The Gaza Strip is facing a worsening humanitarian catastrophe that has affected the most vulnerable segment of its population, with estimates indicating that approximately 40,000 children have lost one or both parents as a result of the ongoing war. The United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF) has classified this situation as the largest orphan crisis in modern history, amidst a complete collapse of infrastructure and the absence of basic safety provisions.

Field sources have reported heartbreaking stories of children who suddenly found themselves facing life's burdens without support. One grandmother, who is caring for her grandchildren, recounts that the little ones are living in a state of devastating emotional emptiness. She explained that these children watch the windows, waiting for the return of their martyred parents, while extended families try to fill the void despite scarce resources and harsh living conditions.

In live testimonies, children revealed that they have been forced to bear responsibilities beyond their years, including caring for their younger siblings and managing their daily affairs in displacement centers. One child who lost both parents affirmed that the affection of grandparents, despite its importance, cannot compensate for the absence of a father and mother, describing life as an orphan as a daily struggle for survival.

For his part, Salim Oweis, UNICEF's regional spokesperson, explained that the announced figures may not reflect the true extent of the tragedy experienced by children in the Strip. In statements to media sources, he indicated that more than 3,000 children lost both parents in direct strikes, which prompted the organization to work on family reunification programs and provide urgent psychological support commensurate with the scale of the trauma.

Regarding education, Adnan Abu Hasna, UNRWA's media advisor, revealed that 94% of educational facilities in Gaza have been completely destroyed. Despite this destruction, the agency is attempting to resume the educational process through temporary tents accommodating hundreds of thousands of students, with a particular focus on orphans who require intensive psychological and physical care.

Relief efforts face enormous challenges with the onset of winter, as orphaned children lack winter clothing, stationery, and a suitable learning environment. UNRWA sources confirmed that current needs far exceed available capacities, especially in light of the ongoing blockade that prevents the flow of essential aid to restore the lives of these children.

The profound effects of this war have not been limited to physical loss but have extended to create a generation suffering from permanent disabilities and chronic psychological trauma. Hundreds of thousands of children in Gaza remain victims of blockade and destruction policies, making the issue of orphans an international matter that requires urgent intervention to save what remains of their stolen childhood.

They wait for their martyred mother at the window... It's true they feel a great emptiness, but we try to compensate them as much as we can.

Indicators of tension are escalating in occupied Jerusalem with the advent of the holy month of Ramadan, amidst increasing accusations against the Israeli occupation authorities of seeking to impose a new reality within the blessed Al-Aqsa Mosque. Field reports indicate that recent security measures have exceeded all historical understandings that have governed the holy site for many decades, threatening an explosion of the situation in the region.

International press sources quoted experts warning that the agreement that regulated prayer affairs in the Noble Sanctuary for six decades has effectively collapsed. This collapse is a result of continuous pressures from extremist Temple groups that enjoy direct and unprecedented support from ministers in the current Israeli government, who seek to change the identity of the place.

Ramadan's first days witnessed a series of blatant violations, most notably the arrest of the Al-Aqsa Mosque Imam and police forces raiding the courtyards during worshipers' evening and Tarawih prayers. These actions represent a clear breach of the status quo since 1967, which restricts the right to pray in the Noble Sanctuary to Muslims alone.

The occupation police and the General Security Service (Shin Bet) are currently under the command of a far-right political leadership that adopts an overt agenda to undermine the role of the Islamic Endowments Department. Observers believe that these policies aim to assert full Israeli control over the site and force Palestinians to accept daily incursions as an unchangeable reality.

Sources in the Islamic Endowments Department in Jerusalem confirmed that the Shin Bet detained a number of its employees administratively without clear charges, in a move aimed at intimidating staff. Decisions were also issued to prevent dozens of employees and imams from entering the mosque to perform their religious and administrative duties, which disrupted the department's ability to organize the influx of worshipers.

The restrictions were not limited to human aspects but extended to include preventing necessary maintenance work and looting endowment offices inside the Sanctuary. The occupation authorities deprived worshipers of the most basic services, preventing the installation of sun-protective awnings or the establishment of temporary medical clinics to deal with emergencies during Fridays and crowded days.

In a provocative move, the occupation police extended the hours of settler and tourist incursions into Al-Aqsa Mosque during the morning period. Eyewitnesses documented the entry of hundreds of settlers who performed Talmudic rituals and chanted religious songs loudly inside the courtyards, in a blatant challenge to the feelings of fasting Muslims.

The National Security Minister, Itamar Ben-Gvir, is leading this escalatory trend through his repeated statements about his desire to raise the Israeli flag inside Al-Aqsa and build a Jewish synagogue. Ben-Gvir has given settlers the green light to bring in printed prayer books, which was strictly prohibited previously by the Israeli security services themselves.

Legal experts and international advisors described the situation in Jerusalem as a 'ticking time bomb' that could explode at any moment due to the desecration of the holy site. They pointed out that any real or perceived threat to Al-Aqsa has always been the primary driver of major unrest in the Palestinian territories, as happened in the Al-Aqsa Intifada in 2000.

Analysts believe that the current Israeli government feels a sense of impunity, which pushes it to cross red lines without regard for international public opinion. This feeling stems from its ability to implement extreme military and political policies in Gaza and the West Bank without facing real international pressure that would compel it to retreat.

The Islamic Endowments Department, affiliated with the Jordanian Ministry of Endowments, faces immense pressure to maintain its role in managing the site under Hashemite custodianship. However, unilateral Israeli measures weaken the institution's ability to protect the mosque and provide services to thousands of worshipers who travel to it from various regions.

Figures issued by the Jerusalem Governorate indicate that the campaign of arrests and expulsions systematically targeted active personnel in the mosque before and during Ramadan. The occupation aims to empty the mosque of its guards and custodians to facilitate incursions and implement the temporal and spatial plans it seeks to impose.

The repeated police raids on the mosque courtyards during Tarawih prayers reflect a desire to break the morale of Jerusalemites and prevent them from performing i'tikaf. Occupation forces sometimes use excessive force to evacuate the courtyards, leading to injuries and arrests among the young men stationed inside the Noble Sanctuary.

Al-Aqsa Mosque remains the central axis of the conflict, as all parties realize that tampering with it means entering a new phase of comprehensive confrontation. With the continued 'brinkmanship' policy pursued by the right-wing government, eyes remain fixed on Jerusalem, fearing a deterioration of the situation to undesirable consequences.

Al-Aqsa is like a ticking time bomb, and what we are witnessing today are repeated provocations that make the situation significantly more sensitive, especially with the West Bank turning into a powder keg.

Tony Blair, a member of the Executive Council of the "Peace Council," revealed security and political details concerning the future of the Gaza Strip, indicating that Israel will be responsible for inspecting and scrutinizing the new police force to be formed. Blair explained in media statements that this measure aims to ensure what he described as "proper governance" and prevent any security breaches that could threaten the new arrangements.

Blair affirmed, during his participation in the inaugural summit of the Council in Washington D.C., that the American administration led by Donald Trump places Israel's security at the top of its priorities. He added that the current approach seeks to balance strict Israeli security requirements with attempts to improve the living conditions of Palestinian residents in the Strip through international channels.

The proposed plan in Gaza is fundamentally based on the complete disarmament of the Palestinian resistance and the dismantling of all its military and structural capabilities. According to Blair, the ultimate goal is to ensure a smooth transition of power to an independent "technocrat committee" with full administrative and executive powers, away from armed factions.

Regarding the international military force, Blair announced that five Islamic countries have agreed to send security personnel to participate in the "International Stabilization Force." This list includes Indonesia, Morocco, Kazakhstan, Kosovo, and Albania, where these forces will work to maintain internal security in coordination with the supervising authorities.

Concerning the financial aspect, sources revealed international pledges amounting to approximately 7 billion dollars allocated for reconstruction and infrastructure operations. Blair indicated that there is real momentum to support this initiative, emphasizing that the door is still open for other countries to join this international alliance that seeks to impose a new reality in Gaza.

For his part, US President Donald Trump announced the allocation of 10 billion dollars to the "Peace Council" to fund major reconstruction projects in the Strip. Trump considered that this amount, despite its enormity, is small compared to the massive destruction caused by the war, stressing the need for firm international leadership for the file.

General Jasper Jeffers, commander of the International Stabilization Force, explained that the forces coming from the five mentioned countries will be the nucleus of a long-term security operation. This force aims to enforce the law and support the new Palestinian civil police, which will undergo strict screening criteria to ensure they do not belong to any resistance factions.

Despite these arrangements, the conference faced widespread criticism due to the absence of genuine Palestinian representation that expresses the national and political will of the Palestinian people. In contrast, the Israeli side actively participated as a key member of the Council, raising questions about the legitimacy of the decisions made in the absence of the direct stakeholders.

Israel will inspect the new police force in Gaza to ensure proper governance, and the plan is primarily based on disarming the resistance.

French Prime Minister Sébastien Lecornu revealed his government's serious intention to introduce a new bill aimed at criminalizing and punishing the expression of 'anti-Zionist' views. Lecornu stated that an individual defining themselves as anti-Zionist directly undermines Israel's right to exist, emphasizing that the French state will not tolerate what he described as new forms of hatred.

In the context of his comments on the ongoing war in the Gaza Strip, the French Prime Minister strongly attacked reports speaking of 'genocide' against Palestinians. He described these claims as an attempt to distort historical facts, considering that the underlying goal of these terms is to strip the memory of the Holocaust from Jewish consciousness and employ it in different political contexts.

Lecornu explained that the French government intends to present this project to parliament next April, to be an effective legal tool to suppress calls for the destruction of Israel. He affirmed that this step comes within the framework of protecting the values of the Republic, noting that hatred of Jews directly intersects with hatred of the principles upon which France was founded.

Proposed measures included a clause prohibiting anyone who makes statements classified as anti-Semitic from running for public office in the country. The Prime Minister justified this approach by stating that freedom of expression in France does not in any way mean 'freedom of exclusion,' emphasizing the necessity of purifying the political arena from discourse that incites hatred or discrimination.

On the international level, Lecornu renewed his country's attack on the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Human Rights in the Palestinian Territories, Francesca Albanese, demanding her immediate resignation. He indicated that the appearance of a UN representative alongside parties such as Iran or the Hamas movement deeply harms the credibility of the international organization and its supposed neutrality in conflicts.

These French pressures come in coordination with other European powers, including Germany and Italy, which have severely criticized Albanese over her recent reports. Despite these attacks, the UN Rapporteur insists that her criticisms are primarily directed at the apartheid system and practices that amount to genocide, denying all accusations against her person.

The French Prime Minister concluded his speech by calling for what he described as a 'civilizational and cultural battle' against the normalization of hatred in French society. He pledged to confront all transformations that have occurred in anti-Semitism, considering the new legislation to be the necessary legal bulwark to protect the social and political fabric from disintegration under the weight of external conflicts.

Talk of genocide in the Gaza Strip is nothing but an attempt to distort facts with the aim of stripping the memory of the Holocaust from Jews.

Official media sources have revealed never-before-published video clips documenting the involvement of Israeli citizens in looting and stealing the belongings of participants in the 'Nova' music party. These incidents occurred on October 8, 2023, the day immediately following the attack carried out by the Palestinian resistance as part of the 'Al-Aqsa Flood' operation in the Gaza envelope.

Surveillance camera recordings showed three individuals sneaking among the wrecked cars and abandoned bags at the party site, where they meticulously searched belongings and seized everything they could get their hands on. Sources indicated that these looting operations took place at a time when the area was still experiencing security tensions and sporadic clashes with Palestinian fighters.

The list of stolen items that were cataloged included cash amounting to 13,000 shekels found inside one of the bags, in addition to valuable jewelry and accessories estimated at about 2,000 shekels. The thieves also seized electronic devices, including headphones, laptops, and technical work tools, exceeding 5,000 shekels in value, reflecting the extent of exploitation of the catastrophic circumstances.

In the context of legal prosecution, an Israeli court last month convicted three defendants from the city of Beersheba: Yiran Yaakovov, Netanel Aviv, and Oz Hai Roham. They were sentenced to actual prison terms ranging from 36 to 40 months, in addition to fines of 18,000 shekels as compensation for the damages they inflicted on the victims of the attack.

The judge who presided over the session described the defendants' behavior as an 'absolute betrayal' of human and social values, emphasizing that committing such crimes amidst a national tragedy amplifies their heinousness. The court considered that these individuals exploited the state of widespread chaos to achieve despicable material gains at the expense of the victims' blood and suffering.

These leaked scenes sparked a massive wave of anger within Israeli circles, with criticism focusing on the egregious security failure that allowed the thieves to access the site. Observers questioned the reason for the absence of complete security control over the party area more than 24 hours after the events began, which made it an open field for theft operations.

This scandal adds to a series of failures acknowledged by Israeli officials, who described the events of October 7 as the biggest intelligence and military failure in Tel Aviv's history. These repercussions continue to damage the image of the security establishment and the army, especially with the emergence of new details revealing the fragility of field control in critical moments.

Looting in such circumstances is not merely a criminal act, but an absolute betrayal of human dignity and fundamental social solidarity.

The extremist National Security Minister in the occupation government, Itamar Ben Gvir, stormed the courtyards of the blessed Al-Aqsa Mosque this Friday morning, in a new provocative step aimed at escalating tension in the Holy City. Ben Gvir chaired an extensive security meeting inside the police command room in occupied Jerusalem, dedicated to what he described as 'assessing field conditions' and setting final security arrangements before the advent of the holy month of Ramadan.

The meeting was attended by high-ranking leaders of the occupation's security apparatuses, headed by Police Commissioner General Danny Levy, and Jerusalem District Commander General Avshi Feld, along with a number of senior officers responsible for securing the area. Discussions focused on coordinating field mechanisms and the restrictions that will be imposed on Palestinian worshipers wishing to access the Noble Sanctuary, amid fears of clashes erupting as a result of these repressive measures.

During a field tour he conducted at the 'Mughrabi Gate' area, the extremist minister addressed dozens of occupation police officers directly, assuring them of absolute support and full political cover to carry out any field operations that commanders deem necessary. Ben Gvir stressed in his speech that imposing what he called 'sovereignty and firmness' is the only way to ensure deterrence and prevent any attempts at protest, claiming that force is the only language that prevents people from tampering with security, as he put it.

Despite Ben Gvir's claims about respecting 'freedom of worship,' his statements carried a clear tone of threat, as he vowed to strike with an iron fist those he described as 'instigators of chaos' in Al-Aqsa Mosque. He indicated that the occupation's strategy in the coming phase relies on tightening security control to ensure that situations do not get out of hand, considering that strong deterrence will achieve the desired calm in the coming weeks.

For its part, Hebrew press reports, including what was published by 'Maariv' newspaper, indicated that Ben Gvir's directives reflect the far-right's desire to change the status quo in Islamic holy sites and impose a new security reality. Local sources warned that these incursions and direct threats could lead to an explosion of the situation in Jerusalem and all Palestinian territories, especially in light of the severe tension experienced by the Palestinian street due to the continuous practices of the occupation.

Governance and firmness are the only way to achieve deterrence, even during the holy month of Ramadan.

The Guardian newspaper revealed in an investigative report that the administration of US President Donald Trump is considering a plan to build an American military base inside the Gaza Strip, comprising approximately 5,000 personnel, to serve as the headquarters for a proposed international force within the framework of what is known as the "Peace Council." The report is based on official contracting records showing that the project is not merely temporary arrangements, but a comprehensive vision for a long-term military presence in the southern part of the Strip, placing it at the heart of the political and security transformations related to Gaza's future after the war.

According to the documents, the base will be built on an area exceeding 350 acres, with dimensions up to 1400 meters in length and 1100 meters in width, with construction to be carried out in stages. The facility includes 26 armored observation towers mounted on trailers, a small arms firing range, fortified bunkers, military equipment warehouses, in addition to a complete barbed wire fence surrounding the site. This description reflects an advanced operational structure closer to a complete combat base than a traditional peacekeeping mission with a monitoring or logistical support character.

The project's sensitivity increases with the inclusion of a special protocol in the contracting documents for dealing with the possibility of finding human remains during construction work, given estimates of thousands of victims under the rubble of the Strip. Instructions stipulate immediate cessation of work, securing the site, and notifying the contracting officer upon discovery of any remains or cultural artifacts. The inclusion of this clause not only reflects a legal awareness of the risks but also highlights the ethical paradox of building a military facility on land where search, recovery, and documentation operations have not yet been completed.

Financially, the project cost has not been officially announced, although previous estimates spoke of a major military facility costing between $500 and $600 million. At the first meeting of the "Peace Council" in Washington, Trump pledged $10 billion to support the council, without clarifying disbursement mechanisms, management structure, or oversight system. This institutional ambiguity raises questions about the nature of the American commitment: are we facing a multilateral framework with clear authority, or an initiative led by Washington that later seeks partners to provide political cover?

Politically, the plan stipulates that the international force will replace Israeli forces that still control more than half of the Strip's area. However, the absence of a binding timetable for this transition, and the continued Israeli threats to resume widespread operations, place the project in a gray area. Establishing an international base under an existing military reality might make it part of the control equation rather than a tool for dismantling it, undermining the stated goal of restoring stability and creating a new political environment.

Furthermore, the limited international response — with only Indonesia initially declaring its readiness to participate — reflects coolness or caution from other capitals. Multinational forces require clear legal authorization, local acceptance, and agreed-upon political guarantees, conditions that have not yet materialized. Amid ongoing violations and exchanged threats, any deployed force might find itself caught between the parties to the conflict, without a defined political horizon.

Observers believe that prioritizing the establishment of a military base of this size, at a time when the features of reconstruction or the form of civil governance are not yet clear, reflects a distortion of priorities. Instead of starting by addressing the political and humanitarian roots of the crisis, a security approach is being consecrated that elevates the logic of deterrence and control. This path may create a permanent security reality that will be difficult to dismantle later, transforming the international presence from a bridge towards settlement into a fixed element in the structure of the conflict.

Likewise, the absence of a clear timetable and a comprehensive political roadmap weakens the project's credibility. Military bases do not create peace by themselves; rather, they can turn into temporary management of an open crisis. If the proposed deployment is not accompanied by international legal guarantees and explicit Palestinian consent, it may be seen as a repositioning of power rather than a mechanism for transitioning towards ending the occupation, deepening doubts and increasing the fragility of any future arrangements.

The United Nations Human Rights Office expressed serious and documented concerns about the Israeli occupation authorities committing widespread 'ethnic cleansing' operations in the Gaza Strip and the occupied West Bank. The office clarified in its latest report that the escalation of systematic military attacks and forced displacement operations clearly aim to achieve permanent displacement of Palestinians from their historical lands.

UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Volker Türk, warned that the cumulative effect of Israeli military conduct, coupled with the suffocating blockade, has created impossible living conditions. Türk affirmed that these policies have directly and unprecedentedly threatened the survival of Palestinians as a cohesive population group within the Gaza Strip.

The comprehensive UN report monitored serious violations during the period from early November 2024 to the end of October 2025. It highlighted the systematic use of unlawful force by occupation security forces in various areas of the West Bank and occupied Jerusalem, reinforcing the policy of oppression and control.

The report indicated that the intensification of attacks and the destruction of entire residential neighborhoods, along with the deprivation of essential humanitarian aid to civilians, aims to bring about permanent demographic change. UN sources considered these practices to reflect a premeditated intention to reshape the demographic composition in Gaza and the West Bank through brutal military force.

In a related context, the report condemned the continued killing and injury of unprecedented numbers of civilians, documenting the spread of famine as a tool of war. The UN document mentioned the martyrdom of at least 463 Palestinians as a result of direct starvation in Gaza, including 157 children who died due to severe malnutrition.

The report described the humanitarian situation in the Strip as placing Palestinians before an inhumane choice: to die of starvation or risk their lives to obtain a livelihood. The United Nations affirmed that these deaths were expected and were a direct result of deliberately restrictive measures taken by the Israeli government.

The Commission stressed that the use of starvation of civilians as a method of warfare constitutes a full-fledged war crime, and may amount to a crime of genocide according to criminal intent. These conclusions were consistent with reports from the 'UNRWA' agency, which confirmed the continued deterioration of conditions due to strict Israeli restrictions on aid convoys.

The UN report urged the international community and all states to immediately stop the sale, transfer, and diversion of weapons, ammunition, and military equipment to the occupying state. It considered that the continued supply of arms facilitates the commission of serious violations of international humanitarian law in the occupied Palestinian territories and prolongs suffering.

The United Nations criticized the absence of accountability mechanisms in international plans aimed at ending the conflict, stressing that achieving justice for victims must be the cornerstone of any reconstruction efforts. It called for ensuring immediate Palestinian participation in governance structures to determine their political and social future away from external dictates.

The release of this report coincided with extremist statements by Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich, in which he openly called for pushing Palestinians towards forced emigration from their lands. The United Nations views these statements as a coordinated effort to accelerate the annexation of large parts of the West Bank and deprive the Palestinian people of their right to self-determination.

The report noted a general climate of impunity, where the occupation authorities continue their violations without fear of deterrent international legal prosecution. Volker Türk affirmed that the absence of accountability is not just a legal concept, but a bitter reality that translates daily into more bloodshed and victims among civilians.

For its part, the occupation mission in Geneva strongly attacked the report, claiming that the Human Rights Office is engaged in a campaign of misinformation and demonization against Israel. The mission alleged that UN reports lack credibility and promote incitement, in an attempt to evade the legal and international obligations imposed by the report.

Impunity is not an abstract concept, but it leads to killing. Accountability is indispensable, and it is a prerequisite for a just and lasting peace in Palestine.

White House and Peace Council Senior Advisor, Josh Groinbaum, confirmed that US President Donald Trump has set the complete and final disarmament of Hamas as a fundamental and non-negotiable condition for the actual commencement of reconstruction operations in the Gaza Strip. Groinbaum explained in statements to media sources that this approach comes within the US administration's vision to ensure long-term stability in the region and prevent the recurrence of future military confrontations.

The American official revealed that he held what he described as constructive talks with several regional and international parties to ensure the movement's engagement in the negotiation process, indicating that a framework has been agreed upon since the signing of the Twenty Points Plan. He stressed that close coordination with countries such as Egypt, Qatar, and Turkey primarily aims to ensure all parties adhere to the terms of the agreement and facilitate the political and security transition process in the Strip.

Regarding the financial aspect, Groinbaum noted that the last meeting of the Peace Council in Washington succeeded in mobilizing massive financial pledges exceeding $7 billion. These funds will be allocated to support the implementation of the Twenty Points Plan, secure the return of detainees, in addition to financing essential infrastructure and reconstruction projects awaited by the war-affected residents of the Strip.

On the security arrangements front, the White House advisor explained that work has been ongoing for months to prepare an international stabilization force in cooperation with Jordan, Egypt, and Israel to ensure its full readiness before field deployment. He announced that a deputy commander for this force has been appointed from Indonesia, a step that reflects the desire to give a broad international character to the force that will undertake sensitive tasks during the transitional phase.

Groinbaum expected that the tangible results of this international coordination and the harmony in the performance of the stabilization force would begin to appear on the ground within a period ranging from 45 to 60 days from the date of its deployment. This timeline aims to ensure the smooth delivery of urgent humanitarian aid, the beginning of rubble removal, and the creation of conditions for the return of normal life to the cities and camps of the Gaza Strip.

It is worth noting that the 'Peace Council' led by Trump was established in mid-January based on a comprehensive plan to end the war, a plan that gained international legitimacy after its adoption by the Security Council in Resolution No. 2803. The Council is responsible for overseeing the management of the transitional phase and coordinating international efforts to provide the necessary financial and political support to achieve sustainable peace in the region.

Immediate and complete disarmament is the basis for launching the reconstruction process in the Gaza Strip.

The Israeli occupation army escalated its military attacks on the Gaza Strip early Friday morning, with warplanes and artillery carrying out a series of intensive raids targeting the northern, central, and southern areas. These aggressions come on the third day of the holy month of Ramadan, deepening the suffering of citizens who are trying to resume their lives under harsh humanitarian conditions.

Field sources reported that the Israeli shelling represents a blatant violation of the ceasefire agreement in effect since October 10, 2025. These repeated violations since the agreement was signed have resulted in hundreds of martyrs and wounded, threatening the collapse of the fragile calm in the besieged Strip.

In Gaza City, warplanes launched at least two raids in areas within what is known as the 'Yellow Line' east of the Shuja'iyya and Tuffah neighborhoods. This aerial bombardment coincided with intensive ground movements by military vehicles that fired their machine guns towards residential neighborhoods adjacent to the eastern border.

The Zeitoun neighborhood, southeast of Gaza City, witnessed direct targeting of citizens' homes and displaced persons' tents, as Israeli vehicles fired randomly and intensively. This was accompanied by intermittent artillery shelling, causing panic among displaced families who lack the minimum safety requirements amid ongoing military threats.

In the central Strip, occupation forces carried out widespread demolition operations of buildings and civilian facilities east of the Bureij camp. These destructive operations came hours after military bulldozers carried out leveling and sabotage work near Abu Ataya roundabout, amid heavy gunfire to prevent citizens from reaching their lands.

The 'Yellow Line' is known as an imaginary line temporarily established under ceasefire understandings to separate Israeli forces and Palestinian areas. Under this distribution, the occupation army controls about 53 percent of the Strip's area on the eastern side, while Palestinians are allowed to move in the remaining western areas.

In the southern Strip, the city of Khan Yunis was not spared from the aggressions, as military vehicles opened fire heavily towards the eastern areas of the city. No accurate information is available yet regarding the extent of human losses or the specific targets that the occupation sought to target through this sudden shelling.

Palestinians in Gaza are receiving the month of Ramadan this year amidst a scene of widespread destruction left by the ongoing two-year genocide war. Despite the cessation of major military operations, the infrastructure remains completely destroyed, and living and economic conditions have not seen any tangible recovery so far.

Official statistics indicate that the genocide war, which began on October 8, 2023, with widespread American support, has left an unprecedented humanitarian catastrophe. More than 72,000 Palestinian martyrs have fallen, and over 171,000 others have been injured, the vast majority of whom are women and children who were the direct targets of the shelling.

Israeli military operations over two years have also caused the destruction of about 90 percent of the civilian infrastructure in the Strip, including hospitals, schools, and water and electricity networks. This systematic destruction has made a return to normal life almost impossible under the suffocating siege and restrictions imposed on reconstruction.

Medical sources continue to warn of the repercussions of ongoing Israeli violations on the already dilapidated health system. Every new raid increases the number of wounded and depletes the limited remaining resources in hospitals operating at minimum capacity due to a lack of fuel and essential medical supplies.

Amidst this field escalation, the international community demands that pressure be put on the occupation authorities to abide by the terms of the truce and stop targeting civilians. However, facts on the ground show that the occupation army continues to impose its military control and change the geographical features of the Strip through continuous demolition and leveling operations in the border areas.

The occupation continues to violate the ceasefire agreement in effect since October 2025 by targeting civilians and displaced persons in various areas of the Strip.

US President Donald Trump dropped a bombshell by officially announcing executive orders to declassify government files related to the UFO phenomenon and extraterrestrial life. This announcement came via a post on the 'Truth' platform, confirming that the decision includes the Department of Defense and all relevant federal agencies, in response to growing public interest in this mysterious matter.

Trump's move comes just hours after his sharp criticism of former President Barack Obama, who recently and explicitly admitted the existence of unexplained aerial phenomena and extraterrestrial beings. Trump had considered Obama's statements a breach of national security, before deciding himself to proceed with uncovering the hidden and publishing documents that intelligence agencies had kept for decades.

Reports indicate that this file is one of the most complex issues in Washington's corridors, where experts believe there is a 'deep state' within military institutions controlling this information. Observers believe that Trump, through this decision, seeks to confront the security elites accused of withholding facts from both presidents and Congress since the 1940s.

Historically, the features of official recognition of these phenomena began to crystallize at the end of Trump's first term in 2020, when the Pentagon was forced to confirm the authenticity of videos captured by US Navy pilots. Those clips showed objects moving at speeds and in directions beyond known human technological capabilities, prompting the Department of Defense to establish a special office to study these phenomena.

In 2021, the Pentagon issued a historic report acknowledging its inability to identify many of the objects observed in US airspace or those emerging from the depths of the seas. This admission shocked scientific and political circles, as the discussion shifted from 'conspiracy theory' to a serious security threat and scientific research.

July 2023 witnessed a crucial turning point when Congress heard testimonies from former intelligence officers, including David Grusch, who confirmed the existence of secret programs to recover non-human craft wreckage. Grusch explained in his testimony that there is a 'small entity' within the US administration that has powers exceeding those of the president in accessing this sensitive information.

The US administration relies on a security technique known as 'compartmentalization of sensitive information' to protect these secrets, a mechanism that prevents anyone from forming a complete picture of the project. This policy, previously used in the atomic bomb project, ensures that essential details remain in the hands of a handful of security officials who determine who has access based on the 'need to know' principle.

Recognition of the existence of 'something' in space was not limited to junior officers but extended to high-ranking figures such as Marco Rubio, the current Secretary of State, who appeared in documentaries confirming the existence of undeniable radar data. Former defense officials also stated that these phenomena are supported by solid technical data and are not mere fantasies or visual hallucinations.

Observers recall previous statements by former President Bill Clinton, who admitted his failure to obtain the complete files related to the famous 'Roswell' incident in 1947 despite his official request. This repeated presidential failure puts Trump to a real test of his ability to break the bureaucratic and security restrictions imposed on this sovereign file.

The question remains in the American and global public sphere: how successful will Trump be in fulfilling his promises to publish these files without clashing with national security interests? While enthusiasts and scientists await a historic disclosure, some fear that this step could destabilize social stability or reveal highly secret military technologies belonging to major powers.

Given the great interest, I will ask departments and agencies to begin the process of identifying and publishing files related to extraterrestrial life and flying saucers.

Informed sources reported that the occupation army revealed on Friday an infiltration incident carried out by a group of extremist settlers deep into the territories of the Gaza Strip last Thursday. This group was led by right-wing Knesset member Limor Son Har Melech, affiliated with the 'Otzma Yehudit' party led by Itamar Ben Gvir, in a clear defiance of military decisions classifying the area as a closed military zone.

The extremist MP announced through her official platforms that this move comes under the slogan of 're-settlement,' emphasizing her claims that the Gaza Strip will remain under Israeli control forever. This step reflects the extent of influence enjoyed by right-wing currents within the government and the Knesset, and their persistent endeavor to impose a new geographical and demographic reality in the besieged Strip.

For their part, activists in the 'Nachala' settlement movement explained that the border crossing operation with their private vehicles was not spontaneous, but rather came as part of prior arrangements to prepare for the rebuilding of settlements that were evacuated in 2005. The movement indicated that this infiltration represents a preliminary 'rehearsal' for a massive march they plan to organize inside Gaza during the upcoming Jewish Passover holiday, with the aim of pressuring the political level.

In contrast, the occupation army issued a statement strongly condemning the incident, considering that the entry of civilians into combat zones directly endangers their lives and the lives of soldiers. The statement confirmed that field forces detained the infiltrating group immediately upon detection, and they were transferred to police investigation centers to take legal action against them as a result of violating military orders.

Observers of Israeli affairs believe that these repeated incursions are not just isolated incidents, but rather part of a systematic strategy followed by far-right forces to test the security establishment. These movements reveal an escalation of popular and political pressures within Israel to legitimize the return of settlements to Gaza, exploiting the ongoing war conditions to push through their ideological agendas.

Gaza will remain ours forever, and this infiltration is a prelude to a massive march to rebuild the settlements.

The Israeli occupation forces intensified their military attacks on wide areas in the Gaza Strip early this Friday morning, with the assaults including airstrikes and heavy artillery shelling targeting the northern, central, and southern parts of the besieged Strip. Field sources reported that warplanes targeted sites within what is known as the Yellow Line east of the Shuja'iyya and Tuffah neighborhoods in Gaza City, causing panic among residents.

The aerial bombardment coincided with intense gunfire from Israeli military vehicles stationed on the border, with bullets targeting citizens' homes and displaced persons' tents in the Zeitoun neighborhood southeast of the city. The eastern areas also experienced intermittent artillery shelling, as part of the ongoing military pressure on densely populated residential areas.

In the central region of the Strip, the occupation army carried out extensive demolition operations of buildings and residential facilities east of the Bureij refugee camp, hours after bulldozing and heavy gunfire near the Abu Ataya roundabout. These actions are part of the occupation's attempts to change the geographical features in the border areas and impose a new security reality.

The 'Yellow Line' is known as an imaginary line established under ceasefire understandings, separating the areas of deployment of the occupation army, which controls about 53% of the Strip's area to the east, and the areas where Palestinians are allowed to move to the west. However, these areas witness continuous violations and direct targeting of civilians.

In the southern part of the Strip, local sources reported that Israeli vehicles opened fire with their machine guns intensively towards the eastern areas of Khan Yunis city. The attacks were not limited to direct shelling but also included terrorizing displaced persons living in extremely complex humanitarian conditions due to repeated displacement.

On the humanitarian front, the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees (UNRWA) warned that the situation in Gaza continues to deteriorate tragically. The agency confirmed that Israeli restrictions on the delivery of humanitarian and medical aid remain in place, hindering international relief efforts.

UNRWA explained that it is making strenuous efforts to provide basic services to the displaced, including primary healthcare, education, and limited food aid. It stressed that the amount of trucks allowed to enter covers only a small fraction of the enormous needs of the population suffering from the specter of famine and lack of medicine.

Regarding the education sector, the UN agency indicated that Gaza's children are paying the highest price for this war, as they live in harsh conditions lacking the most basic necessities of life. The agency is trying to provide temporary learning spaces and online lessons to ensure that the educational future of an entire generation of Palestinians is not lost.

Occupation authorities continue to prevent the entry of sufficient quantities of fuel, medical supplies, and shelter materials, exacerbating the suffering of approximately 1.5 million displaced people living in dilapidated tents and shelters. This intensified blockade comes at a time when the Strip is already suffering from the consequences of a continuous blockade for over 18 years.

Palestinians are preparing to welcome the holy month of Ramadan amidst the rubble of homes and the massive destruction left by the ongoing two-year genocide war. Despite the fragile ceasefire, the destroyed infrastructure and collapsed living conditions make a return to normal life a distant prospect under the continued occupation.

The amount of aid currently allowed to enter meets only a small fraction of the needs of Palestinians, and we demand an immediate lifting of restrictions.

The US capital, Washington, witnessed the inaugural meeting of the 'Peace Council' chaired by US President Donald Trump, with the participation of representatives from nearly 50 countries. Trump placed the reconstruction of the Gaza Strip at the forefront of the Council's agenda, emphasizing his endeavor to transform this platform into a comprehensive international tool for addressing major conflicts around the world.

The US President announced the allocation of $10 billion as an initial American contribution to support reconstruction efforts, describing this amount as meager compared to the enormous scale of destruction in the Strip. Reports from the White House indicated the mobilization of additional international pledges totaling approximately $6.5 billion, all of which will be allocated to the Gaza Development Fund under the supervision of the World Bank.

This financial move comes at a very sensitive time, as Hamas still maintains control over parts of the Strip and has not shown full readiness to disarm. The US administration has issued an ultimatum to the movement, demanding that it relinquish its military arsenal within a period not exceeding 60 days, warning of severe consequences in case of refusal.

In the context of direct threats, Trump addressed the attendees, affirming his confidence in Hamas's commitment to previous promises of disarmament, but stressed that failure to implement would be met with an unprecedented military and political response. These statements coincide with explicit Israeli warnings of a return to the option of comprehensive war if the military capabilities of Palestinian factions are not dismantled.

For his part, Ali Shaath, head of the National Committee for Gaza Administration, warned of the complexities of implementing any reconstruction plans in light of the near-complete economic collapse and escalating humanitarian needs. Shaath explained that the field conditions are extremely difficult, as the war has destroyed about 90% of the Strip's infrastructure, making any international effort face enormous logistical and security challenges.

On the organizational front, the structure of the 'Peace Council' sparked widespread controversy, as Trump appointed himself permanent chairman of the Council, and offered permanent membership to countries that contribute at least $1 billion. This approach provoked the resentment of European countries that saw the Council as an attempt to marginalize the role of the United Nations and bypass the powers of traditional international organizations in crisis management.

The meeting was not limited to the Palestinian issue but also extended to include the Iranian file, where Trump gave Tehran a few days to reach a 'meaningful deal'. The US President threatened Iran with 'bad consequences' if it did not respond to US demands regarding its nuclear program, ballistic missiles, and support for armed groups in the region.

In contrast, the Islamic Republic adhered to its right to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes, amid expectations of a written Iranian proposal to end the confrontation. The Trump administration seeks through these pressures to impose a new reality that ends Tehran's regional influence and ensures the final dismantling of its strategic military capabilities.

Informed sources revealed that only 26 countries signed the Council's charter during the meeting, while other countries preferred to wait and observe developments. Trump hinted at imposing indirect pressure on hesitant countries, expressing his conviction that everyone would eventually join this new leadership framework he is adopting.

10. The meeting witnessed a clear international division, as leaders such as Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán and Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif used the platform to praise Trump's vision. In contrast, major powers such as France, Britain, Russia, and China were absent from the scene, expressing their concerns about undermining the existing multilateral international order.

Field data indicate that the Israeli occupation has not implemented 80% of the provisions of the ceasefire agreement signed last October, which further complicates the Council's mission. The Council also lacks any official or symbolic Palestinian representation, although the Palestinian issue constitutes the main focus of its discussions and financial pledges.

Despite Trump's announcement of the end of the war, the reality on the ground indicates that more than 72,000 people have been killed and the Strip needs about $70 billion for reconstruction. Major questions arise about the 'Peace Council's' ability to translate these political ambitions into tangible results that end the suffering of millions of Palestinians in Gaza.

In a first practical step, the Council announced the opening of applications to form a new Palestinian national police force, with about 1,000 people applying in the first hours. This step comes in parallel with the commitment of five countries to send troops as part of the 'International Stabilization Force' to ensure security during the transitional phase approved by the UN Security Council.

I believe Hamas will give up its weapons, and that is what it promised. If it doesn't, it will face a very harsh response.

Recent official data has revealed a sharp deterioration in the psychological state of Israeli society since the outbreak of the war on the Gaza Strip on October 7, 2023. The data showed an increase in the number of trauma victims due to security-related incidents from 300 patients weekly before the war to about 3,000 cases currently, reflecting the enormous psychological pressure faced by settlers.

Informed sources reported that the 'Natal' association, specialized in treating psychological trauma, has received more than 120,000 distress calls since the beginning of the aggression. The association's CEO, Efrat Shvroot, explained that the numbers peaked during periods of direct military escalation, emphasizing that these statistics represent the true 'barometer' of the deteriorating emotional state within Israel.

Shvroot warned that what is to come might be even harder, noting that Israeli society is living under the weight of a 'tsunami' of psychological crises whose effects have begun to clearly surface. These effects include chronic fear attacks, sleep disorders, and a steady increase in suicidal tendencies that require immediate intervention from the police and ambulance services on a daily basis.

Reports indicate that the apparent calm in Israeli streets and cafes hides 'volcanic material' in a state of boiling that threatens social foundations. While the media is preoccupied with political disputes, a wide segment of Israelis suffers from silent distress and internal bleeding that pushes them towards isolation or complete withdrawal from work and essential life functions.

Addiction has emerged as one of the most dangerous national repercussions of the war, with authorities recording a significant increase in drug, cannabis, and sedative use among youth and discharged soldiers. Experts believe that this escape into addiction is a failed attempt to cope with harsh war memories and trauma symptoms that haunt those involved in military operations.

On the family front, statistical studies revealed a 65% increase in domestic violence cases reported to social welfare centers. This phenomenon has particularly worsened in families whose members serve in the army, where rates of physical and sexual violence have doubled due to the psychological pressures soldiers bring from battlefields to their homes.

In a related context, physical health symptoms resulting from sustained stress have begun to appear, with medical sources observing an increase in heart disease and cancer. Reports considered these diseases to be the 'inevitable health cost' of accumulated psychological traumas that have not found effective treatment amidst the ongoing state of war and continuous security threats.

Specialists have introduced a new term into the Israeli psychological lexicon, 'rolling trauma,' to describe a state where the term 'post-trauma' loses its traditional meaning. Society is still living within the traumatic event, as crises and threats continue without a time interval that allows for recovery or the beginning of traditional treatment.

Reports also drew attention to the alarming rise in fatal traffic accidents, which analysts linked to the confused mental state of traumatized drivers. This phenomenon is similar to what the US Army observed among its soldiers returning from the Vietnam and Afghanistan wars, where psychological trauma translates into aggressive and dangerous driving behaviors.

In conclusion, the data indicates that approximately 20,000 Israeli soldiers have been directly affected by 'post-traumatic stress' due to the fighting in Gaza, a number expected to increase with ongoing military operations. Medical and psychological institutions in Israel face an existential challenge in how to contain these massive numbers of affected individuals amidst limited budgets and increasing economic pressures.

The war has not ended; it has moved from the borders to the depths of the soul, and we face a terrifying existential question about society's ability to contain this rolling psychological catastrophe.

Amidst the rapid transformations witnessed in the international arena, the initiative known as the “Gaza Peace Council” has emerged as a proposed framework for addressing the situation in the Strip after the war.

However, any serious approach to Gaza's future cannot be separated from a fundamental question: Can lasting stability be built without involving the legitimate representative of the Palestinian people? And will reconstruction become an entry point for monopolizing Palestinian political decision-making?

The Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) constitutes the politically recognized framework, Arab and internationally, as the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people, while the Palestinian National Authority (PNA) undertakes executive responsibilities stemming from existing agreements. Furthermore, the State of Palestine enjoys recognition from more than 160 UN member states.

Therefore, any initiative that does not stem from this legal and political basis raises issues related to legitimacy and representation, and may be understood as an تجاوز (overstepping) of the comprehensive national framework.

From a procedural perspective, the establishment of an international council to manage a transitional phase in Gaza might appear to be an organizational step aimed at mobilizing resources and coordinating reconstruction efforts.

However, the true measure of success is not determined by the number of participants or the volume of financial pledges, but by the extent to which the initiative aligns with the rules of international law and the principle of peoples' right to self-determination.

Reports circulating about the composition of the council and the powers of its presidency—if accurate—indicate a clear centralization of decision-making and a direct link to the US administration under Donald Trump.

Such a structure, if not regulated by a multilateral collective governance framework, could be understood as a political mechanism of a unilateral nature, rather than a balanced international body, which deepens concerns about the monopolization of decisions related to the future of the Gaza Strip.

The reconstruction of Gaza is an urgent humanitarian necessity that cannot be postponed.

However, transforming reconstruction into an entry point for reshaping the political or security structure of the Strip without comprehensive Palestinian national consensus could lead to counterproductive results. Comparative experiences in multiple conflict zones confirm that reconstruction separated from a political solution turns into temporary crisis management, not a radical solution to it.

The issue of the unity of Palestinian land arises here; any administrative formula for Gaza must be part of a broader vision that ensures the unity of the West Bank, the Gaza Strip, and East Jerusalem within the framework of an independent Palestinian state on the June 4, 1967 borders.

Devoting separate or long-term arrangements for the Gaza Strip outside this context could be interpreted as solidifying division instead of overcoming it.

Furthermore, concerns associated with the “voluntary migration” theses issued by some Israeli officials, including Bezalel Smotrich, add a sensitive dimension to any international initiative that does not include an explicit text rejecting forced displacement and protecting the Palestinian population's presence on their land.

Ensuring the survival of the population and safeguarding their rights is not merely a political matter, but a legal obligation under the rules of international humanitarian law.

Any international framework aiming to achieve peace and stability in Gaza should be based on three fundamental pillars:

Respect for the Palestinian national authority and not bypassing or circumventing it.

Linking reconstruction to a clear political horizon that ends the occupation and embodies the two-state solution.

Ensuring that any transitional administration is temporary, supportive of Palestinian legitimacy, and not a substitute for it.

In conclusion:

Just peace is not built on top-down arrangements, nor on excluding the rightful owner, nor on unilateral management that uses reconstruction as an entry point for monopolizing national decision-making.

Gaza is not a pending administrative file, nor a geographical area amenable to political reshaping according to external calculations, but an integral part of the cause of a people seeking to exercise their legitimate right to self-determination and establish their independent state with East Jerusalem as its capital.

The future of Gaza cannot be drawn outside the framework of Palestinian national legitimacy, nor in isolation from the unity of the land and the people, and any path that bypasses these constants will not produce sustainable peace, but will perpetuate long-term crisis management under new names.

The Gaza Strip issue has once again taken center stage in international attention with the inaugural meeting of the 'Peace Council' chaired by US President Donald Trump. This move comes as an implementation of the peace plan, which has received support from a UN Security Council resolution, opening the door to a new phase in dealing with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Dr. Neil Quilliam, a researcher at the British think tank Chatham House, warned that this path could close all avenues for the establishment of an independent Palestinian state. Quilliam pointed out that the current plan gives the Israeli right a golden opportunity to realize its dream of full control over the occupied West Bank and marginalize Palestinian national identity.

Observers believe that the current agreements portend a repetition of the mistakes of 'Oslo,' which created a limited self-governing system and hindered full sovereignty. The new plan goes even further by imposing a multi-level external governance system that reduces Palestinian participation in decision-making to its lowest levels.

Absolute authority is concentrated in the 'Peace Council' chaired by Trump, which exercises its powers through an executive council for Gaza that includes no direct Palestinian or Israeli representation. A temporary international stabilization force assumes security tasks, transforming the Strip into an internationally administered area far from national aspirations.

The plan also includes the establishment of the 'National Committee for Gaza Administration,' composed of 15 non-political technocrats, selected under strict American supervision and Israeli scrutiny. This structure reflects a desire to create a local administration that lacks political legitimacy and is entirely subject to external will.

UN Security Council Resolution 2803 raises serious concerns, as it narrowly focuses on Gaza, threatening to sever the remaining political and economic ties with the West Bank. This approach entrenches geographical and political separation and makes the establishment of a Palestinian state merely a conditional possibility contingent on the impossible task of complete disarmament.

The international resolution does not obligate the international community to establish a Palestinian state; rather, it legitimizes the separation of Gaza from the West until at least the end of 2027. Analysts believe that this timeline gives Israel enough time to impose new settlement realities in the West Bank, making the two-state solution impossible.

In a related context, Jared Kushner revealed features of the 'New Gaza' plan, which treats the Strip as a massive investment and real estate project. The plan aims to transform existing neighborhoods into modern areas mimicking the Dubai model, prioritizing economic zones at the expense of the political rights of the residents.

Reports indicate that the reconstruction process will be subject to strict Israeli security standards, with a focus on areas under military control. This distinction will effectively create 'two sectors' within Gaza: one demilitarized and loyal to external powers, and the other marginalized and unstable.

It is likely that the administration of isolated enclaves in Gaza will be entrusted to Palestinian figures capable of close security coordination with Israel and the United States. Names such as Mohammed Dahlan are being put forward as potential candidates for this administrative role in the absence of any prospects for comprehensive national political representation.

On the other hand, the Israeli Security Cabinet quickly approved measures aimed at imposing full sovereignty over the West Bank. These decisions include accelerating the pace of settlement construction unprecedentedly to block any international attempts to revive the negotiation process.

Statements by Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich confirmed this trend, as he explicitly declared that the goal is to 'bury the idea of a Palestinian state.' These statements reflect the Israeli right's confidence in the absence of any real international pressure that could impede the de facto annexation of the occupied territories.

Experts warn that the continuation of this path will lead to a new wave of forced displacement and dispossession of Palestinians, threatening the stability of the entire region. Treating the issue as a real estate or security file ignores the political roots of the conflict and fuels anti-occupation sentiments in the Middle East.

In conclusion, analysts call on Arab and European countries to review their positions on Trump's framework before it is too late. Without serious diplomatic action to modify these strategies, the international community will find itself facing a new reality that completely ends any chance for a just and comprehensive peace.

The new Gaza plan redefines the Strip as a real estate development project, dividing it into areas that mimic modern Gulf cities, far from the concept of a state.

Hebrew press reports have revealed the expected scenarios for any potential military confrontation led by the United States against Iran, coinciding with the completion of the arrival of American military reinforcements in the region. Sources indicated that Tehran, despite its inability to challenge traditional American power, possesses asymmetrical deterrence tools in the form of a massive missile arsenal and widespread regional proxies.\n\nEstimates suggest that the U.S. military is planning a prolonged military campaign that could last several weeks, reflecting a tendency within the American administration to explore the possibility of bringing about deep political change in the structure of the Iranian regime. However, a strategic question arises about the realism of this goal and the ability of military force alone to achieve it without sliding into long ground conflicts.\n\nIn this context, statements by American officials, including J.D. Vance, emphasize that the mission of regime change must originate from the Iranian people themselves. This stance reflects caution against repeating past experiences in Iraq and Afghanistan, especially in the absence of a unified and organized Iranian opposition capable of leading the transitional phase in the event of the regime's collapse.\n\nOne proposed scenario is to increase military pressure to stimulate internal protests and undermine the regime from within. But this option clashes with the reality that the Iranian leadership, especially the Revolutionary Guard, does not have a strategy for withdrawal or escape; instead, it will tend to use excessive force to suppress any disturbances that threaten its survival, which could drag the country into civil war.\n\nRegarding the nuclear file, any attack targeting nuclear facilities faces a major technical and strategic dilemma, as air strikes cannot erase the accumulated scientific expertise of Iranian cadres. Moreover, destroying declared sites does not guarantee the elimination of enriched uranium stockpiles that may be distributed in secret and fortified underground locations.\n\nSources warn that Iran may emerge from any nuclear strike with greater determination to complete its armament project, considering that military confrontation may lift the psychological and political restrictions that prevented Tehran from reaching the nuclear threshold. This scenario places decision-makers before the challenge of the long-term feasibility of such surgical military operations.\n\nRegarding missile capabilities, analysts believe that destroying the Iranian missile project is a vital goal to reduce Tehran's deterrence capability. Although a widespread campaign could inflict severe damage on the production infrastructure, experience in other fronts has proven the difficulty of completely eliminating these capabilities, which rely on technologies that can be re-manufactured and restored.\n\nOn another note, the option of imposing negotiations under military pressure remains preferred by some circles in Washington, including President Trump's inclinations. The logic here is that targeted strikes might force the Iranian leadership to accept harsh conditions it previously rejected, to avoid the complete collapse of the regime under the weight of attrition.\n\nHowever, the Iranian leadership has historically proven its ability to 'absorb blows' and bet on the time factor, believing that prolonging the conflict will increase internal political pressure on the American administration. This Iranian gamble aims to push Washington to seek a quick political exit without achieving real strategic gains on the ground.\n\n"Decapitation" or targeting the supreme leadership, especially Khamenei, emerges as one of the most dangerous and extreme options. Sources confirm that such a step could lead to completely counterproductive results, as the Iranian system is characterized by an institutional rather than individual structure, and the absence of the pivotal figure could lead to the rise of more radical currents within the Revolutionary Guard.\n\nMoreover, targeting major religious symbols could provoke a wave of overwhelming anger among regime loyalists at home and abroad, opening the door to widespread retaliatory actions targeting American interests and its allies in the region. This escalation could drag the United States into a comprehensive regional war that was not part of its initial plans.\n\nIsraeli readings emphasize that the overwhelming military superiority of the United States does not necessarily guarantee a decisive strategic victory. A direct confrontation with a country the size of Iran differs fundamentally from proxy wars and requires a precise definition of 'success' before embarking on any military action whose outcomes may be unknown.\n\nIn conclusion, all proposed options appear fraught with risks and complex geopolitical repercussions, as there is no simple path that guarantees neutralizing the Iranian threat without heavy costs. The fundamental question facing Washington remains its willingness to bear the consequences of potential chaos or engage in a long-term stabilization process in the region.\n\nThe current military buildup may be a tool for diplomatic pressure as much as it is preparation for war, but sliding into direct confrontation remains a possibility if political paths reach a dead end. Regional parties are cautiously monitoring these developments, awaiting the outcome of American moves in the coming weeks.\n\nAmerican military superiority in direct conflict does not necessarily mean strategic priority; direct confrontation requires defining the goals of success and its cost in advance.

The Central Command of the Israeli occupation army announced the completion of its security and field arrangements to secure the first Friday prayer of the holy month of Ramadan at Al-Aqsa Mosque. These preparations come amidst a state of severe tension, as the occupation authorities seek to impose a new security reality that tightens the noose on the access of worshipers from West Bank governorates to occupied Jerusalem.

Media sources revealed that the occupation army has introduced a 'magnetic card' system that every Palestinian from the West Bank must obtain and pass through electronic checkpoints. This measure aims to accurately track the movement of worshipers from the moment they leave their residential areas until they reach the military checkpoints surrounding the holy city.

The new procedures include a strict monitoring mechanism, whereby the Israeli police will be provided with immediate digital data on every person who exceeds the permitted duration of stay inside Jerusalem. Reports confirmed that any worshiper who does not register their exit through the designated crossings will face immediate penalties, including permanent deprivation of permits and legal prosecution.

For its part, security sources indicated that the Central Command anticipates widespread friction at major crossings such as Qalandia and Rachel checkpoints, in addition to the Ibrahimi Mosque area in Hebron. These expectations come amidst a state of popular unrest resulting from the prohibitive restrictions that prevent thousands from performing their religious rituals.

In the context of field reinforcements, the occupation police intend to deploy more than 3,000 personnel in the alleys of the Old City and around Al-Aqsa Mosque to secure the first Friday prayer. All roads leading to the vicinity of Al-Haram Al-Sharif will also be closed to private vehicles, which exacerbates the suffering of worshipers who are forced to walk long distances.

The occupation authorities have set a ceiling for the number of worshipers allowed to enter from the West Bank at only 10,000 people per week, a very small number compared to the number of those wishing to pray. The Civil Administration of the occupation stipulated that each individual must obtain a special daily permit subject to prior and comprehensive security approval from intelligence agencies.

The restrictions were not limited to numbers but also included harsh age criteria, where only men over the age of 55 and women over the age of 50 are allowed to enter. As for children, only those under the age of 12 were allowed to pass, provided they were accompanied by a first-degree relative who met the permit conditions.

On the ground inside Al-Aqsa Mosque, the Islamic Endowments Department reported that the occupation authorities continue to obstruct the usual Ramadan preparations. Occupation forces prevented medical teams from setting up field clinics and also obstructed the installation of sunshade umbrellas in the mosque courtyards, in a move aimed at causing distress to worshipers.

Jerusalemite sources warned of threats from the occupation police to prevent the entry of Iftar and Suhoor meals designated for those observing I'tikaf inside Al-Aqsa Mosque during the holy month. These restrictions coincide with unjust decisions to ban a number of mosque imams and Sharia judges from Al-Haram Al-Sharif for varying periods to undermine the religious and national role of Jerusalemite authorities.

In contrast, sources in the occupation police confirmed that the security deployment will be intensive and around the clock throughout Ramadan, with a focus on monitoring the gates of Al-Aqsa Mosque. The occupation authorities claim that these measures aim to maintain security, while Palestinians view them as an entrenchment of the policy of siege and temporal and spatial division of holy sites.

The Israeli police will be informed of the data of anyone who does not return from Jerusalem to the West Bank, and immediate penalties will be imposed on them.

Washington – Said Arikat – 20/2/2026

News Analysis

The first meeting of what was called the "Peace Council," launched by US President Donald Trump, raised more questions than it provided answers, both in terms of form and content. The initiative, promoted as a new international platform to support stability, especially in Gaza, began amidst striking institutional ambiguity: no specific executive mechanism, no clear timeline, and no administrative structure to show how financial pledges would be managed or their expenditure monitored. The announcement of allocating ten billion dollars for reconstruction seemed enormous in terms of the figure, but it remained closer to a symbolic political pledge in the absence of a detailed plan specifying the supervising bodies, disbursement criteria, and oversight and accountability tools. Thus, the Council so far appears closer to a platform for declaring intentions than to a binding framework.

This impression was reinforced by the size and quality of international participation. Out of dozens of invitations, attendance was limited to about a third of the number, with reserved or low European representation. This hesitation reflected European fear that the Council might turn into a parallel track that bypasses the multilateral system, primarily the United Nations. Reservations were not limited to European capitals; Pope Leo XIV of the Vatican expressed his reservation "due to the nature of the Council," a reference understood as concern about creating a new framework that might compete with existing international authorities in crisis management. Here, the question of legitimacy arises: Does the Council seek to integrate with the international system, or to reshape it according to a selective approach led by Washington?

Palestine and the Palestinian issue were touched upon briefly during the meeting, more as a humanitarian item within a crowded agenda, rather than a central political issue requiring comprehensive treatment. Significant Palestinian political representation was absent, in contrast to very limited technical presence, represented by the presence of Ali Shaath, head of the new Palestinian Technocrat Committee, at the meeting without mention by the host or participants, which weakened the initiative's image in the Arab street and raised questions about the Palestinian Authority's position in any future arrangements concerning Gaza. The focus on relief and reconstruction, without a clear approach to political rights and self-determination, reproduced a pattern of crisis management instead of resolution, and kept the core of the conflict outside the scope of actual treatment.

However, the most sensitive question concerns the extent to which countries that have announced financial pledges, including the United States itself, will fulfill their promises. Previous experiences in support and reconstruction conferences have shown that the gap between announced pledges and actually transferred funds can be wide, and often linked to political or security conditions that change with shifting priorities. In the American case specifically, any financial commitments remain hostage to internal considerations, from congressional approval to changing political moods, as well as being linked to the behavior of local and regional parties. As for other countries, they may view pledges as immediate diplomatic messages rather than binding contractual obligations, which raises serious doubts about the actual amount of money that will be disbursed, the timing of its disbursement, and the parties that will benefit from it.

This doubt is not limited to financial capacity but extends to political will. Will the pledges remain if de-escalation falters? And will they be used as a pressure tool to re-engineer the political landscape in Gaza? The absence of a clear mechanism for obligation and accountability makes it difficult to distinguish between sustainable humanitarian support and conditionally time-bound aid. Moreover, the lack of a regulatory legal framework for pledges opens the door for their reinterpretation or freezing whenever calculations change.

In contrast, Israel continues its intransigence regarding the future of Gaza and Hamas's weapons, and treats any de-escalation as reviewable security arrangements. Thus, a ceasefire, if achieved, becomes fragile and prone to relapse, while any subsequent phase of reconstruction remains hostage to security calculations that have not fundamentally changed. Amidst the continued settlement expansion in the West Bank, any approach that separates reconstruction from the political track appears vulnerable to accusations of entrenching a long-term transitional reality, not a final settlement.

In the Arab context, the Arab League finds itself facing an additional test. The initiative in its current form raises questions about its position in any arrangements concerning Gaza and the Palestinian issue in general. The absence of a clear coordination framework between the new Council and regional and international institutions deepens the impression that a path is intended to be formed outside known channels. For Arab countries that fear marginalization of the Palestinian national dimension, the ambiguity in the mechanism, timeline, and administration—in addition to doubts about the implementation of pledges—is not a technical detail, but an indicator of the potential for financial support to turn into a tool for crisis management rather than resolution.

In conclusion, the "Peace Council" stands at a crossroads between being a genuine platform for mobilizing sustainable political and financial resources, or merely a grand political declaration with high expectations and low guarantees. While financial pledges remain the focus of attention, the criterion for seriousness will not be in the size of the announced figures, but in the extent to which they are converted into actual, transparent commitments, within a clear political vision that addresses the roots of the conflict.

News Analysis

Washington, D.C - The White House is increasingly portraying a U.S. strike on Iran as “necessary,” even as President Donald Trump publicly grants Tehran 15 days to accept his terms. That juxtaposition captures the central weakness of the administration’s posture: urgency without clarity. When Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt claimed there were “many reasons” to attack but declined to specify them, she inadvertently highlighted the problem. A case for war that cannot be articulated plainly is rarely a defensive imperative. More often, it signals political calculation, strategic ambition, or opportunism searching for a persuasive frame.

The most glaring contradiction concerns the nuclear file. Trump has repeatedly asserted that U.S. airstrikes during the June 2025 12-Day War “obliterated” Iran’s nuclear facilities. If accurate, that claim undercuts the need for renewed bombing to prevent an imminent breakout. If inaccurate, it implies the public was misled about the success of a major military operation. The administration cannot coherently argue both that the threat has already been neutralized and that it is urgent enough to justify immediate war. Strategic credibility collapses when mutually exclusive claims are advanced to support the same policy outcome.

Vice President JD Vance has tried to narrow the objective: Iran must not obtain a nuclear weapon. Yet even this formulation appears thin under present conditions. There is no clear public evidence that Iran can rapidly enrich uranium to weapons-grade levels after the reported damage to its facilities. Iranian officials have also signaled willingness to cap enrichment well below the 90 percent threshold associated with weapons capability—levels they have never reached. If the stated goal is nonproliferation, diplomacy remains viable. When a negotiated constraint is plausible, the threshold for preventive war becomes extraordinarily high. Military action is the bluntest, costliest instrument for an objective that may still be achieved through verifiable agreement.

Compounding the weakness of the nuclear rationale is the steady rotation of pretexts. In December, Trump suggested support for an Israeli strike if Iran continued its conventional missile program. In January, he floated military action in response to domestic unrest inside Iran. Now the emphasis has swung back to the nuclear issue. This pattern suggests not that Tehran crossed a single, well-defined red line, but that Washington is searching for a justification with sufficient political traction. States confronting imminent existential threats do not cycle through unrelated arguments. When the rationale shifts, it raises the possibility that the decision to strike precedes the reasoning offered to defend it.

A more coherent explanation lies in external pressure, particularly from Israel. Reporting indicates Israeli officials favor a broad campaign extending beyond discrete nuclear targets, potentially including assets that could destabilize or even topple Iran’s government. Regime change, however, is not a defensive objective; it is an expansive political project with a long record of unintended consequences. From power vacuums to insurgency and regional spillover, such efforts have frequently generated protracted instability rather than durable security. If weakening or transforming Iran’s regime is the underlying aim, the nuclear issue becomes a more palatable public wrapper for a far wider strategic ambition. That would also explain the administration’s reluctance to articulate a single, bounded objective.

The invocation of Iranian “weakness” further underscores the opportunistic tone. The argument appears to be that Tehran is vulnerable after internal protests and recent strikes, making retaliation more containable now than later. But vulnerability is not a legal or moral basis for war; it is a calculation about timing and cost. Striking because the moment seems advantageous is exploitation, not self-defense. Moreover, foreign attacks often consolidate regimes by activating nationalist sentiment, even among citizens critical of their leaders. The expectation that military pressure will catalyze internal collapse is a recurring misjudgment in U.S. strategy, one that has repeatedly produced outcomes opposite to those intended.

Energy markets introduce another revealing dimension. Some analyses frame low oil prices and robust supply as creating a “strategic opportunity,” implying that market disruption from conflict might be manageable. Such reasoning reduces war to a variable in commodity pricing rather than a decision with profound human, legal, and geopolitical consequences. Treating military escalation as tolerable so long as price spikes remain contained reflects a technocratic calculus detached from regional realities. It also assumes that retaliation would be limited and predictable.

That assumption is precarious. Even absent a formal closure of the Strait of Hormuz, Iran possesses asymmetric tools: cyber operations, attacks on U.S. facilities in the region, pressure through allied militias, and calibrated disruption of maritime traffic. Escalation in modern conflict is rarely linear or fully controllable. Wars expand through miscalculation, misperception, and reciprocal signaling, not solely through deliberate design. Confidence that violence can be neatly bounded has often proven illusory.

The broader geopolitical context sharpens the picture. Iran remains one of the few significant regional actors not aligned with U.S. influence. Weakening it would reshape the regional balance of power in ways favorable to both Washington and Israel. Additionally, constraining Iran’s oil exports to China would complicate Beijing’s energy security and reinforce U.S. leverage. These are strategic objectives, not emergency responses to imminent attack. Framed this way, the prospective war appears less a necessity than a convergence of incentives: allied pressure for decisive action, a White House seeking demonstrations of strength, and an opportunity to recalibrate regional dynamics.

Ultimately, the most compelling evidence that an attack is not strictly necessary is the administration’s inability to present a stable, singular rationale. If Iran’s nuclear capacity was truly “obliterated,” if diplomatic constraints remain feasible, and if the supporting arguments revolve around timing, weakness, and oil market calculations, then the logic of necessity gives way to the logic of opportunity. Wars initiated on the basis of opportunity rather than clear defense imperatives tend to drift, expand, and endure. Years later, the original justifications blur, leaving a familiar question in their wake: if the threat was so urgent, why was the reasoning so unstable?

Media sources reported that decision-making circles in Tel Aviv see a strategic interest in Israel taking responsibility for funding and leading debris removal operations in the Gaza Strip. This perspective stems from a security conviction linking the removal of rubble with the ability to access and permanently destroy the complex tunnel network, in addition to neutralizing the threat of unexploded ordnance.

Reports quoted sources from the 'Peace Council' stating that the Israeli side considers itself the only entity with the technical and field capabilities to dismantle the underground military infrastructure at the required speed. The source clarified that this approach is not solely driven by humanitarian motives, but represents a supreme military and political interest aimed at ensuring that Palestinian factions do not regain their fighting capabilities in the future.

In a related context, a Peace Council conference was held in the American capital, Washington, which resulted in the announcement of initial financial pledges for the reconstruction of the Strip, amounting to approximately $17 billion. The United States topped the list of donors with $10 billion, although there are indications that President Donald Trump has not yet finalized the decision to allocate this entire amount for direct construction and reconstruction operations.

Arab and regional countries also contributed to these pledges, with Qatar, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Bahrain, and Kuwait, in addition to Uzbekistan and Azerbaijan, announcing total contributions of up to $7 billion. These funds are expected to be subject to international coordination mechanisms to ensure they reach the targeted projects, amid anticipation for the actual start dates of financial transfers.

Regarding international organizations, Trump announced that the United Nations would allocate $2 billion to provide urgent humanitarian aid, under the direct supervision of the Peace Council. In a notable move, the President of the International Federation of Association Football (FIFA) revealed a plan to raise $75 million dedicated to supporting sports and football projects in the afflicted Strip, as part of efforts to restore normal life.

Reconstruction efforts face enormous logistical challenges, as UN estimates indicate there are approximately 60 million tons of rubble in various areas of the Strip. Statistics show that this massive quantity is equivalent to the cargo of thousands of ships, meaning there are about 30 tons of rubble for every Palestinian citizen in Gaza, which will require many years of continuous work to remove.

Data issued by international bodies indicates that the percentage of total and partial destruction in the Gaza Strip reached 84%, while in Gaza City alone it was about 92%. With the total cost of reconstruction estimated at around $70 billion, the question remains about the sufficiency of current pledges and the ability of international parties to implement their plans amidst ongoing field complexities.

Israel is the only party capable of destroying tunnels at the required speed, and this constitutes a pure military and political interest for it.

The Permanent Representative of Palestine to the United Nations affirmed that the Israeli policies pursued aim primarily and continuously to undermine the historical Palestinian presence on the land, in preparation for extending full control over it. He pointed out in his speech that this strategy has not changed, but rather is intensifying through systematic practices aimed at uprooting citizens from their villages and cities.

The representative explained that the escalating pace of settlement in the occupied territories, and the accompanying organized terrorism practiced by settlers against civilians, is inseparable from the policy of demolishing Palestinian homes and structures. He considered that these field measures all integrate to serve one ultimate goal: to impose the actual 'annexation' of Palestinian lands and transform it into a legal reality.

The Palestinian diplomat stressed that Palestine belongs to the Palestinians alone, affirming that it is not a commodity for sale or a subject for bartering and control, no matter how great the political or field pressures. He noted that any attempt to change the identity of the land or its legal status will clash with the steadfastness of the Palestinian people and their adherence to their legitimate historical rights.

In a related context, the representative described the Israeli annexation policies as a grave violation of the United Nations Charter and a direct assault on the foundations of international law and relevant international legitimacy resolutions. He warned that the continuation of these violations puts the international community to a real test to protect the international system from collapse in the face of policies of imposing a fait accompli by force.

The representative also sent a strongly worded message to the international community, stating that the decisions recently taken by the Israeli government represent an explicit declaration of reaching the 'end of the road' for the political process. He pointed out that these moves destroy any remaining opportunities for achieving a just and comprehensive peace based on agreed international references.

The representative concluded his warnings by alerting that the occupation authorities are deliberately pushing towards a comprehensive 'explosion' in the West Bank through their successive escalatory decisions. He affirmed that this trend reflects an Israeli desire to spread chaos to facilitate the implementation of displacement plans, which necessitates immediate and decisive intervention from the UN Security Council to stop this dangerous deterioration.

Recent Israeli decisions mean that we have reached the end of the road, and the Israeli government seeks an explosion in the West Bank.

The Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas) affirmed that the lesson from the formation of the 'Peace Council' and its meetings in Washington lies in tangible results on the ground, specifically in its ability to curb Israeli aggression. The movement clarified in a statement that previous experiences have proven the occupation's disregard for international statements that lack real political and field pressure tools, considering that relying solely on theoretical promises will not end the escalating humanitarian suffering in the Gaza Strip.

The movement's stance coincides with the first meeting of the Council, chaired by Donald Trump with the participation of 47 countries, where huge sums of money for reconstruction were announced, reaching 17 billion dollars, including a 10 billion dollar American contribution. Despite these figures, sources indicated that the Council, established under Security Council Resolution 2803 as an interim administration, faces legitimacy challenges in the absence of any Palestinian representation and the refusal of influential international powers such as Russia, China, France, and Britain to join its composition, which includes figures such as Jared Kushner and Tony Blair.

Hamas stressed that any political or reconstruction path must primarily be based on stopping the comprehensive aggression, lifting the unjust siege, and ensuring the Palestinian people's right to self-determination. These demands come at a time when reports indicate clear Israeli intransigence, as the occupation has not adhered to implementing 80% of the ceasefire understandings signed last October, while the deadly toll of the war continues to exceed 72,000 martyrs and almost complete destruction of infrastructure in the Strip.

The true test of what the participants in the Peace Council meeting announced is their ability to compel the occupation to stop its ongoing violations and crimes.

A radical settler movement calling itself 'Hilltop Youth' has claimed full responsibility for carrying out a series of violent attacks against Palestinian citizens across the occupied West Bank. In a statement published on its digital platforms, the movement described these assaults as a 'struggle record,' confirming the involvement of its members in dozens of crimes targeting Palestinian property and lives under security and military cover.

The list published by the movement on Wednesday evening documented over 60 attacks in just one month, affecting 33 Palestinian villages in various areas. These assaults were heavily concentrated in the town of Mukhamas, near Ramallah, where the area was subjected to five consecutive attacks, leading to the intimidation of local residents and forcing neighboring Bedouin communities to forcibly relocate to escape settler brutality.

In a related context, the Palestinian Ministry of Health announced the death of a 19-year-old man, who succumbed to critical injuries sustained after settlers shot him in the town of Mukhamas. This incident underscores the brutality of the attacks carried out by these gangs, which have now resorted to using live ammunition directly against unarmed civilians amid a complete silence from the occupation authorities.

According to the report published by the settler movement, their attacks resulted in the burning of 12 inhabited homes and setting fire to 29 Palestinian vehicles, in addition to injuring approximately 40 citizens with varying degrees of wounds. The movement also boasted about smashing hundreds of vehicle windows and uprooting hundreds of ancient olive trees, in an attempt to undermine the economic resilience of Palestinians on their land.

'Hilltop Youth' attacks were not limited to Palestinians but also extended to threatening officials in settlements, soldiers, and officers whom the movement considers 'moderate' or not firm enough in implementing settlement plans. This internal rebellion reflects the extent of radicalism within these groups, which have begun to impose their own agenda by force of arms and intimidation on all parties on the ground.

For its part, the 'Peace Now' organization confirmed in recent reports that settlers systematically infiltrate Palestinian agricultural lands and prevent their owners from accessing them. The organization indicated that these practices are carried out with direct and clear support from the Israeli government and army, who provide protection to settlers during their attacks and offer them the necessary legal cover to evade punishment.

Since the beginning of 2025, the West Bank has witnessed an unprecedented pace of settlement expansion, with the far-right government approving the construction of 54 new settlements, a record number reflecting the desire to decisively resolve the conflict on the ground. These expansions coincide with extensive land registration and ownership regularization operations, a first of its kind since the occupation of the West Bank in 1967, paving the way for a comprehensive annexation process.

In the context of international reactions, the Under-Secretary-General of the United Nations, Rosemary DiCarlo, warned of the danger of unilateral Israeli moves aimed at changing the demographic and geographical reality in the West Bank. DiCarlo stated during a Security Council meeting that the world is now witnessing a de facto annexation process taking place silently, where any opportunity for the establishment of a geographically contiguous Palestinian state is being undermined through the planting of settlement outposts.

Despite calls from some rabbis in northern West Bank settlements for restraint and adherence to authorities' instructions, the reality on the ground proves that these calls do not resonate with radical youth groups. The settler movement now views violence as a legitimate means to achieve its political goals, exploiting the current government composition which includes ministers who openly support these extremist tendencies.

It is worth noting that the West Bank is home to approximately three million Palestinians who daily face attacks from over half a million settlers spread across illegal settlements under international law. This cycle of violence continues in the absence of any political horizon, and with the occupation's insistence on accelerating the pace of land seizure and destruction of Palestinian property to impose a new reality that will be difficult to reverse in the future.

We are witnessing a gradual de facto annexation of the West Bank, where unilateral Israeli steps are steadily changing the situation on the ground.

US President Donald Trump issued a stern warning to the Iranian leadership, giving them a maximum of 15 days to reach what he described as a 'meaningful deal'. Trump stressed during a meeting in Washington that failure to conclude this agreement would lead to 'bad things' happening, indicating that the coming days would be crucial in determining the course of the confrontation.

These statements come at a time when the region is witnessing a large-scale American military buildup, with Washington deploying an aircraft carrier off the Iranian coast and a second carrier heading to the region. These movements coincide with the deployment of squadrons of fighter jets and tens of thousands of soldiers to regional bases, raising the pace of readiness for any potential confrontation.

For his part, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu joined the threats, warning Tehran against making any mistake by attacking Israel. Netanyahu vowed a violent military response beyond the imagination of the Iranian leadership, stressing that Tel Aviv would not hesitate to defend its security with full force if it were subjected to any direct aggression.

On the ground, some European countries have begun to take precautionary measures, with the German army announcing the temporary relocation of a number of its soldiers from the city of Erbil in northern Iraq. This decision came amid escalating security tensions in the Middle East and fears of targeting bases hosting foreign forces in the region.

In a related context, Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk urged his citizens in Iran to leave immediately and without delay. Tusk considered that the possibility of an open armed conflict erupting in the region has become very real, requiring the utmost caution and prudence to secure Polish nationals.

Internationally, the Russian presidency called on all parties involved in the crisis to exercise maximum restraint and avoid uncalculated escalation. Moscow expressed regret that tensions had reached unprecedented levels, stressing the absolute necessity of prioritizing political and diplomatic means to resolve outstanding differences.

For its part, France called on both Washington and Tehran to return to the negotiating table as the only option to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. Paris affirmed that the diplomatic path is the optimal way to ensure regional stability and avoid the region sliding into a comprehensive military confrontation that may not be controllable.

Economically, these tensions were directly reflected in global energy markets, with oil prices soaring to record levels not seen in many months. Brent crude recorded a significant increase, reaching $71.66 per barrel, amid fears among suppliers of supply disruptions in the event of a military conflict in the Strait of Hormuz.

In contrast, Tehran staunchly defended its position, with the head of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran, Mohammad Eslami, affirming his country's right to possess peaceful nuclear technology. Eslami explained that uranium enrichment operations represent the basis of the national nuclear industry, noting that the program is progressing in accordance with the rules of the International Atomic Energy Agency.

Media reports quoted American sources as saying that the military options presented to the White House were designed to inflict the greatest possible damage on Iranian infrastructure. These plans include the possibility of targeting prominent political and military leaders, with the aim of weakening the ruling regime in Tehran or overthrowing it in the event of war.

Despite the threats, Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian affirmed that his country does not seek war and has never initiated it since he took office. However, he stressed at the same time that Iran will not succumb to American demands aimed at humiliating the Iranian people or imposing external will on them under threat.

Iranian officials hinted at the possibility of closing the strategic Strait of Hormuz, which is the lifeline for global oil and gas trade, if their country is attacked. The Revolutionary Guard conducted extensive military maneuvers in the strait to raise combat readiness and test the defensive and offensive capabilities of the naval forces.

In a move reflecting the depth of regional alliances, Iranian and Russian naval forces completed joint military exercises in the Gulf of Oman and the northern Indian Ocean. These maneuvers aim to enhance security cooperation between the two countries and send a clear message regarding the balance of power in the region amid increasing American pressure.

Anticipation remains the master of the situation during the next two weeks, as the results of indirect talks in Oman and Geneva will determine the fate of the region. Either a framework will be reached that satisfies all parties and lifts sanctions on Iran, or a dark tunnel of military confrontation will be entered that could change the face of the Middle East.

We must reach a meaningful deal, otherwise bad things will happen, and you will probably find that out in the next ten days.

The signs of an early election race are beginning to emerge within the occupation state, as field and political data indicate that dates are now under actual discussion among the poles of the ruling coalition. The biggest concern dominating the thinking of Benjamin Netanyahu and his right-wing allies is the necessity of avoiding holding elections on the original scheduled date in October 2026, to prevent their coinciding with the third anniversary of the October 7 attack.

Informed sources reported that senior Likud party officials have already begun to change their schedules to accommodate the hypothesis of imminent elections, with June 30 or July 7 being circulated as preferred dates. Observers believe that this shift reflects Netanyahu's desire to preempt any public or media movement that might accompany the commemoration ceremonies of the major security and military failure that occurred during his tenure.

Political circles in Israel avoid August for holding elections due to it being the annual tourist travel season, which makes it difficult to ensure wide participation from voters abroad. September also represents an additional obstacle due to the overlap of Jewish holidays, as leaders of the Haredi religious parties prefer not to be preoccupied with election campaigns during periods of religious arrangements and their special rituals.

A major political gamble on external support is emerging, specifically from US President Donald Trump, who is expected to visit Israel at the end of next April. Netanyahu aims with this visit to capitalize on the anticipated American praise to enhance his leadership image before the Israeli voter, and to use the echoes of this visit as a strong propaganda lever in his election campaign during June.

The Israeli Prime Minister is currently seeking to achieve a state of temporary stability within his coalition by passing sensitive legislation, foremost among them the military exemption law and the general budget. These steps are necessary to ensure the continued support of the Haredi parties, as Netanyahu fears the outbreak of protests or riots within these circles that could negatively affect his electoral chances.

The Likud party corridors are witnessing an unprecedented state of alert, with internal sources describing the situation as 'hysteria' that has afflicted ministers and officials seeking to maintain their positions. The intensity of the competition has reached the point where senior officials have stormed private social and family events of party activists without invitation, in a desperate attempt to secure loyalties before the expected primary elections begin soon.

The verbal altercations observed in the Knesset cafeteria between disgruntled activists and party ministers reflect the enormous pressure facing Likud leaders at this stage. Each minister is trying to prove his efficiency and field activity to compensate for any previous shortcomings, fearing punishment from party members who have the authority to determine the order of names on the upcoming electoral list.

Internal Likud assessments showed that only four names feel relatively secure in the top ten list: Yisrael Katz, Yariv Levin, Eli Cohen, and Amir Ohana. The rest of the ministers and deputies find themselves at the mercy of Netanyahu's decisions, whose close associates have already begun sending clear messages calling for the need to bring forward the election date to ensure control of the scene.

Political analysts believe that Netanyahu fully realizes that his political survival is linked to his ability to maneuver away from the failures in Gaza, which explains his haste to turn the page on the original election date. Escaping the 'October curse' represents a survival strategy aimed at shifting public discourse from security failures to alleged political achievements and close international relations.

Pressure is increasing within the right-wing coalition to quickly finalize the budget file, as it is the only tool preventing the government's collapse before the date set by Netanyahu. If he succeeds in passing the budget and the conscription law, the way will be paved for announcing the dissolution of the Knesset and heading to the polls next summer, away from the noise of investigations into the events of October 7.

Behind-the-scenes negotiations include equal deals between Likud poles to ensure no surprises in the primary elections, as there is concern about the rise of new faces that could overthrow the old guard. This state of uncertainty pushes ministers to intensify their media and field appearances, in an attempt to convince the party bases that they are the most worthy of representing the right in the next phase.

On the other hand, the Israeli opposition is cautiously watching these moves, considering that bringing forward the election date is a transparent attempt to mislead public opinion and circumvent investigation committees. However, the state of fragmentation within the opposition may give Netanyahu the opportunity he is looking for to rearrange his cards and return strongly through an alliance with Trump and the far-right.

The tight timeline under which Netanyahu operates leaves little room for error, as any setback in passing the required laws could lead to the collapse of the coalition at a time the Prime Minister does not desire. Therefore, the coming weeks will be crucial in determining whether Netanyahu will succeed in imposing his own timing on the Israeli political map or whether successive crises will precede him.

In conclusion, it seems that the political scene in Israel is heading towards a new peak of internal conflict, where the personal interests of leaders intertwine with party interests under complex security conditions. The memory of October 7 remains the hidden driver of all these moves, as everyone seeks to escape its political and legal repercussions that continue to haunt decision-makers in Tel Aviv.

Netanyahu does not want an election campaign accompanied by commemoration ceremonies and media articles addressing the abysmal failure for which he is responsible.

The extremist settlement movement "Hilltop Youth" revealed its adoption of a wide series of systematic attacks against Palestinian citizens throughout the occupied West Bank. Sources reported that the movement published a report via its digital platforms documenting the execution of more than 60 terrorist attacks in just one month, targeting 33 Palestinian villages and towns, describing these crimes as part of their alleged "struggle record" against the Palestinian presence.

The intensity of the attacks was concentrated in the town of Mikhmas, near Ramallah, where settlers admitted to carrying out 5 direct attacks that led to the intimidation of local residents. According to field testimonies, the Bedouin communities surrounding the town were forced to flee and leave the area during this February, due to the escalating pace of harassment and continuous threats practiced by these extremist groups under security protection.

In a related context, the Palestinian Ministry of Health announced the death of a 19-year-old young man, succumbing to serious injuries he sustained after being shot by settlers in the town of Mikhmas last Wednesday. This incident confirms the brutality of the attacks carried out by settler gangs, which are no longer content with damaging property but have moved to directly targeting lives in cold blood.

According to statistics boasted by the settlement movement in its report, their attacks resulted in the burning of 12 inhabited homes and setting fire to 29 Palestinian vehicles. These attacks also caused injuries to about 40 citizens, in addition to smashing hundreds of windows of homes and cars and uprooting hundreds of ancient olive trees in an attempt to undermine the elements of Palestinian economic resilience.

"Hilltop Youth" groups are known as extremist Jewish youth formations that emerged in the late 1990s, adopting an exclusionary ideology aimed at expelling Palestinians and establishing illegal settlement outposts. Over time, these groups have transformed into an executive tool used by the occupation to implement forced displacement policies, sometimes away from official restrictions and at other times with full complicity from the army.

For its part, the "Peace Now" organization confirmed in a recent report that settlers are increasingly infiltrating Palestinian agricultural lands to prevent their owners from accessing them. The organization explained that these practices are carried out with clear support from the Israeli government and army, where violence and intimidation are used as primary tools to force Palestinians to leave their lands for the benefit of accelerated settlement expansion.

Data indicates that the current Israeli government, which is classified as one of the most extremist governments, has pushed forward record settlement plans during 2025. The construction of 54 new settlements has been approved, an unprecedented number that reflects the official trend towards effectively annexing the West Bank and undermining any chance of establishing a geographically contiguous Palestinian state.

In a dangerous development, the occupation authorities began the process of registering and settling land ownership in the West Bank, the first step of its kind since the 1967 occupation. This step has met with widespread international and UN condemnation, with human rights organizations considering it a "massive seizure" that paves the way for legitimizing the looting of Palestinian lands and accelerating the pace of final annexation under a false legal cover.

We carried out more than 60 attacks in one month on 33 Palestinian villages as part of what we call the record of struggle against the Arab enemy.

The Palestinian National Authority is currently undergoing the most dangerous political and field-related turning point since its establishment in 1994, as Israeli pressures intersect with internal crises to shape a critical phase. Three potential fates loom on the horizon, ranging from complete collapse under the weight of pressures, or the leadership's initiative to dissolve the Authority itself, to the option of comprehensive national reconciliation that could redefine the Palestinian national project anew.

These developments come amidst unprecedented Israeli escalation aimed at seizing what remains of the West Bank territories, especially after the approval of decisions allowing the registration of Area 'C' lands as state lands. These measures target more than 61% of the West Bank's area, where the occupation authorities impose impossible conditions and complex historical and survey documents on Palestinians to prove their ownership, threatening widespread confiscation.

Statistical data indicates a sharp and continuous decline in the area of land controlled by Palestinians. After their ownership reached 82% within the Green Line in 1948, this percentage has shrunk to less than 4% at present. These figures reflect the magnitude of the existential challenge facing the geographical identity of the future Palestinian state amidst accelerating settlement expansion.

Economically, the Authority is suffering from a severe financial strangulation due to Israel's refusal to transfer tax revenues and customs duties ('clearance') for ten consecutive months. Since these funds represent two-thirds of the general budget revenues, this withholding has led to the Palestinian government losing approximately 90% of its operational capacity and its ability to fulfill its obligations towards citizens and public employees.

On the ground, the occupation authorities exploited the world's preoccupation with the Gaza war to intensify settlement in the West Bank, where 58,000 dunams were seized and 350 new settlement outposts were established on an area estimated at 800,000 dunams. Observers believe that these moves aim to impose a new demographic and geographical reality that ends any chance of establishing a geographically contiguous Palestinian state, turning cities into isolated enclaves.

In a reading of the future, political experts believe that the most likely scenario is the continuation of the gradual weakening of the Authority without allowing its complete collapse, transforming it into an entity that only manages population affairs. In contrast, voices emerge calling for the necessity of launching serious internal reconciliation leading to democratic elections, considering that preserving the Authority's entity remains a national achievement that cannot be relinquished despite all observations.

On the other hand, academics propose an alternative scenario represented by reactivating the Palestine Liberation Organization as a comprehensive and inclusive umbrella for all forces and factions, away from the restrictions of Oslo. This approach is based on adopting a rational resistance discourse that integrates diplomatic and international legal work with popular action on the ground, drawing inspiration from historical experiences in which the organization was able to gain international recognition under very complex circumstances.

The most realistic scenario is the continuation of the status quo with the deepening gradual weakening of the Authority without complete collapse.

Hamas affirmed in an official statement issued on Thursday that any political vision or future arrangements concerning the Gaza Strip must be fundamentally based on a comprehensive cessation of Israeli aggression. The movement stressed the necessity of fully lifting the blockade and ensuring the legitimate national rights of the Palestinian people, foremost among them the right to self-determination and freedom.

These positions came in response to the launch of the first session of the Peace Council in Washington D.C., which aims to lay out a roadmap for the reconstruction of Gaza and the establishment of stability. The movement indicated that the international community is required to take practical steps that compel the occupation to cease its continuous violations of the ceasefire agreement and open crossings without restrictions.

In a related field context, the National Committee for Gaza Strip Affairs announced the opening of applications to join the new Palestinian police force. This step aims to strengthen civil administration and provide security in the Strip, which has suffered extensive destruction due to the ongoing war, coinciding with diplomatic activity in Washington.

The committee set conditions for applicants, including being residents of the Gaza Strip, aged between 18 and 35, with a clean criminal record and high physical fitness. The committee launched an electronic link to receive applications, emphasizing that the door is open to qualified men and women to serve their community in these exceptional circumstances.

For his part, Nikolay Mladenov, the envoy tasked with post-war coordination, revealed that the first hours of opening applications saw a large turnout, with about two thousand Palestinians registering their names. He explained that there is a genuine desire among Gaza's youth to contribute to maintaining internal security and rebuilding national institutions.

In the same context, Major General Jasper Jeffers, commander of the multinational peacekeeping force, stated that the strategic plan aims to train and qualify about 12,000 Palestinian police officers. This force will be responsible for enforcing public order in all areas of the Strip, within an international vision aimed at ensuring sustainable stability.

Regarding financial support, US President Donald Trump announced the United States' pledge of a massive financial contribution of up to $10 billion to support peace on the borders. This funding aims to accelerate reconstruction efforts and provide the necessary infrastructure for the return of normal life to the devastated Strip.

The Peace Council meeting also witnessed extensive Arab and international pledges, with the United Arab Emirates announcing a contribution of $1.2 billion to support the Council's efforts. For its part, Qatar pledged $1 billion, while Saudi Arabia announced a contribution of $1 billion to be disbursed over the next few years.

Contributions were not limited to financial aspects, as Indonesian President Prabowo Subianto expressed his country's readiness to send eight thousand soldiers to participate in an international security force. This force aims to provide a safe environment that allows civil institutions and local police to carry out their duties without military interference.

In terms of logistical and educational support, Uzbekistan pledged to help rebuild schools, hospitals, and childcare facilities damaged during the war. The King of Bahrain also announced the provision of necessary expertise to build an advanced government digital services platform to facilitate transactions for citizens in Gaza.

For its part, Egypt affirmed its determination to continue training Palestinian police cadres to ensure their efficiency in maintaining internal security. Official sources indicated that Cairo has extensive experience in this field and will work to transfer it to new recruits to ensure the professionalism of the new security apparatus.

Turkey and Morocco also joined the support efforts, with Ankara offering to contribute to the health and education sectors and police training, in addition to providing stabilization forces. Morocco, meanwhile, expressed its readiness to send police personnel and train local cadres, along with establishing a military field hospital to provide urgent medical care.

Kuwait also announced a donation of $1 billion to the Peace Council, joining the list of major donors seeking to alleviate humanitarian suffering. These donations come within a coordinated international effort aimed at transforming Gaza from a conflict zone into an area experiencing economic growth and security stability.

Hamas concluded its statement by emphasizing that any genuine international effort must address the root causes of the problem, namely the occupation and its aggressive policies. The movement called on mediators and international parties to fulfill their responsibilities in implementing agreements and preventing the occupation from obstructing urgent humanitarian and political entitlements.

Any political path or arrangements discussed regarding the Gaza Strip and the future of our people must stem from a complete cessation of aggression and the lifting of the blockade.