to extend for several consecutive days.

Sources reported that the delegation's agenda focuses on discussing with Egyptian officials and international mediators to ensure the completion of the first phase of the existing agreement, and to work on stopping the continuous Israeli violations and aggressions. The movement also seeks through this round to develop clear and appropriate mechanisms that ensure a smooth transition to the second phase of the comprehensive truce agreement.

In a related context, the movement's delegation will hold a series of meetings with representatives of Palestinian forces and factions present in Cairo. These meetings aim to formulate a unified national position on the current challenges facing the Palestinian cause, and to agree on a common vision for dealing with field and political developments in a way that serves the supreme interests of the Palestinian people.

The goal is to complete the implementation of the first phase of the ceasefire agreement, stop repeated Israeli aggressions, and find mechanisms to enter the second phase.

The Irish government has taken a strict measure by banning the entry of Israeli National Security and Finance Ministers, Itamar Ben Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich, into its territory. This decision comes amid escalating international criticism of the policies pursued by the two far-right ministers regarding the ongoing war in the Gaza Strip.

Irish Justice Minister, Jim O'Callaghan, issued direct and clear instructions to immigration officers at all border crossings to prevent the entry of the two ministers should they attempt to reach the country. This official move reflects the extent of diplomatic tension between Dublin and Tel Aviv in light of the violations in the Palestinian territories.

For his part, Irish Prime Minister, Micheál Martin, confirmed the enforcement of the travel ban, indicating that the instructions were issued definitively to prevent any attempt by Israeli officials to travel to Ireland. Martin clarified that this step comes as a necessary response to confront the continuous incitement to violence and displacement.

The timing of the decision was linked to the publication of a video by Minister Itamar Ben Gvir showing the abuse of international activists who were arrested during their participation in the 'Fleet of Resilience'. The fleet aimed to break the naval blockade and deliver vital humanitarian aid to the residents of the Gaza Strip last month.

The Irish Prime Minister, during statements made at a summit in Montenegro, stressed that the behavior of the two ministers is not limited to the fleet incident, but extends to their systematic statements. He considered that these positions clearly express a genuine desire to displace the Palestinian people from their homeland and liquidate their cause.

Dublin did not stop at the national measure, but Micheál Martin called for expanding these measures to include the entire European Union. He believed that imposing collective sanctions at the continental level has become justified given the extremist behavior that threatens stability in the region.

The Irish move comes in the context of increasing international isolation for the two ministers, as France had previously prevented Ben Gvir from entering its territory last month. Britain also took a similar decision in June 2025, followed by other European countries such as Spain and Slovenia, indicating a growing European consensus against the far-right.

Ireland is one of the most prominent European voices advocating for Palestinian rights and condemning Israeli aggression since October 2023. Its positions culminated in the official recognition of the State of Palestine in 2024, a step that sparked widespread anger in Israeli political circles.

In response to Ireland's advanced positions, Israeli Foreign Minister, Gideon Sa'ar, had earlier ordered the closure of his country's embassy in Dublin. This closure reflects the depth of the diplomatic rift and the relations between the two parties reaching their lowest historical levels due to the sharp divergence in positions.

It is worth noting that Ben Gvir and Smotrich represent the main pillar of the government coalition led by Benjamin Netanyahu since the end of 2022. Their policies in the West Bank and Gaza Strip raise widespread international concern, especially regarding settlement expansion and plans for annexation and forced displacement.

The consistent statements of the two ministers essentially amount to a desire to remove Palestinians from their land, which justifies imposing comprehensive sanctions.

The Middle East region has witnessed a widespread military escalation encompassing the Gaza Strip, southern Lebanon, northern Israel, and extending to Kuwait, despite a series of ceasefire agreements brokered by the United States. Field sources reported that Israeli airstrikes on Gaza and Lebanon have not ceased, while Israeli forces continued their active deployment in border areas and the Strip, putting the effectiveness of American diplomacy to the test.

In a notable comment on these developments, US President Donald Trump acknowledged that what is currently happening is 'more moderate firing' rather than a comprehensive cessation of hostilities as planned. Although three truces negotiated by his administration aimed to end the raging wars, the reality on the ground indicates continued shelling and casualties, even if the intensity of confrontations has relatively decreased compared to previous periods.

Regarding the situation in the Gaza Strip, Washington had mediated an agreement signed on October 10, 2025, which stipulated an end to hostilities and an exchange of prisoners. Despite the implementation of the clause for the release of Israeli detainees, disputes remain intense over the volume of humanitarian aid allowed in, and Hamas's categorical rejection of demands for its disarmament included in Trump's plan to strengthen the truce.

Statistics indicate that more than 900 Palestinians have been martyred in Gaza since the announcement of the truce, including nine martyrs who fell in raids carried out last Thursday. In contrast, scattered attacks by Palestinian factions resulted in the killing of four Israeli soldiers inside the Strip, reflecting the fragility of field commitment to the signed agreements in the absence of a clear political horizon.

On the Lebanese front, the 10-day ceasefire announced by Trump on April 16 failed to curb the violent confrontations in the south. Although Israel refrained from directly targeting the capital Beirut during this period, aerial bombardments and mutual artillery shelling with Hezbollah continued at a high pace, leading to hundreds of new casualties.

Lebanese authorities confirm that the total number of martyrs since early March has exceeded 3,500 people, while Israel announced the killing of 26 soldiers and four civilians in attacks carried out by Hezbollah. Israel insists on retaining its right to launch military operations 'to thwart threats' even under the truce, which is rejected by the Lebanese group that continues its rocket operations.

File on Lebanon is closely linked to the direct conflict between Washington and Tehran, as Iran stipulates that any calm in Lebanon must be part of a comprehensive agreement ending its war with the United States and Israel. Tehran demands the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz and the lifting of the blockade on its ports as a fundamental condition for de-escalating regional tensions, which has not yet been achieved despite indirect negotiation rounds.

Direct confrontation erupted last February when US and Israeli forces attacked Iranian nuclear and missile facilities in an attempt to undermine Tehran's military capabilities. Despite the painful blows received by the Iranian military leadership, Tehran proved its ability to influence the global economy by closing the Strait of Hormuz and disrupting international energy supplies.

In an attempt to contain the situation, Washington announced a ceasefire with Iran in early April, paving the way for Qatari and Pakistani-mediated talks. However, these talks did not result in a permanent agreement, as the exchange of rocket fire continued, and Iranian attacks reached Kuwait International Airport this week, further complicating the diplomatic scene.

Political analysts believe that the failure of these agreements is due to the unwillingness of the warring parties to make the fundamental concessions required in the early stages of the truces. Instead of moving towards sustainable settlements, parties resort to military action to test the limits of agreements or to achieve field gains they failed to extract at the negotiating table.

Urban Cunningham, a researcher at the Royal United Services Institute, points out that the absence of real incentives to adhere to truces makes it difficult to maintain them for long periods. With the political horizon closing, regional powers find themselves driven to continue fighting to impose their conditions, especially given the declining role of international organizations and their ability to enforce oversight.

In Gaza, Israel continues to expand the area of land it militarily controls, undermining reconstruction opportunities that were part of the US administration's promises. This field expansion is met with insistence from Palestinian factions to continue resistance, making 'Trump's truce' merely a political designation that does not change the reality of the bloody war.

As for Kuwait, the targeting of its international airport raised widespread regional concern, as monitoring sources considered it a clear Iranian message of its ability to transfer the conflict to Gulf states. These developments come at a time when Washington is trying to convince its allies that the diplomatic path is still possible, despite field indicators suggesting the exact opposite.

In conclusion, the Middle East remains an open arena for all possibilities, where the files of Gaza, Lebanon, and Iran intertwine in a single knot difficult to untangle with temporary truces. With daily casualties continuing, the question remains about the US administration's ability to transform 'moderate firing' into a real peace that ends the suffering of millions in the region.

The ceasefire in the Middle East has turned into 'more moderate firing' rather than a complete cessation of fighting.

The US-based Pew Research Center has revealed the results of a comprehensive global survey showing that the vast majority of people in 36 countries worldwide hold negative attitudes towards Israel. The report issued by the institute also indicated that these countries are experiencing a state of deep distrust in Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his ability to manage international affairs.\n\nAccording to data collected by the institute between February and May of this year, the percentage of adults who hold a negative view of Israel reached approximately 67%, while the percentage of supporters did not exceed 25%. These results come in a sensitive time following military escalation in the region, which directly affected global public opinion.\n\nMuslim-majority regions recorded the highest levels of rejection of Israeli policies, with strong stances emerging in countries such as Turkey, Pakistan, Indonesia, and Malaysia. These negative attitudes also included residents of the West Bank and East Jerusalem, while the institute noted the impossibility of conducting the survey in the Gaza Strip due to security and field conditions.\n\nIn Europe, the results showed increasing negative evaluations, especially in countries like Spain, the Netherlands, and Italy, where half or more of adults expressed strong dissatisfaction with Israel. In contrast, some sub-Saharan African countries, such as Kenya, remained among the few regions that still held more positive views compared to the rest of the world.\n\nThe survey highlighted a clear generational gap in attitudes, with young people in North America and Europe tending to take tougher stances against Israel compared to older generations. In Hungary, for example, the rejection rate among young people under the age of thirty-four reached approximately 72%, a percentage significantly higher than that recorded among older age groups.\n\nOn the ideological front, the report revealed a sharp division between left-wing and right-wing currents, especially in the United States, Australia, and Greece. Within the US, 83% of those identifying as liberal expressed negative views towards Israel, while this percentage dropped to only 37% among conservatives, reflecting an increasing politicization of the Palestinian issue.\n\nThis year witnessed a significant shift in global public opinion compared to 2025 data, with negative sentiments increasing in 13 out of 24 countries for which previous data was available. In Argentina, the minority rejecting Israel shifted from 46% last year to become a majority comprising 55% of the total population in the latest survey.\n\nRegarding Benjamin Netanyahu's personality, the results confirmed that the majority of people in most surveyed countries do not trust his political decisions on the global stage. This lack of trust included major countries such as Germany, France, Canada, and the United Kingdom, where participants expressed deep doubts about his political wisdom and international orientations.\n\nKenya and the Philippines are the only exceptions in this survey, where more than half of the population still expresses confidence in the Israeli Prime Minister. Apart from these two countries, the general trend is towards a continuous decline in Netanyahu's popularity, especially among educated groups, youth, and political activists in the West.\n\nIn South Korea, the institute observed one of the largest changes in trust levels, with the percentage of those distrusting Netanyahu jumping from 64% last year to 76% currently. Analysts attribute this decline to the hardline military policies pursued by the current Israeli government, which are causing widespread international concern.\n\nThe report also indicated that the ideological gap in attitudes towards Netanyahu is clearly evident in high-income countries such as the Netherlands, Spain, and the United States. In these countries, the likelihood of distrusting the Israeli leader is at least 25 percentage points higher among those on the left compared to their counterparts on the political right.\n\nIn Italy, the survey recorded a significant increase in the percentage of those who "absolutely" distrust Netanyahu, reaching 62% compared to 45% in the previous year. This rapid increase reflects the extent of diplomatic and popular isolation that the Israeli leadership has begun to face in traditional European circles.\n\nThe institute concluded that these data reflect a fundamental shift in how the world perceives Israel as a state and Netanyahu as a leader, away from traditional alliances. It appears that the continuation of military operations and regional tensions has directly contributed to shaping this bleak view among global public opinion across its various orientations.\n\nIt is worth noting that this survey is one of the broadest statistical studies that addressed attitudes towards Israel since the beginning of recent events in the region. These figures provide a strong indicator for decision-makers around the world regarding increasing popular pressures demanding a change in policies towards the conflict in the Middle East.\n\nThe majority of people in most countries included in our survey this year expressed a negative opinion of Israel and little to no trust in Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

The US House of Representatives on Thursday voted to reject a bill based on the War Powers Act, which aimed to compel President Donald Trump to withdraw US forces from any combat operations in Lebanon that had not received prior congressional approval. The session saw a decisive vote that ended with a majority of 324 representatives opposing the proposal, compared to only 92 members in favor, while two representatives chose to abstain from voting, a move reflecting a division over the mechanisms of foreign military intervention.

The details of the vote showed broad bipartisan opposition to the resolution, with 207 Republicans and 117 Democrats, in addition to one independent representative, opposing it. In contrast, Representative Thomas Massie emerged as the sole Republican voice supporting the resolution, while Democratic Representatives Betty McCollum and Derek Tran were present without taking an explicit stance on the vote, which sparked widespread debate in Washington circles.

Democratic Representative Rashida Tlaib based her proposal on the absence of legal authorization, noting that Congress had not declared war nor granted specific permission for US forces to participate in Israeli military operations within Lebanese territory. Tlaib asserted in her argument that the United States had not designated any entity within Lebanon as a legitimate target under existing authorizations for the use of military force, rendering any combat involvement illegal according to her view.

Via the 'X' platform, Tlaib emphasized the humanitarian aspect of the crisis, pointing out that reports indicate the death of approximately 11 children daily in Lebanon as a result of the ongoing escalation. The representative called for an immediate halt to the shelling, considering that the Israeli government continues to expand the scope of its military strikes in various Lebanese regions, despite previous understandings related to a ceasefire agreement that did not withstand the field escalation.

In contrast, Democratic Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, along with party leaders, issued a clarifying statement affirming that no US armed forces personnel are currently engaged in combat or direct hostilities in Lebanon. This stance aimed to calm fears of imminent US involvement, considering that the wording of the proposed resolution does not align with the current field reality of forces deployed in the region.

Democratic leaders explained that addressing the issue of war powers in Lebanon should be done through other legislative channels that ensure the protection of US interests without harming security cooperation with the Lebanese army. They indicated that any legislative action must preserve Washington's ability to protect its diplomatic facilities and secure its personnel, which they considered a weakness in the resolution proposed by Tlaib.

This parliamentary move comes just one day after the House of Representatives successfully passed another resolution aimed at restricting President Trump's ability to launch military action against Iran without congressional approval. This disparity in the results of the two votes reflects the complexity of political calculations in Washington regarding Middle East issues, where lawmakers tend to tighten oversight on the Iran file while maintaining wider room for maneuver in the Lebanese file.

Congress has not granted any specific legal authorization for US forces to participate in Israeli military operations in Lebanon.

The Palestinian Ministry of Health announced this morning the martyrdom of 18-year-old Haitham Ezzedine Omar Hamaida, who was shot by Israeli occupation forces. The incident occurred during a military incursion targeting the village of Beitin, located east of Ramallah in the occupied West Bank.

Local sources confirmed that the occupation forces not only fatally shot the young man but also detained his body and prevented medical teams from providing him with first aid. This action is part of the policy of detaining the bodies of martyrs, which Israeli authorities frequently employ against Palestinians.

Beitin village witnessed violent confrontations during the night hours following the occupation vehicles' incursion into its neighborhoods, where soldiers fired live ammunition and tear gas heavily. These assaults led to fires in large areas of agricultural land belonging to the villagers, causing severe material losses.

For its part, the Israeli occupation army claimed that its soldiers observed a group of young men throwing Molotov cocktails at Israeli vehicles passing on the main road near the village. The military statement claimed that the shooting was a direct response to this threat, noting the ongoing pursuit of other participants in the incident.

In a related context, the Palestinian Red Crescent Society stated that its teams received an urgent report about an injured person in an area near the 'Beit El' settlement, which is built on citizens' lands. The society clarified that the occupation forces prevented ambulances from reaching the site and later refused to hand over the body to paramedics for transport to the hospital.

Official statistics indicate a sharp increase in the number of casualties in the West Bank since the start of the aggression on the Gaza Strip in October 2023. At least 1076 Palestinians have been martyred by Israeli occupation forces and settlers, amid intensive military campaigns targeting Palestinian cities, camps, and villages daily.

On the diplomatic front, the Palestinian Ambassador to the United Nations, Riyad Mansour, called on the American administration to exert real pressure to stop Israeli annexation plans. Mansour pointed out during a press conference in New York that Washington has the necessary tools to prevent the Israeli government from taking steps that would completely undermine the chances of achieving peace and stability.

Mansour stressed that the continuation of settlement policies in the occupied territories poses a direct threat to regional and international security. He demanded effective international action to stop Israeli encroachment on Palestinian lands, considering that international silence encourages the occupation to proceed with imposing a new reality that will be difficult to change in the future.

For his part, the Saudi Ambassador to the United Nations, Abdulaziz Al-Wasil, warned against Israeli endeavors aimed at changing the demographic and geographical reality in the West Bank. Al-Wasil affirmed that these systematic practices aim to undermine the possibility of establishing an independent and sovereign Palestinian state, which requires a firm stance from the international community.

At the conclusion of diplomatic efforts, the Organization of Islamic Cooperation called on the UN Security Council to fulfill its legal and moral responsibilities towards the Palestinian people. The organization, through Turkey's representative, called for immediate action to stop settlement activities and forced displacement, and to ensure accountability for those responsible for ongoing violations of international law.

Israeli practices constitute a continuous process of changing the demographic and geographical reality in the Palestinian territories, which threatens the possibility of establishing an independent state.

The Arab political scene in general, and the Tunisian one in particular, is dominated by political and social groups that feel a real terror of the possibilities of change inherent in the popular consciousness. These elites have, over time, transformed into conservative forces desperately defending the prevailing conditions, in anticipation of the consequences that might result from the liberation of peoples and their breaking free from the shackles of dependency.

The concept of freedom, at its core, represents a critical transition from a state of stagnation and false stability to a state of movement and uncertainty, a stage that requires a long time to rebuild stability on sound foundations. This transitional path seems frightening and costly for forces unwilling to pay the price of change, which drives them to regress towards preserving the status quo as the least harmful option.

The capitalist class in the Arab region is one of the most prominent conservative forces, as it cannot be compared to the historical Western bourgeoisie that led democratic transformations. This class in our Arab context is a direct product of political regimes that created it to be an economic belt ensuring the survival of power in exchange for financial privileges.

Although global transformations offer enormous economic opportunities in an atmosphere of freedom, capital owners have chosen to defend their narrow matrix of interests by rejecting all radical change. This was clearly evident during the Arab Spring tests, where this class sided with everything that represented the spirit of the old regimes and pumped huge sums of money to stifle any peaceful movement.

These economic elites lack the necessary qualifications to lead social or intellectual change; they are a class experiencing a state of intellectual clinical death, and do not produce real developmental programs. Their ultimate ambition is to perpetuate the status quo, which explains their lack of support for culture or education, preferring to live under systems that reject openness.

On the other hand, modernizing elites emerge, raising slogans of liberalism, leftism, and nationalism in their theoretical literature, while in reality practicing behavior hostile to the liberation of peoples. Major political junctures have revealed a huge gap between the theoretical pamphlets of these elites and their practices, which often blessed the destruction of ballot boxes.

Political sources have observed a clear bias of modernizing forces in favor of military forces in several Arab countries, where popular movements were labeled as conspiracies to justify coups. This behavior stems from an established idea that any freedom that might enable a political opponent, specifically the Islamist current, to participate is a freedom that must be blocked.

These conservative modernists prefer the survival of bloody and totalitarian regimes over the people being liberated and choosing their representatives with free will, which is a stark contradiction to the principles of modernity. Some of them even went so far as to yearn for previous authoritarian rule models, forgetting decades of bitter criticism they directed at those regimes before the test of freedom confronted them with the truth.

This fear of freedom among these elites is partly due to their realization that the street's balance does not favor them, and that the modernization projects they adopted did not meet people's aspirations. In contrast, the masses, described as simple, have shown a greater ability to accept change and endure the hardships of the path separating tyranny and freedom.

Looking at the experience of Islamist currents, we find that they were the party that tried to protect freedoms in the initial founding period after the Arab revolutions, despite all attempts to discredit their experience. They actively contributed to establishing the foundations of democratic work in Tunisia and Egypt, and paid a heavy political and human cost as a result of their adherence to this path.

It is impossible to build a free and stable system if one team alone defends freedoms while the rest of the elites entrench themselves in the camp of counter-revolutions or suspicious silence. The path to freedom necessarily requires a transformation in the mindset of the economic and modernizing elite, a path that still seems long and arduous given the current circumstances.

The current Arab political scene is still governed by the mentality of enemies of freedom, at a time when supporters of real change are behind bars or in exile. Although the spirit of freedom still ferments in the hearts of peoples, talking about an imminent breakthrough requires caution and a precise reading of the balance of power on the ground.

The attempts of coup regimes to change their military or political facades are merely cosmetic operations aimed at preserving the essence of the existing tyranny. This conservative policy seeks to prolong the stagnant situation, but it always clashes with the existential question that threatens the worn-out pamphlets from which the enemies of change read.

Ultimately, the conflict in the Arab region remains a struggle between the will for liberation and forces that fear losing their privileges under the rule of law and citizenship. And even if the road is long, awareness of the contradictions of the conservative elites represents the first step towards regaining popular initiative and building a future where the ruler does not fear the freedom of the ruled.

Freedom means moving from a stagnant state to a dynamic and uncertain one, and this transition is frightening and costly for those afraid to pay the price.

Recent outcomes of the negotiation round hosted by Washington have brought forth the concept of 'experimental' or 'model' zones as a practical mechanism to reshape the security reality in South Lebanon. This approach aims to transition from a fragile ceasefire to more sustainable security arrangements that ensure the long-term stability of the Lebanese-Israeli border.

According to joint understandings, it was decided to expedite the establishment of these zones to be under the exclusive and full control of the Lebanese Armed Forces, while preventing any armed presence outside the framework of the state. This experiment is scheduled to begin in a limited number of southern towns to assess its success before expanding its generalization to wider geographical areas in later stages.

The core idea of this proposal is a gradual withdrawal of Israeli occupation forces from specific locations, met by an immediate and comprehensive deployment of the Lebanese Army to ensure that no armed factions return. This measure is considered a phased test for the implementation of the provisions of international Resolution 1701, rather than moving towards a comprehensive and immediate application that may face complex field obstacles.

In the context of site identification, Lebanese President Joseph Aoun revealed that the Lebanese proposal included starting with the towns of Eastern and Western Zawtar, Yahmar, and Qalaat al-Shaqif, given their strategic location and proximity to the city of Nabatieh. Despite the geographical clarity of the proposal, it has raised a wave of questions and concerns within Lebanese political circles about the sovereign implications of this step.

Observers and analysts believe that adopting a gradual evaluation model may give the Israeli occupation a pretext to link its comprehensive withdrawal to unguaranteed field results, which could prolong the stay of its forces in some sensitive border points. This concern stems from the possibility of the 'test' turning into an open-ended timeline that subjects Lebanese sovereignty to the assessments of external parties.

For his part, political researcher Mohammed Alloush warned of the danger of the Lebanese Army becoming an 'executive body' for security tasks that serve international agendas, considering that subjecting the army's performance to American and Israeli evaluation undermines the independence of military decision-making. Alloush pointed out that Israel might try to push the army to carry out tasks that it failed to achieve on the ground in villages that witnessed fierce confrontations in recent months.

These developments coincide with the monitoring of field movements and Israeli withdrawals from the areas of Debbine and Blat, which opens the door to questions about whether these steps are the actual beginning of the implementation of the experimental zones model. Between the international vision that considers it a means of building trust, and local fears of its repercussions, South Lebanon faces a new phase of conflict management based on gradual field implementation.

The proposed mechanism makes the performance of the Lebanese Army subject to American-Israeli evaluation, and the military institution may turn into an executive body for externally defined security tasks.

Al-Jawazat camp in the Gaza Strip is facing a complete collapse of its food security system, as the camp, inhabited by more than 1800 displaced families, has become a living example of an impending humanitarian catastrophe. Approximately 7,000 people live in a very narrow geographical area, with a complete absence of ready-made food and the energy sources needed for cooking, putting thousands of children and women in direct confrontation with hunger.

Mohammed Saada, the official in charge of managing the camp, confirmed that the crisis is worsening daily due to the lack of income for displaced families, which prevents them from being able to buy basic necessities even if they are available. Saada explained that the availability of flour does not solve the problem in the absence of firewood or cooking gas, leaving families unable to convert raw materials into edible meals.

Field data indicates that the gas allocation for a single family only arrives once every three months, a limited quantity that does not cover cooking needs for more than twenty days at best. This severe deficit has forced the displaced to rely entirely on charitable kitchens, but the cessation of the 'World Central Kitchen' due to occupation measures has brought down the last food safety nets in the region.

In addition to the food crisis, the displaced suffer from deteriorating health and environmental conditions, with skin diseases, mosquitoes, and insects spreading widely due to the absence of adequate health facilities. The suffering of the elderly and people with special needs is compounded as they find themselves in an environment lacking the most basic medical care, amid an insane rise in prices for alternative fuels such as wood and gasoline.

This suffering comes at a time when statistics indicate that the Israeli aggression has destroyed about 80% of the urban infrastructure in the Gaza Strip, turning cities into piles of rubble and iron. This widespread destruction has made finding safe shelter or a means of livelihood almost impossible, forcing residents to crowd into camps that lack the most basic services and humanitarian protection.

International reports supported by the United Nations had previously warned of an official famine outbreak in the Gaza governorates, confirming that more than half a million Palestinians face the risk of starvation. Observers emphasize that what is happening in Al-Jawazat camp is a recurring pattern in all camps in the Strip, amid widespread international silence and a scarcity of humanitarian aid that does not meet the minimum needs of the afflicted population.

Famine is no longer a future threat but has become a current reality knocking on the doors of the camps one after another.

Malak Al-Mahmoud, the wife of Palestinian refugee Wissam Miqdad, revealed horrific details of a violent physical assault she suffered at the hands of Dutch police officers inside an asylum center. The woman, a Syrian residing in Germany, explained that security personnel beat and dragged her despite their prior knowledge of her sensitive health condition, as she was in advanced stages of pregnancy.

Media sources reported that Malak tried to appeal to the police officers and clearly informed them of the need to consider her physical condition, but the reaction was violent, involving pushing and forced dragging. The victim confirmed that this harsh treatment led to an immediate deterioration in her health, as she began to suffer from labor symptoms and severe pain that continued for several consecutive days before she gave birth to her daughter.

For his part, Palestinian refugee Wissam Miqdad, originally from the Gaza Strip, indicated that this incident occurred at the peak of immense psychological and living pressures faced by the family due to the complexities of their residency file. Miqdad explained that the Dutch authorities had informed him of their decision to deport him separately to Egypt, while his wife was to be deported to Germany, threatening to separate the family.

Despite the baby's survival and healthy arrival into the world, the family continues to live in a state of legal and psychological instability within the European continent. The family confirms that the repercussions of the assault still haunt them, as anxiety dominates their future in the absence of necessary legal and humanitarian protection guarantees for their situation.

In response, the Dutch police issued a statement confirming that they had launched a comprehensive review of the circumstances surrounding the use of force during the arrest operation at the 'Zift' asylum seekers' center. The authorities claimed that the widely circulated video clips do not reflect the full truth, but rather show an excerpt from the events of the incident, which began with a report of a fight.

According to available information, the incident dates back to May 19th in the Campweg area and has sparked a widespread wave of condemnation from international activists and human rights advocates. Observers considered the leaked footage to put human rights standards in Europe under scrutiny, especially concerning the treatment of the most vulnerable groups such as pregnant women and children.

This incident reopens the debate about the limits of the use of force by European security agencies within asylum and detention centers. Human rights advocates are calling for an independent and transparent investigation to ensure accountability for those involved in the assault and to establish strict protocols to prevent the recurrence of such grave violations against international protection seekers.

I clearly informed the police officers of my pregnancy and asked them to treat me gently, but they pushed and dragged me by force.

US President Donald Trump showed surprising flexibility towards the Iranian leadership, expressing his readiness to meet Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei to discuss ways to end tensions between the two countries. Trump affirmed during his remarks in the Oval Office that getting to know Khamenei would be an honor for him, emphasizing his desire to build a relationship based on mutual respect should such a meeting take place.

The US President indicated that negotiations between Washington and Tehran have reached advanced stages, with both parties close to drafting a comprehensive agreement. This anticipated agreement is based on a strict Iranian commitment not to seek nuclear weapons, in exchange for understandings that ensure regional stability and common interests.

Regarding the security of international navigation, Trump revealed positive developments concerning the Strait of Hormuz, confirming that the majority of naval mines have already been cleared. He considered the full reopening of navigation in this vital passage a fundamental pillar in any future understandings with the Iranian side.

Despite the optimistic tone, Trump clarified that he is not seeking a direct meeting at present, but rather links it to achieving tangible progress on the ground. He added that any meeting with the Iranian leader must be the culmination of actual steps that ensure the success of the nuclear and security agreement process.

The US President touched upon the complexities of the Iranian file, describing it as more difficult than other international files from a military and political perspective. He stressed that dealing with Tehran requires a different strategy that takes into account regional sensitivities and the risks of any escalation.

Trump revealed that there are intensive discussions within the US administration about the available options for dealing with Iran's nuclear program, including military options. However, he indicated the exclusion of some offensive proposals due to the high risks they entail, which could lead to an explosion of the situation in the Middle East.

On the other hand, media sources reported that current US diplomatic moves are under time pressure related to major international commitments. The United States is preparing to host the World Cup, which necessitates the current administration to cool down inflamed fronts to ensure the success of the global sporting event.

Observers believe that the approaching World Cup is pushing the White House to adopt a more cautious and balanced political discourse in dealing with foreign crises. Washington aims, through this approach, to reduce the likelihood of any disturbances that could affect energy markets or global navigation during the tournament period.

In contrast, academic voices from Tehran emerged questioning Washington's intentions, with Iranian experts considering Trump's adherence to his harsh conditions an impediment to any real progress. They pointed out that what Trump describes as a good deal is seen by the Iranian side as an attempt to impose total surrender on the country's sovereignty.

Circles close to decision-making in Iran affirmed that Tehran will not submit to American dictates that ignore the rights of the Iranian people. These sources stressed that Iran does not seek war and prefers diplomatic solutions, but stipulates that any agreement must preserve its supreme national interests.

Despite Trump's positive statements, the deadlock in the horizon of negotiations remains, as the gap between Washington's nuclear demands and Tehran's expectations for lifting sanctions is still wide. International circles are awaiting what the coming days will bring in terms of moves that may lead to a historic meeting or a continuation of the stalemate.

If I meet him, it would be an honor for me to get to know him, and I will treat him with all respect.

The Secretary-General of the United Nations, Antonio Guterres, welcomed the announcement of a ceasefire agreement between Lebanon and Israel, emphasizing in an official statement the necessity for all parties to immediately cease hostile attacks. Guterres urged the concerned parties to fully comply with the principles of international humanitarian law and ensure the protection of civilians in all circumstances and areas affected by the conflict.

The Secretary-General called on Hezbollah and non-state forces to abide by the Lebanese government's decisions aimed at extending its sovereignty over all national territory, stressing the importance of confining weapons to the state and its official institutions. He also issued a clear call for Israel to fully withdraw from areas north of the Blue Line, in respect for Lebanon's internationally recognized sovereignty and territorial integrity.

In a related context, Guterres affirmed the international organization's commitment to supporting all diplomatic efforts aimed at consolidating the cessation of hostilities and the comprehensive implementation of UN Resolution 1701. He expressed hope that ongoing negotiations would lead to lasting stability, declaring the UN's continued support for Lebanese state institutions, especially the Lebanese army, to enable it to perform its national duties.

On the ground, the pace of military operations did not subside, as field sources reported continued intense Israeli air raids on wide areas in southern Lebanon and the Beqaa, leading to the martyrdom of several individuals and injuries to others. These raids coincided with the occupation army issuing new evacuation orders for residents of the towns of Arnaya, Kafr Fila, and Anqoun, exacerbating the suffering of displaced persons in those areas.

Reports from the town of Anqoun indicate that it currently hosts about 2,500 displaced persons in addition to its original inhabitants, which makes the evacuation orders a direct threat to thousands of civilians who lack safe havens. Meanwhile, medical sources confirmed the martyrdom of three individuals and one injury in raids targeting the towns of Duweir and Haboush, where missiles completely destroyed residential buildings.

For its part, the Lebanese Civil Defense announced the martyrdom of seven people as a result of a series of overnight raids launched by Israeli aircraft on the coastal city of Tyre. Sources explained that rescue teams faced great difficulties in recovering victims from under the rubble due to the continuous intensive flights of warplanes and drones in the skies of the affected region.

In a further escalation, Israeli drones targeted a motorcycle at the popular relief intersection in the city of Nabatieh, and raids also hit the towns of Haboush and Abba, resulting in varying injuries among civilians. Local sources stated that warplanes destroyed a residential building near the gendarmerie station in the town of Duweir, leading to the martyrdom of one citizen and serious injuries to another.

The wave of intense shelling included the towns of Majdal Zoun, Al-Barak area, and Harouf roundabout, in addition to targeting buildings on the main road of Deir ez-Zahrani with precise airstrikes. The towns of Kafr Rumman, Nabatieh al-Fawqa, and the outskirts of Shoukin and Mayfadoun also came under intense artillery shelling since the early morning hours, causing extensive material damage to public and private properties.

In the city of Tyre, an airstrike targeting the vicinity of Jabal Amel Hospital destroyed a building belonging to a Lebanese bank, and resulted in injuries to 12 people described as moderate and minor. These targeting incidents come within the framework of the intensive military pressure policy practiced by the occupation on infrastructure and populated areas deep in southern Lebanon.

On the other hand, Hezbollah announced the execution of a series of military operations targeting gatherings of occupation soldiers and vehicles in the vicinity of Beaufort Castle, Rashaf, and Al-Qantara. Hezbollah affirmed in its statements that it confronted attempts of ground advances in the city of Khiam, in addition to shooting down a 'Hermes 450' drone and detonating explosive devices against an Israeli force that attempted to infiltrate towards the outskirts of the town of Al-Ghandouriya.

We call on all parties to fully respect the cessation of hostilities and to comply with their obligations under international humanitarian law at all times.

Washington Message

Washington – Said Arikat - 5/6/2026

News Analysis

The results of a new poll conducted by the University of Maryland in cooperation with Ipsos reveal growing concern within the United States regarding war with Iran, an indicator reflecting an increasing gap between stated foreign policy goals and American public perceptions of the outcomes of such a war and its repercussions on national interests.

According to the results of the "Critical Issues Poll" supervised by the renowned researcher Shibley Telhami, the majority of Americans believe that the war with Iran has harmed American interests more than it has achieved gains. This comes at a time when questions are increasing within political and academic circles about the utility of continued military involvement in Middle East conflicts, and Washington's ability to achieve clear strategic objectives through them.

The results show clear partisan differences in evaluating the war, with 84 percent of Democrats and 63 percent of independents saying that the war's effects were more negative than positive for the United States. Among Republicans, the picture appeared less severe but still leaned towards pessimism; 33 percent believed the war's outcomes were negative, compared to only 25 percent who considered them positive.

This indicator is particularly important because Republicans typically form the political base closest to adopting more hawkish foreign policies, and they represent the segment most supportive of President Donald Trump. Nevertheless, the poll results suggest that doubts about the war's utility are no longer confined to the Democratic or independent camps but have extended to segments of Republican voters themselves.

The results also reveal a deeper crisis related to Americans' perception of the war's trajectory and its actual outcomes. According to the poll, fewer than one in six Americans believe that the United States has won or is on its way to winning. In contrast, the largest number of participants said that neither side could be considered victorious or decisively ahead in the conflict.

Telhami believes that these results reflect growing popular fears that the United States is not achieving tangible gains from the war, regardless of the objectives declared at its outset. He points out that the absence of a sense of victory among various segments of public opinion, including older Republican demographics, makes it difficult to imagine that extending or expanding the war would change the general direction of popular attitudes.

These results reveal a recurring phenomenon in American political history: the decline of popular support for wars as they drag on and lack clear indicators of success. Americans may accept military involvement in the early stages of conflicts under the influence of a sense of threat or out of a desire to defend national interests, but the continuation of military operations without tangible results often leads to the erosion of public trust. Current figures suggest that the war with Iran has begun to enter this phase, where the discussion revolves more around cost and return than political slogans and stated objectives.

In a separate but equally important context, Telhami, in another study prepared in collaboration with researchers Calvert Jones and Marc Lynch, discussed the results of the current spring's "Middle East Scholars Measure," which focuses on the assessment by academic specialists in regional affairs of the impacts of artificial intelligence and its professional uses.

The study indicates that artificial intelligence has already entered the field of Middle East studies, but in a heterogeneous manner and accompanied by varying degrees of concern and reservation. Most participants reported that this technology has not significantly affected their teaching methods so far, yet those who confirmed an impact described it, almost collectively, as mostly negative.

This stance reflects growing concerns within academic circles about the impact of AI tools on the quality of scientific research and students' critical thinking levels, in addition to the risks associated with producing inaccurate or misleading content whose sources are difficult to verify.

The academics' concern does not stem from the technology itself, but from the speed with which it permeates the production and circulation of knowledge. Educational institutions typically need many years to develop ethical and methodological standards for dealing with new tools, while AI is spreading at an unprecedented pace. Many researchers fear that excessive reliance on these tools will weaken independent analytical skills and original research, which are the fundamental pillars of academic work. Therefore, the current hesitation appears to be a reflection of a transitional state rather than a definitive rejection of the technology.

One of the most prominent findings of the study was a striking disparity between researchers' assessment of the impact of artificial intelligence and their assessment of the role of social media in shaping American public opinion on the Palestinian issue and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

25 percent of academics believed that AI-generated propaganda and misinformation contributed to shifting American public opinion towards more pro-Israel stances, while only 13 percent believed it fostered sympathy for Palestinians.

In contrast, 64 percent of participants said that social media platforms, such as "X" and "TikTok," contributed to shifting American public opinion towards greater sympathy for Palestinians. Thus, a large number of researchers believe that the impact of the two technologies moves in opposite directions when addressing political issues related to the Middle East.

This paradox reveals a new battle unfolding in the digital space over the formation of public consciousness. Artificial intelligence tends to produce massive amounts of organized and steerable content, making it an effective tool in influence and propaganda campaigns. Social media, on the other hand, provides a wider space for the spread of direct testimonies, images, and videos coming from the field. Hence, many researchers believe that American public opinion is now influenced by two different sources of information; one institutional and organized, and the other popular and interactive, which explains the contradiction in the trends observed by recent studies.

The results of both studies conclude that the American mood is undergoing rapid transformations on two parallel levels: the first relates to increasing popular doubts about the utility of foreign wars, and the second is linked to the profound changes brought about by new digital technologies in shaping knowledge and public opinion. In both cases, it appears that the United States faces growing challenges in convincing its citizens of the utility of traditional policies, whether on battlefields or in information arenas.

From the first moments of the Israeli occupation's response to the Al-Aqsa Flood operation, Benjamin Netanyahu's government began formulating war objectives and setting timelines for their achievement. This determination was necessary to absorb the anger of the internal opposition, which held the government responsible for the security failure, while the Biden administration pressed for a shorter war duration, fearing erosion of international support.

The recent statement by former Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant shocked political circles when he announced that Israel would need years to achieve its goals in Gaza. This time estimate revealed a significant gap between Israeli military ambitions and the reality on the ground imposed by the Palestinian resistance and its ability to endure for a long time.

Despite more than two years since the outbreak of the confrontation, Israel has not succeeded in achieving its fundamental goals of forced displacement or the complete elimination of Hamas's structure. Observers attribute this setback to the growing defensive power within Gaza, in addition to the active regional support element that has exerted continuous pressure on various fronts.

The United States has been directly involved in the battlefields, whether through engagement with the Houthis in Yemen or providing intelligence and logistical support in Gaza and Lebanon. Despite the previous attempts by the Biden administration to prevent a comprehensive regional war, absolute military and political support for Israel remained the only constant in American policy.

With Donald Trump's arrival at the White House, the intensity of American involvement in direct confrontation with Iran escalated to support its strategic ally. This was evident in the 'Midnight Hammer' operation, which targeted Iran's fortified Fordow facility, in an attempt to undermine the Iranian nuclear program that Israel views as an existential threat.

Current Israeli ambitions extend beyond the Gaza Strip, as the right-wing government seeks to reshape the Middle East under the name of 'Greater Israel.' This project includes geographical expansion and security influence that extends to cover large parts of neighboring countries, with the aim of ending any regional power centers outside the sphere of dependency.

In contrast, Iran is undergoing a deep internal transformation with the emergence of a new generation of technocrats who manage political and military files with a nationalist doctrine. This transformation has made the Iranian regime more focused on the art of governance and national interest, transcending the traditional revolutionary ideological frameworks that prevailed in past decades.

The United States believes that maintaining its global order requires absolute control over waterways and maritime choke points such as the Strait of Hormuz and Bab al-Mandab. This control is the primary guarantee for the continued dominance of the dollar and securing global trade routes that connect East and West.

Iran is a vital component of China's 'Belt and Road' initiative, which seeks to provide an economic alternative to the Washington-led global order. This fierce struggle in the waterways reflects Beijing's desire to restore its position as the world's largest economy through the new 'Eurasia' economic system.

Recent developments have shown that the American military bases deployed in the region are no longer sufficient to fully secure navigation in the Strait of Hormuz. This field challenge has put the American administration in a real dilemma, as it has become clear that igniting wars without a clear exit strategy leads to the depletion of power and international prestige.

Israel's vision of dispensing with American support within a decade, as Netanyahu stated, seems fraught with risks in light of geopolitical shifts. From an American strategic perspective, Israel remains an advanced military base, not an entity completely independent of Washington's vital interests in the region.

Ultimately, the region stands at a crossroads between a decaying American global order and a Chinese system quietly making its way through economy and alliances. Iran, with its geographical positioning and new doctrine, remains the cornerstone of this conflict that will redraw the map of international powers for many years to come.

Israel, first and foremost, is nothing more than an American military base in the Middle East, just like the aircraft carriers that roam the oceans.

Dr. Ibrahim Nairat

Throughout decades of long conflict, Palestinians have been preoccupied with the question of leadership more than they have been with the question of power. Leaderships have succeeded one another, organizations have risen and others have declined, and programs and slogans have changed, but the reality has continued to pose the same question: Where does true Palestinian power lie?

Often, the Palestinian crisis is reduced to a crisis of leadership or a crisis of political organizations, as if changing individuals or replacing positions is sufficient to bring about a fundamental transformation in reality. However, a calm review of the Palestinian experience leads to a different conclusion; true power has never been exclusive to a leader, a faction, or an institution, but rather has been inherent in Palestinian society itself, in its exceptional ability to steadfastness, survival, and preservation of its national identity despite all transformations and pressures.

Long occupations do not only confront armies, but they confront peoples. A military force may be able to win a battle or impose its control over land, but it faces a more complex dilemma when it finds itself before a people who refuse to surrender, assimilate, or abandon their national narrative. Therefore, the secret to the continuation of the Palestinian cause throughout these decades has not been military or economic superiority, but rather the ability of Palestinian society to reproduce itself generation after generation, and to maintain its national presence despite all attempts at weakening and attrition.

From this perspective, true Palestinian power appears to be inherent in the Palestinian individual himself; in the student who insists on his right to education, in the farmer who protects his land, in the worker who continues to search for a dignified life, and in the family that transmits national memory to its children, as well as in millions of Palestinians inside and outside the homeland who have maintained their belonging and identity despite changing places and circumstances.

However, possessing power is one thing, and the ability to employ it and transform it into effective political action is another. Here begins the deeper Palestinian dilemma. The people possess enormous energy, but this energy does not necessarily transform into organized power capable of asserting its presence in the political equation. Between latent power and effective action stands a set of structural obstacles that have accumulated over time.

Perhaps the most prominent of these obstacles appears in the complex relationship between Palestinian society and the Palestinian Authority. Since the establishment of the Authority, a political and administrative structure emerged, primarily designed within a vision based on building and managing state institutions. Over time, a complete system of laws, agencies, functions, interests, and political culture was formed, deriving its logic from the idea of the state more than from the logic of national liberation movements.

Here emerges a paradox worth contemplating. On the one hand, official discourse repeatedly calls for popular resistance as a strategic option in confronting the occupation. On the other hand, the existing political structure appears incapable of producing or leading a broad and sustainable popular movement. The reason is not necessarily the absence of will, but rather because the logic of authority and the logic of popular resistance stem from different priorities.

Authority, by its nature, seeks stability, administration, and the preservation of institutions, services, and public order, while popular resistance relies on community initiative, mass mobilization, and direct political friction with the reality of occupation. The former fears chaos and the political, economic, and security costs that may result from it, while the latter believes that stagnation itself carries an increasing national cost.

For this reason, the problem may not be the absence of calls for popular resistance, but rather the existence of a structural gap between the party issuing the call and the environment required for its success. Popular resistance is not an administrative decision that can be issued from above, but rather a social and political process that grows when people feel that they are partners in the decision, not just recipients of it.

Over time, the distance between society and its political institutions widened. Traditional popular frameworks declined, public participation weakened, and feelings of frustration accumulated among broad segments of Palestinians who no longer saw a direct impact of their political participation on the course of events. In light of this reality, it became difficult to mobilize society around long-term collective projects, no matter how just or necessary they were.

Hence, the question that is increasingly present in Palestinian discourse emerges: Has the existence of the Authority become a structural obstacle to popular initiatives?

Perhaps the answer is not that simple. The problem is not in the existence of the Authority itself, but rather in the nature of the relationship that has developed between it and society. When institutions become a closed space and mechanisms of participation, renewal, and accountability weaken within them, they gradually lose their ability to absorb popular energy. And when citizens feel that their role is limited to waiting for decisions rather than participating in making them, individual and collective initiative both decline.

Conversely, reducing the crisis to the Authority alone ignores other equally important factors; such as political division, social and economic transformations, declining trust in public work, and the exhaustion of society under the weight of daily burdens. Nevertheless, the relationship between the Authority and the people remains one of the most important knots that hinder the transformation of latent societal power into organized political power.

Palestinian history has repeatedly proven that society possesses an exceptional ability to act when it feels that it is the owner of the national project, not just its audience. In moments when popular will met with a comprehensive national vision, Palestinians were able to produce forms of collective action that left a deep impact on the course of the cause, while when the gap between leadership and people widened, initiatives declined and frustration replaced action.

This analysis gains further clarity when looking at the current field reality, where settlement expansion is accelerating unprecedentedly, amidst a clear inability to produce Palestinian initiatives capable of curbing it or even creating a serious political or field cost for it. This scene is not only read as a unilateral development by the occupying power, but also as a reflection of the state of paralysis and dispersion in Palestinian collective action, and the absence of the ability to transform popular anger into organized and effective action.

From this perspective, it appears that the other side is not content with investing in the material balance of power, but also benefits from the state of division, narrow horizons, and lack of initiative, allowing it to expand its facts on the ground with the least cost or deterrence. Here, the gap between the latent power in society and the inability of political frameworks to activate it becomes clearer, and it becomes one of the most important elements in explaining the current scene, where the strength of settlement action intersects with the weakness of counter-action, at a moment when political confusion is mixed with a strategic dead end.

Therefore, the central Palestinian question today is not only about who leads, or which organization has the greatest influence, but about how to rediscover the true source of power inherent in society itself. The issue is not a crisis of faces or names as much as it is a crisis of the relationship between original power and its political institutions.

The Palestinian people still represent the largest elements of power in the conflict equation. They are the source of steadfastness, continuity, legitimacy, and the ability to raise the cost of occupation and deplete its project in the long run. But this power will remain latent unless it finds a political and institutional framework capable of absorbing it, organizing it, and transforming it into a comprehensive national project.

However, understanding this source is not enough unless it is coupled with rebuilding the mechanisms capable of transforming it into organized and sustainable action. The Palestinian dilemma today does not seem to be in the absence of popular will as much as it lies in the widening gap between society and the political frameworks that are supposed to represent it and organize its energies. Therefore, the question is no longer how to mobilize people, but how to rebuild the relationship between society and politics on new foundations.

This begins with freeing community initiatives from the captivity of factional polarization, and restoring credibility to intermediary institutions such as unions, student federations, cooperative societies, and local committees capable of representing public interests away from political divisions. It also requires redefining popular resistance itself, not as seasonal events or fleeting moments of protest, but as a daily community culture embodied in education, volunteer work, land protection, promoting local production, and building networks of solidarity and steadfastness.

At the same time, no popular project can rise without restoring trust between citizens and their institutions, a trust that is not built on slogans, but on transparency, accountability, expanding participation, renewing elites, and opening the way for new generations to contribute to decision-making. This task may require transcending the centrality of national action by empowering local initiatives in cities, villages, and refugee camps, and building community coordination networks capable of acting from the grassroots up instead of waiting for decisions from the political center alone.

The most sensitive challenge is to redefine the role of the Authority itself. It is not required to monopolize national action or to lead all forms of popular movement, but rather to transform from a position of controller to a position of enabler, and from an authority that manages society to a framework that allows society to organize itself and express its interests and initiatives.

Here emerges the deeper question that will determine the shape of the next phase: Do Palestinians seek to build a popular movement independent of the Authority or integrated with it? Perhaps the solution does not lie in either of the two options in their absolute form, but in a third formula based on a strong society that possesses its independent institutions and free public spheres, and an authority that recognizes the role of society as a partner, not a subordinate.

Only then can the latent power in the Palestinian people transform from a historical energy of steadfastness into an organized political and social force, capable of renewing the national project and restoring balance to the conflict equation.

The Palestinian young man, Haitham Ezz El-Din Omar Humaida, 18 years old, was martyred by Israeli occupation forces' bullets during their incursion into the village of Beitin, east of Ramallah. The Palestinian Ministry of Health confirmed that it was officially informed of the young man's martyrdom and the detention of his body by the General Authority for Civil Affairs, following violent confrontations in the area.

Local sources reported that the occupation forces stormed the village amidst heavy live gunfire and toxic gas bombs, which led to fires breaking out in the surrounding agricultural lands. Palestinian youths confronted the incursion, while snipers were deployed on rooftops to secure the movements of Israeli military vehicles within the village's alleys.

For its part, the occupation army claimed in a statement that its soldiers spotted a group of Palestinians throwing Molotov cocktails at settlers' vehicles on a main road. The statement claimed that the shooting was to neutralize what it described as 'saboteurs,' confirming the killing of one of them and continuing to pursue others who fled the scene.

In a related context, the Palestinian Red Crescent Society stated that its crews were prevented from providing first aid to the injured person immediately after receiving the report near the 'Beit El' settlement. The society clarified that the occupation army imposed a security cordon around the area and refused to hand over the body, forcing the ambulance to leave the site at gunpoint.

The incursions were not limited to Ramallah but extended to include Aqabat Jaber camp in Jericho and Beit Ummar town north of Hebron, where forces carried out raids on homes and thorough searches of their contents. Military operations also targeted the towns of Qabalan southeast of Nablus and Tuqu' in Bethlehem, amidst terrorizing peaceful residents in the late hours of the night.

In Jenin Governorate, occupation forces raided a house in Al-Zahra neighborhood and stormed the towns of Al-Jadida, Al-Mughayyir, and Siris, where scattered clashes broke out with resistance fighters. The forces launched an arrest campaign targeting a number of young men in Hizma town north of occupied Jerusalem and Broqin town west of Salfit, taking them to their interrogation centers.

Regarding settler attacks, Shaqba village witnessed a violent attack during which settlers set fire to several Palestinian vehicles, leading to widespread fires. Residents of Sinjil town north of Ramallah confronted an attempt by settlers to steal sheep from a farmer, which prompted the attackers to assault citizens' vehicles with stones and smash their windows.

In the Wadi Al-Sha'er area east of Salfit, Palestinian cars were pelted with stones by extremist settler groups, resulting in severe material damage. Settlers also stormed Abu Falah village and the towns of Deir Dibwan and Burqa, in an attempt to impose a new settlement reality and tighten the noose on Palestinian movements between villages.

In Hebron, settlers expelled farmers and shepherds from their lands east of Idhna town and stole a number of sheep under the protection of the occupation army. The scene was repeated in Qusra town south of Nablus, where settlers prevented landowners in the Ras al-Ain area from accessing their fields, threatening them with weapons if they returned.

The violations extended to Al-Khan Al-Ahmar village east of occupied Jerusalem, where settlers deliberately grazed their livestock inside Palestinian lands to destroy crops. Other groups also raided Kisan village east of Bethlehem, as part of a systematic escalation aimed at displacing Palestinian residents from areas classified as 'C'.

These developments come amidst a continuous escalation since October 7, 2023, with official statistics indicating the martyrdom of more than 1168 people in the West Bank. Reports also recorded the injury of over 12,000 Palestinians and the arrest of nearly 23,000 others, amidst forced displacement operations affecting thousands of Palestinian families.

The occupation army refused to hand over the martyr's body to our crews and ordered them to return from the injury site near Beit El settlement.

Nine-year-old Sara Rajab did not know that her visit to her martyred father's shrine before Eid al-Adha would be her last farewell before joining him. After watering his grave, occupation missiles struck the building where she was sheltering on the first day of Eid, ending the journey of a child who had lived the bitterness of orphanhood and loss for two consecutive years.

The chapters of the tragedy began in mid-November 2023, when a suicide drone targeted the family's apartment in the Zeitoun neighborhood, south of Gaza City. The attack at the time resulted in the martyrdom of her mother Aya and her younger brothers Abdul Rahman and Malik, while Sara miraculously survived with her father Sameh despite suffering severe body burns.

After that incident, Sara suffered from severe psychological crises, as she was forced to displace to the southern Gaza Strip, away from her father, whom the occupation had besieged in the north. Her aunt Fatima described that period as the most difficult, as the child resorted to isolation and began to vent her trauma by drawing missiles penetrating the bodies of her family and turning them into scattered remains.

The family tried to maintain Sara's morale through video messages exchanged with her father, expressing her intense longing for him and her siblings who had been taken by death. Sara lived on the hope of meeting, which was temporarily realized with the implementation of the first ceasefire agreement in early 2025.

Sara returned to her father's embrace in Gaza City, believing that the war had ended and that safety had returned to her last refuge. However, the resumption of the aggression in March 2025 brought the child back into the cycle of displacement and fear, as she moved between her aunt's and maternal aunt's homes to escape the continuous military incursions.

In mid-November 2025, Sara received the final blow with the martyrdom of her father in a bombing that targeted a residential building west of Gaza. Thus, the child became the sole survivor of her small family, joining a tragic list that includes thousands of families from which only one individual remains, struggling with memories of loss.

Statistics from official sources in Gaza indicate that more than 6020 Palestinian families have suffered partial annihilation, with only one survivor remaining. Sara's story embodies the painful reality experienced by children in the Strip, where nightmares and the harsh scenes of their loved ones' scattered remains, torn apart by Israeli shells, haunt them.

On the evening of the first day of Eid al-Adha, specifically on May 27, occupation aircraft struck Sara's maternal grandfather's house with several heavy missiles. The bombing led to Sara's immediate martyrdom, along with her 16-year-old maternal aunt Israa, and her 57-year-old grandfather Emad, all ascending at once.

With Sara's departure, the file of the Rajab family was closed in the Palestinian civil registry, as there is no longer any individual bearing the name of this small family. This family is one of 2700 families completely annihilated by Israel since the beginning of the aggression, resulting in the deletion of the names of more than 8500 martyrs from official records.

Her aunt Fatima speaks with anguish about the last moments, confirming that Sara had been repeating the phrase 'I miss them' throughout the morning of Eid. It seems her soul was preparing to depart and join her parents and siblings, ending the suffering of a child who endured pain, loss, and displacement that mountains could not bear.

This tragedy places the international community before major ethical questions about the fate of children in Gaza who are relentlessly targeted by the war machine. Sara's story is not just a number in statistics; it is a cry that documents a crime of genocide that wipes out entire families from existence, leaving behind rubble and bloody memories.

What did the children do to deserve all this? Sara has departed to join her family, of whom no one remains.

American press reports, citing responsible sources, revealed that President Donald Trump secretly informed his inner circle that he does not intend to return to the option of an all-out war against Iran at this time. The sources clarified that Trump set a single red line for reversing this stance: direct Iranian attacks on American forces resulting in casualties among soldiers.\n\nLeaked data indicates that the current US administration prefers to maintain the existing ceasefire, despite the sporadic military skirmishes in the region. It appears that Trump is prepared to tolerate low levels of escalation for extended periods, as part of a strategy aimed at avoiding a slide into a wide-ranging regional conflict in the Middle East.\n\nThis revelation comes at a time when this week has seen the most severe escalation since the truce came into effect last April. Sources reported that Tehran launched barrages of rockets and drones targeting US military bases and Kuwait International Airport, resulting in at least one death and damage to some facilities.\n\nOn the ground, Iran continues to assert control over the Strait of Hormuz, which has led to tangible disruptions in global energy markets and maritime navigation. In response, the United States continues to tighten its naval blockade on Iranian ports, in an attempt to undermine Tehran's economic capabilities and push it towards the negotiating table.\n\nIn a hearing before the House of Representatives, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio downplayed the seriousness of the reciprocal attacks, describing them as defensive measures rather than a harbinger of all-out war. Rubio affirmed that US responses are always in the context of self-defense, noting that if Iran stops targeting ships, US responses will necessarily cease.\n\nDespite the on-the-ground tension, President Trump continues to promote opportunities for reaching a comprehensive agreement with Tehran that would end the existing hostility. This anticipated agreement, according to the American vision, aims to fully reopen the Strait of Hormuz and dismantle Iran's nuclear program, including the disposal of enriched uranium stockpiles accumulated by Tehran.\n\nIn recent press statements, Trump expressed no rush to conclude the deal, emphasizing that the economic blockade could continue for a longer period if Iran does not make the required concessions. The US President, during a press conference in the Oval Office, considered the situation to still be under control, describing peace talks as progressing despite the difficulties.\n\nRegarding regional diplomatic moves, sources revealed that Trump personally intervened to prevent Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu from carrying out a large-scale military operation in Lebanon. This intervention came out of fear that any Israeli military adventure could undermine the diplomatic path Washington is trying to build with Tehran.\n\nFor his part, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi warned of the consequences of any Israeli escalation targeting Lebanese territory, considering that it would mean the immediate collapse of the truce agreements. Araqchi stressed that the region could find itself facing an uncontrollable all-out war if military provocations continue on the northern front.\n\nThe US administration has been working for weeks to draft a "memorandum of understanding" that sets a sixty-day timeframe for negotiations, but Trump recently rejected an Iranian proposal in this regard. The White House insists on the necessity for Tehran to make fundamental and tangible concessions before discussing any economic gains or lifting of sanctions imposed on it.\n\nIn contrast, Iran adheres to its position that Washington must take confidence-building steps before any serious negotiations on the nuclear file. Tehran demands the release of its frozen financial assets in international banks, or direct financial support to compensate for the losses its economy has incurred due to years of blockade.\n\nObservers believe that Trump currently faces two difficult choices; either accepting a limited agreement that may not guarantee a complete dismantling of nuclear capabilities, or continuing the policy of maximum pressure. Experts warn that Iran has shown a high capacity to withstand economic pressures, making the task of extracting decisive concessions from it extremely complex.\n\nPolitical circles in Washington consider the current confrontation with Iran to be the first real test of foreign policy directions in Trump's second term. Military and economic issues are intertwined, amidst internal pressures demanding an end to US involvement in Middle East conflicts without sacrificing strategic interests.\n\nIn conclusion, the region remains hostage to the results of this intense diplomatic and military struggle, as the world watches the ability of the parties to exercise restraint. With the continued blockade and reciprocal strikes, the question remains whether diplomacy will succeed in defusing the explosion, or whether a single incident on the ground could ignite the war that everyone fears.\n\nIn that region of the world, a ceasefire is more like a slower rate of fire.

The Israeli Prison Service has transferred Dr. Hussam Abu Safiya, director of Kamal Adwan Hospital in the northern Gaza Strip, from the Negev detention center to solitary confinement cells in Nafha Desert Prison. This move comes amidst harsh detention conditions lacking the most basic human necessities, with his continued deprivation of necessary medical treatment and fundamental rights guaranteed by international conventions and laws.

Nasser Odeh, Abu Safiya's defense lawyer, confirmed that the decision to transfer and place him in solitary confinement represents a direct punitive measure taken by the prison administration in response to an appeal filed against the decision to continue his arbitrary detention. Odeh clarified that this escalation followed a series of threats and pressures exerted by Israeli intelligence officers against the detained doctor to force him into silence.

Through these pressures, the occupation authorities aim to prevent Dr. Abu Safiya from revealing the facts related to the inhumane detention conditions he and thousands of Palestinian prisoners face. Solitary confinement serves as a means to completely cut off his communication with fellow prisoners and prevent the defense team from meeting him, as lawyers have been denied visits multiple times without clear legal justifications.

Since his arrest about a year and a half ago, the director of Kamal Adwan Hospital has faced systematic abuse, including deliberate medical neglect despite the deterioration of his health. Israeli authorities insist on detaining him under the so-called 'unlawful combatant law,' a legal pretext that allows for continued detention without presenting an indictment or concrete evidence to incriminate him.

Occupation forces arrested Abu Safiya on December 27, 2024, coinciding with their raid on the hospital he managed in the northern Strip. Since then, his detention has been extended repeatedly, most recently in mid-October 2025, when a decision was issued to extend his detention for an additional six months without a fair trial.

In early 2025, Israeli media broadcast a recording showing the doctor in shackles, a move described by human rights circles as a form of 'psychological terrorism' and a deliberate attempt at humiliation. This clip sparked widespread condemnation, demanding the protection of medical personnel performing their humanitarian duty amidst harsh war conditions.

Lawyer Nasser Odeh indicated that his client's case falls within a broader policy targeting Palestinian medical personnel, with approximately 14 doctors still abducted from within hospitals. These practices are considered part of a systematic plan aimed at destroying the healthcare system in the Gaza Strip and punishing doctors for their role in saving the lives of the wounded and sick.

On the legal front, the defense team filed an appeal with the Israeli Supreme Court demanding Abu Safiya's immediate release, based on the argument that his detention violates the Geneva Conventions. These conventions provide special protection for medical personnel during armed conflicts, making his continued detention a blatant violation of established international norms.

While a hearing to consider the appeal was scheduled for the coming days, the sudden decision to transfer him to Nafha Prison has obstructed the legal process and increased concerns for the doctor's life. Legal sources expressed fears that the isolation might be a cover for further abuse away from the already limited human rights oversight.

Documented data indicates that since the beginning of the aggression on Gaza, the occupation has arrested approximately 737 medical personnel, including doctors, paramedics, and nurses. Testimonies from those released from prisons confirm that these detainees are subjected to various forms of torture and ill-treatment, in an attempt to break the will of the Palestinian health sector, which has stood firm against the war machine.

The transfer of the doctor to solitary confinement aims directly to prevent him from interacting with prisoners, and to completely isolate him from his lawyers and his external environment.

US President Donald Trump made striking statements on Thursday evening, in which he affirmed that the United States has the ability to access Iran's enriched uranium stockpiles without the need to conclude a formal agreement. Trump indicated during his remarks to reporters at the White House that these materials are 'buried' underground, considering that the Iranian side would not be able to prevent Washington if it decided to obtain them, despite his emphasis that there is no urgent need for that at present.

In the context of the diplomatic track, the US President revealed that ongoing negotiations with Tehran are witnessing tangible progress and described them as 'going very well'. Trump anticipated the possibility of reaching final understandings or a framework agreement during the current weekend, reflecting optimism in the White House about the imminent breakthrough in the Iranian nuclear file, which has topped the international agenda for many years.

Regarding the possibility of a summit meeting, Trump clarified that he currently has no desire to meet with Iranian Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei, but he left the door open for this possibility. He added that if the two countries succeed in reaching a comprehensive agreement, he would show the necessary respect and might meet with the Iranian leadership to solidify the foundations of the new understanding, stressing that the results will determine the shape of the future relationship.

On the Lebanese front, Trump expressed optimism about making real progress in negotiations between Israel and Lebanon, affirming that the Lebanese people deserve to live in lasting peace. The US President revealed direct contacts with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and also dropped a surprise by confirming talks with parties in Hezbollah on this file to ensure the de-escalation process moves forward.

These statements coincide with a tripartite declaration issued by Washington, Beirut, and Tel Aviv, which includes a 'declaration of intent' aimed at a complete cessation of hostilities by Hezbollah. The proposal includes moving Hezbollah elements and its military platforms north of the Litani River, in an attempt to create a buffer zone that ensures the stability of Israel's northern border and ends the ongoing escalation.

In contrast, these diplomatic moves faced strong opposition from Hezbollah's leadership, as the party's Secretary-General Naim Qassem issued statements attacking the results of the negotiations. Qassem described what was reached as rejected outright, claiming that these conditions are not accepted by wide segments of the Lebanese people and detract from the country's sovereignty and the achievements of the resistance.

On the ground, the Israeli aggression continues to cast its heavy shadow over towns and villages in southern Lebanon, where the region is witnessing military escalation despite a fragile ceasefire agreement. Washington had extended this agreement until early July, but continuous violations and expanded operations that began last March still threaten the complete collapse of the political track.

Official statistics issued by health authorities in Lebanon indicate the scale of the humanitarian catastrophe, as the death toll since the start of the expanded aggression last March has reached approximately 3,526 martyrs. Medical teams also recorded more than 10,733 injured, while the number of displaced people from their homes exceeded one million, creating a worsening humanitarian crisis in shelters.

Observers believe that Trump's statements aim to exert maximum pressure on Tehran and Beirut simultaneously, by hinting at military and technical capabilities on the one hand, and opening direct negotiation channels on the other. The next few days remain crucial in determining whether the 'declaration of intent' will turn into a lasting agreement on the ground, or whether the field escalation will thwart American diplomatic efforts.

I don't think Iran can stop us if we want to get the uranium, but there's no need because it's buried.

Tensions in the Albanian streets have escalated for the fifth consecutive day, as thousands of demonstrators continue to protest against a massive tourism project led by 'Affinity Partners,' a company owned by Jared Kushner, former US President Donald Trump's son-in-law. The protests are concentrated in the capital, Tirana, and the targeted coastal areas, amidst chants rejecting what protesters describe as the sale of national lands for suspicious foreign investments.

The popular movement, launched under the slogan 'Albania is not for sale,' has adopted the pink flamingo as its symbol, becoming known as the 'Flamingo Revolution.' This symbol expresses absolute rejection of transforming natural reserves and sensitive ecosystems in the Vjosa-Narta region into luxury tourist resorts and residential complexes that threaten the region's biodiversity.

The past few days have witnessed violent clashes between police forces and protesters in front of the Prime Minister's office, where authorities used water cannons to disperse the crowds. Despite government attempts to open channels for dialogue, demonstrators have rejected any partial solutions, demanding the immediate and complete cancellation of the investment project on Sazan Island and the coastal area.

Direct confrontations also occurred in the field between local residents and private security company personnel in the Pishë Poro-Narta area, after companies attempted to erect barbed wire preventing fishermen from accessing the beaches. These clashes resulted in injuries and arrests, prompting authorities later to revoke the licenses of two security companies due to their excessive use of force against civilians.

On the political front, the Albanian opposition fully adopted the demands of the street, leveling harsh accusations against Prime Minister Edi Rama. The opposition considered that the government was making sovereign concessions and unjustified legal facilitations to the Trump family in exchange for international political influence, describing the coastal sites as having become a 'political sacrifice.'

In contrast, the Albanian government strongly defends the project, asserting that it will be a major economic driver for the country with returns that could reach $4.6 billion. Official sources confirm that the investments led by Kushner will create thousands of jobs and place Albania on the map of luxury global tourism, despite all the criticism directed at the project.

The Anti-Corruption and Organized Crime Agency has entered the crisis, announcing the opening of an official investigation into government decisions issued in 2024. The investigations focus on changing the legal status of vast lands previously classified as natural reserves, in addition to suspicions of forgery in land ownership and illegal sales operations.

Under these investigations, judicial authorities ordered the freezing of bank accounts belonging to 'Albania Land Development,' a company linked to the project's investors. This step comes under increasing public pressure demanding transparency and disclosure of the nature of the deals made behind closed doors with the former US President's son-in-law.

The ambitious and controversial project includes the development of Sazan Island, formerly a strategic military base, into a global tourist destination. Technical estimates indicate that the cost of developing the island alone will reach 1.4 billion euros, with plans to build hotels, marinas, and residential complexes with a capacity exceeding 10,000 hotel rooms.

Environmental experts have warned that the project is located in one of the most environmentally sensitive areas on the European continent, as Vjosa-Narta is a major stop for migratory birds. Experts confirm that massive construction work will lead to the destruction of natural habitats for rare species of animals and birds, constituting an irreparable environmental disaster.

Albania's crisis has begun to take on international dimensions, with European Union officials expressing concern about the violation of environmental laws and legal standards in these deals. These officials warned that such violations could pose serious obstacles to Albania's path towards EU accession negotiations in the near future.

This crisis recalls previous experiences in neighboring countries, where large politically backed investment projects led to widespread corruption and conflicts of interest. Observers fear that the project could become a model for cross-border corruption that exploits the national resources of developing countries for the benefit of international political and economic elites.

Despite Prime Minister Edi Rama's offer to form dialogue committees, the gap between the authorities and the street continues to widen significantly. Protesters believe that any dialogue that does not begin with halting work on the project is merely an attempt to absorb public anger and push through deals under new names, affirming their continued escalation in the field.

With protests continuing and expanding to include other cities, Albania remains at a crossroads between economic ambitions driven by massive foreign investments and a popular movement insisting on protecting sovereignty and the environment. The 'Flamingo Revolution' remains poised for further momentum amidst the sharp division over the future of the Albanian coast and national resources.

Albania is not for sale... Transforming sensitive coastal sites into a political sacrifice for family interests is utterly unacceptable.

The Israeli occupation army escalated its aerial raids on wide areas in southern Lebanon and the Beqaa in the eastern part of the country today, Thursday, disregarding recent American announcements about reaching a ceasefire agreement. The violent raids included the towns of Sahmar and Qleia in western Beqaa, in addition to Tibnin, Haris, Kafra, Srifa, and Shoukin in southern Lebanon.

Occupation forces committed a massacre in the town of Sahmar in western Beqaa, where field sources reported more than 7 airstrikes in less than half an hour. These intensive attacks resulted in the martyrdom of 5 civilians and varying injuries to others, in an initial toll expected to rise due to the extensive destruction.

In a related context, the Sahmar municipality issued an urgent statement calling on residents to absolutely refrain from heading to the town due to significant security risks. The municipality affirmed that Israeli targeting now affects everyone without exception, targeting civilians, men and women, in their homes and on their roads.

The southern front also witnessed scattered attacks, where an Israeli drone targeted a motorcycle in the town of Maaroub, leading to the martyrdom of one citizen and the injury of another. Raids also targeted a civilian car near the town of Doueir, reflecting the continuation of assassination and field pursuit policies despite talks of de-escalation.

Regarding international forces, the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) announced the death of one of its soldiers due to injuries sustained from mortar shells falling on one of its positions near Marjayoun. The international force clarified that the incident also resulted in the injury of two other personnel, confirming the opening of an official investigation to determine the circumstances of the targeting.

For its part, Hezbollah responded with a series of military operations targeting gatherings of occupation soldiers and vehicles in the areas of Yahmar al-Shaqif and al-Qantara. The party also announced the execution of an attack with suicide drones targeting a command position of the occupation near Beaufort Castle, confirming direct hits among Israeli forces.

Politically, the US State Department sparked widespread controversy after announcing the understandings of the fourth round of ceasefire negotiations. Observers considered that the leaked clauses primarily focus on the commitments of the Lebanese side, without imposing clear restrictions or reciprocal commitments on the Israeli side.

The proposed understanding stipulates the withdrawal of Hezbollah elements north of the Litani River and a complete cessation of military operations by the party. The proposal also includes accelerating the deployment of the Lebanese army in specific experimental areas, and working to dismantle any military structures not affiliated with the Lebanese state and preventing their re-formation in the future.

In contrast, there is a clear absence of any timetable for the withdrawal of occupation forces from the territories they recently infiltrated in southern Lebanon. The American statement also did not clearly address the cessation of Israeli airstrikes or ongoing military operations, leaving the door open for continued aggression.

Israeli Security Minister Yisrael Katz further complicated the scene with statements in which he affirmed that Israel would not withdraw from southern Lebanon at present. Katz indicated that the army would continue its military operations to destroy what he described as Hezbollah's infrastructure, including controlling strategic sites such as Beaufort Castle.

The American statement included a paragraph that raised deep political questions, as it indicated that Lebanon and Israel do not harbor hostile intentions towards each other. Analysts considered that this wording goes beyond temporary security arrangements to hint at future political prospects related to the nature of the relationship between the two states.

Political researchers believe that the proposed understanding lacks the required balance, as it imposes detailed conditions on Lebanon in exchange for the absence of international guarantees to stop the aggression. The success of this path remains linked to the Lebanese state's ability to implement it on the ground, the position of active forces, and the course of broader regional understandings.

The enemy spares no one, including civilians, men and women, and we call on residents not to go to the town due to the imminent dangers.