Egyptian President Abdel Fattah El-Sisi, during his participation in the 'Exiting Crises and Ensuring Stability' session at the G7 Summit held in France, emphasized that a comprehensive settlement of regional crises is the only path to achieving global security. Sisi clarified that the stability of the Middle East is fundamentally based on reaching a just and lasting solution to the Palestinian issue, guaranteeing Palestinians the establishment of their independent state on the June 4, 1967 borders with Jerusalem as its capital.

The Egyptian President warned of the danger of recent field movements in the Gaza Strip, pointing out that preoccupation with the Iranian file allowed for the expansion of what is known as the 'Yellow Line' to consume about 70% of the Strip's area. He affirmed that this reality leaves Palestinians with only 30% of their lands, which represents a complete undermining of peace opportunities, demanding an immediate halt to this approach and preventing any attempts to annex parts of the West Bank.

Regarding diplomatic efforts, Sisi called for the necessity of accelerating the implementation of the peace plan proposed by US President Donald Trump to end the war in the Gaza Strip. He expressed his appreciation for the mediations that led to ceasefire agreements, affirming that Egypt is ready for full cooperation with all international partners to enhance this de-escalation and transform it into sustainable stability that ends the state of tension in the region.

The Egyptian intervention touched upon the situation in Lebanon, where Sisi indicated that the continued presence of Israeli occupation forces at five border points in southern Lebanon directly contributed to the exacerbation of the field situation. Participants in the session called for an immediate halt to Israeli military operations, enabling the Lebanese government to exercise its sovereignty, and moving to advanced stages of comprehensive de-escalation agreements.

On the regional security front, Sisi affirmed that the peace treaty between Egypt and Israel represents a historical model that can be built upon to expand the circle of peace in the region. He stressed that respect for state sovereignty and rejection of external interference are the two fundamental pillars for any future collective security arrangements, with the necessity of addressing outstanding issues such as energy security and international shipping lanes that have been affected by current conflicts.

At the conclusion of the session, G7 leaders discussed the repercussions of regional tensions on global trade and energy supplies, with a focus on the Iranian nuclear program file and freedom of navigation. Informed sources confirmed that the meeting concluded with the necessity of adhering to international law and ending the occupation as strategic steps to ensure the flow of global trade and protect the common economic interests of major countries and the region.

Expanding the Yellow Line to include 70% of the Gaza Strip effectively means leaving only 30% for the Palestinian people, an approach that must stop immediately.

Official media sources reported that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's joining of the so-called 'Peace Council', which is concerned with the administration of the Gaza Strip, faces serious legal obstacles within the Israeli system. Reports clarified that this step was taken without obtaining the necessary authorization from the government, which makes the signing of the Council's charter a violation of the procedures followed in making essential sovereign decisions.

The American administration had adopted new structures in mid-January for managing the transitional phase in the Gaza Strip, which included the formation of a 'Peace Council' and an 'Executive Gaza Council' in addition to an international stabilization force. Netanyahu had already participated as a member in the first meetings of this council, which were held in the capital Washington under the chairmanship of US President Donald Trump during the past February.

Sources in the office of the government's legal advisor warned of the repercussions of this unilateral move, indicating that it could create a deep gap between the commitments Israel has made on the international stage and its legal ability to actually implement them. The sources suggested the necessity of obtaining retroactive governmental approval to correct the legal course and ensure official cover for this membership.

In contrast, the Israeli Ministry of Justice tried to downplay the crisis, considering that joining the council is a purely political decision that falls within the powers of the supreme political leadership. The ministry affirmed its readiness to provide the necessary technical and legal support to assist the Prime Minister in moving forward with this step in accordance with the applicable government work systems, provided he wishes to do so.

On the ground, informed sources revealed that the Trump administration recently intervened to obstruct an Israeli military operation that was planned in the Gaza Strip, after American officials expressed their dissatisfaction with its details. Washington asked the Israeli side to freeze these plans for the time being, which reflects a divergence in tactical visions between the allies despite continuous coordination.

Instead of major military operations, data indicates that the occupation army has begun implementing a strategy of 'creeping annexation' in various areas of the Gaza Strip away from the spotlight. These moves aim to impose a new geographical and security reality through the gradual control of large areas, in an attempt to circumvent international pressures demanding a complete withdrawal.

At the same time, Washington is pushing for the immediate start of reconstruction operations in the Gaza Strip, even before a final formula for disarming resistance factions is reached. This is met with an absolute rejection by Israel, as Netanyahu's government insists on linking any reconstruction effort to the complete dismantling of Hamas's military capabilities in the targeted areas.

Estimates by observers in occupied Jerusalem indicate that Netanyahu seeks to keep the fronts of conflict open for internal political goals, especially with the upcoming Knesset elections scheduled in three months. Analysts believe that the Israeli Prime Minister prefers the continuation of escalation, and perhaps its expansion to include a direct confrontation with Iran, which raises the concern of the American administration.

The current American administration realizes that the continuation of open wars carries a heavy political, economic, and security cost that it does not wish to bear during this phase. Media sources confirm that the divergence in positions regarding the timing of resuming military operations reflects Washington's desire to contain the conflict, while Netanyahu sees escalation as a means to maintain his ruling coalition.

This political movement comes at a time when the occupation continues to impose a strict blockade on the Gaza Strip, despite previous ceasefire agreements. The humanitarian suffering of Palestinians continues amid the prevention of sufficient medical and food aid, while statistics indicate that more than 73,000 martyrs have fallen since the start of the genocide war in October 2023.

Netanyahu's joining of the Peace Council on behalf of Israel and his signing of its charter was a step taken without adhering to the legal rules that require government approval.

The Palestinian Ministry of Health in the Gaza Strip revealed a shocking statistic documenting the repercussions of the ongoing aggression, as the number of martyrs has risen to 1,005 since the ceasefire began on October 11th. Medical sources clarified that the number of injured during the same period reached 3,157, while specialized teams were able to recover the bodies of 784 people from various targeted areas.

Regarding the total toll since October 7, 2023, the Ministry confirmed that the number of victims has reached unprecedented levels, with 73,016 martyrs and approximately 173,265 others sustaining various injuries. Field reports indicated that hospitals received two martyrs and five injuries in the past twenty-four hours, suggesting a continued flow of victims despite official announcements of de-escalation.

Sources pointed to a worsening humanitarian crisis related to the missing, as many victims remain trapped under the rubble of destroyed homes and in inaccessible road passages. Ambulance and civil defense crews face significant challenges in rescue operations due to a lack of resources and continued direct targeting, which prevents the completion of body recovery and dignified burial.

In a related context, occupation forces continue to commit daily and systematic violations of the ceasefire agreement in various areas of the Strip, including concentrated shelling and the demolition of residential blocks. These military aggressions coincide with tightened restrictions on the movement of humanitarian and medical aid, and the prevention of injured individuals from traveling abroad for treatment, exacerbating the suffering of the besieged population.

Many victims are still under the rubble and in the streets, with ambulance and rescue teams unable to reach them at this moment.

Recent data released by the Federal Association of Research and Information Centers on Antisemitism in Germany (RIAS) shows a continued escalation of recorded incidents during 2025. According to the annual report, the total number of incidents reached 8,725, a figure close to the previous year's statistics of 8,713 incidents, reflecting a stabilization at high levels of tension.

The report indicated that these rates represent a qualitative leap, exceeding by three times the levels prevalent before the outbreak of military confrontations in the Gaza Strip in October 2023. The association considered these figures to confirm the transformation of antisemitism into a daily phenomenon that directly pressures the lives of Jewish communities in various German cities.

The recorded incidents were distributed among different types of violations, with the vast majority, 7,770 cases, falling under abusive behaviors. The report also documented 178 direct physical assaults, 413 incidents targeting property with vandalism, in addition to hundreds of cases of threats and mass incitement messages.

The findings noted that four cases were classified as extremely severe violence, including a stabbing incident involving a tourist at the Holocaust Memorial in Berlin. Despite the decrease in severe violence cases compared to eight cases in 2024, the report warned of the dangerous criminal nature of some of these attacks.

Regarding motives, research sources stated that 68% of incidents were linked to attitudes towards Israel, with these manifestations increasing concurrently with developments in the Middle East. The report clarified that many of these incidents were a reaction to Israeli policies or in the context of protests related to the ongoing conflict.

The association also observed a significant increase in far-right activity, with incidents attributed to this movement rising from 562 cases in the previous year to 807 cases in 2025. This increase represents about 9% of the total incidents, indicating a growth in traditional ideological threats alongside modern political tensions.

On the other hand, the report faced sharp criticism regarding the methodology used in classifying incidents, especially concerning the link between criticism of Israel and antisemitism. Academic and media parties accused the association of using methods lacking transparency, pointing out that broadening the definition could lead to confusing political concepts with hate crimes.

German-Israeli journalist Itai Macchiavelli had previously criticized the association's exaggerated focus on 'Israel-related antisemitism'. In a report prepared for an anti-racism coalition, he considered that these criteria might not accurately reflect scientific and social reality, which RIAS rejected, deeming his criticisms biased.

In parallel with these figures, the German arena is witnessing escalating human rights tensions due to the authorities' handling of pro-Palestinian protests. Protesters in Berlin and other cities complained of excessive police violence, prompting international organizations to intervene and demand protection of the right to freedom of expression.

In this context, Amnesty International sharply criticized the German government regarding restrictions on demonstrations and harsh security treatment of protesters. These developments come amid continued German political support for Israel, despite increasing international pressure and demands for a ceasefire and protection of civilians in Gaza.

Antisemitism remained a widespread phenomenon in the daily lives of Jews in Germany during 2025, becoming a daily burden on local communities.

The 98th Academy Awards ceremony witnessed a pivotal moment when Spanish actor Javier Bardem broke the protocol of silence, declaring his full solidarity with Palestine and demanding an end to the war. Bardem, who wore a protest badge dating back to 2003, linked past and present struggles, highlighting the film 'The Voice of Hind Rajab' by Tunisian director Kaouther Ben Hania, which was competing in the final list.

The film, which depicts the final moments in the life of the child Hind Rajab, was not just a fleeting cinematic work; it transformed into a political cry that echoed through the halls of Los Angeles. Despite not winning the award, Hind Rajab's name has become a symbol that haunts the global conscience, reminding of the crime committed by the occupation forces in the Gaza Strip against childhood and humanitarian work.

In a related context, the student movement at Columbia University had paved the way for this global presence by occupying 'Hamilton Hall' and renaming it 'Hind Hall'. This act of protest, which was met with repression by the New York police, became an inspiration for artists, as rapper Macklemore released his famous song, whose melodies were inspired by Fairuz, to immortalize the memory of the martyred child.

The American judiciary also entered the fray, with a New York judge overturning arbitrary dismissal decisions against protesting students, confirming the invalidity of the university's claims. This legal victory gave students additional momentum to transform their protest into art exhibitions that documented the tools of struggle and the messages of Hind's mother, Wissam Hamada, who blessed their efforts to preserve memory.

The art exhibition held in Brooklyn and Birzeit was not just a display of paintings, but a mobile 'war exhibition' confronting attempts at erasure and oblivion. The exhibition included images of the crime used by the prosecution as evidence against the students, but the organizers rephrased them to be a living testimony to the brutality of the occupation and the new generation's insistence on revealing the truth.

On the political front, US State Department spokesperson Matthew Miller continued to evade responsibility, referring the investigation into Hind's killing to the Israeli side. This official stance was met with pressure from journalists and activists who refused to let Hind's case dissolve among the numbers of victims, which exceeded twenty thousand children, emphasizing the necessity of individual and systematic accountability.

Kaouther Ben Hania's film chose a harsh artistic approach by having Hind Rajab play herself through her real voice recordings. This choice put the audience in direct confrontation with the child's terror as she pleaded for rescue, transforming the cinema hall into a space of dramatic tension that reflects the international community's inability to intervene in time.

Independent investigations revealed that the Israeli tank was only a few meters away from Hind's car when it fired hundreds of shots, refuting narratives of military 'error'. The film also documented the targeting of the Red Crescent ambulance and the killing of the paramedics who tried to reach it, a full-fledged war crime that occurred under the world's watchful eye.

Public reactions in New York and the Arab world varied between shock and helplessness, with many expressing their inability to bear the pain conveyed by Hind's voice. This 'helplessness', as critics describe it, could turn into political action if it is leveraged to confront the system that allows these wars to be waged, instead of merely momentary sympathy followed by a return to normal life.

Analysts link the image of Hind Rajab to historical icons such as the 'Napalm Girl' in Vietnam and the Kurdish child Aylan, considering art to be the only means to prevent the taming of memory. While political powers try to turn victims into mere numbers or abstract humanitarian issues, artists re-embed atrocities in the collective consciousness as undeniable truths.

Director Ben Hania succeeded in using 'sound' as an inescapable haunting tool, unlike images that people may get used to over time. Sitting in the dark and listening to Hind's pleas for hours forces the viewer to confront the naked truth, and prevents the tragedy from becoming just a 'meme' or fleeting content on social media.

There are serious warnings against turning Hind into an 'exception' that overshadows thousands of other children who were martyred in Gaza by deliberate sniper shots to the head and chest. Volunteer doctors confirmed that the pattern of injuries indicates a systematic targeting policy aimed at intergenerational genocide, which goes beyond the idea of individual errors by soldiers in the field.

In a significant legislative step, the 'Justice for Hind Rajab' bill was introduced in the US Congress in March 2026, demanding accountability for those responsible for her killing. The bill, which received support from prominent representatives such as Sara Jacobs and Chris Van Hollen, explicitly points to potential American complicity, representing a shift in political engagement with war crimes in Gaza.

In conclusion, the voice of Layan Hamada, Hind's cousin, remains an additional witness to the tragedy, as she was the first to report being surrounded by tanks before 64 bullets silenced her. The synergy of art, politics, and documentation ensures that these voices do not go unheard, and that the case of Hind, Layan, and all the children of Gaza remains alive until full justice is achieved.

The fact that the film forces us to sit with Hind's voice for hours in the dark is precisely the source of its strength and its moral imperative.

The Israeli occupation army continues to deepen its military presence in the Gaza Strip through a new strategy aimed at transforming temporary control into a permanent reality on the ground. Sources reported that the occupation has begun building and equipping 40 advanced military sites distributed in strategic areas within the Strip, differing in design from the traditional bases the army knew in previous fronts.

Reports indicate that these military sites were designed to be fortified complexes capable of accommodating joint combat teams including infantry, armored, and military engineering units. The cost of establishing a single site reached about 5 million shekels, reflecting the scale of financial and logistical investment the occupation is pouring into establishing its strongholds within Palestinian territories.

The military engineering of these bases relies on prefabricated concrete buildings that provide rapid and effective protection from direct fire and projectiles, with the possibility of moving and repositioning them according to field needs. This military architectural style resembles the complexes previously established by American forces in Iraq and Afghanistan to counter guerrilla attacks and swift operations.

In the context of geographical control, the occupation army now dominates about 64% of the Gaza Strip's area, regions that have been emptied of their residents and turned into closed military zones. These sites are densely spread in the northern part of the Strip, while work continues to complete the remaining ones in the central and southern areas to ensure comprehensive security coverage.

The occupation's plan includes establishing 'warning zones' and protection surrounding these sites, where deep trenches are being dug for hundreds of meters to prevent any advance of Palestinian vehicles or motorcycles. These measures aim to reduce direct friction with the resistance and provide sufficient safe distances for forces stationed within the bases.

Regarding field instructions, the occupation army command issued strict orders to its soldiers to target any Palestinian attempting to cross 'yellow lines' or approach main axes such as Salah al-Din Road. This historic road, which once connected the north of the Strip to its south, has been transformed into a devastated path filled with checkpoints and military points that divide Gaza's parts.

In parallel with above-ground construction, the occupation continues extensive excavation and exploration operations to uncover tunnel networks, which represent the biggest concern for its forces. Occupation sources claim they have managed to destroy and close about 450 kilometers of tunnels since the start of the aggression, using demolition and concrete pouring techniques to permanently disable them.

Military operations also included restoring the border security barrier and developing the 'hourglass' fence that was breached on October 7. The fence has been equipped with special gates and modern remote-controlled surveillance sites, fitted with defensive systems capable of countering suicide drones targeting observation points.

In a field tour that revealed the extent of the tragedy, the humanitarian situation in Gaza was described as a 'ticking time bomb' threatening to explode at any moment due to the inhumane conditions in which the residents live. About 2.2 million Palestinians are under the weight of siege and destruction, while hundreds of thousands of them are crowded into dilapidated tents in the overcrowded Al-Mawasi area.

Field observations show that the Al-Mawasi area in the southern Strip alone contains about 400,000 displaced people living in tin and nylon rooms amidst the rubble of partially destroyed buildings. Israeli military sites overlook these gatherings from high sand hills, placing the displaced under direct surveillance and continuous occupation fire.

The occupation was not content with fixed fortifications but also paved special roads connecting military sites to facilitate vehicle movement and avoid improvised explosive devices planted in dirt roads. These roads are considered protected 'supply arteries' that allow the army rapid maneuvering and troop movement between different sectors without exposure to mine risks.

Reports indicate intense intelligence and fire coordination between the 40 sites, all linked to a joint operations room that exchanges monitoring and sensing data. This integrated system allows for precise strikes and mutual fire support in case any site is attacked, enhancing the forces' ability to withstand for long periods.

These massive military preparations reflect the occupation's intention to remain for long periods within the Strip and impose a new security reality that tears apart Gaza's geographical unity. These measures go beyond mere transient military operations to reach the level of a comprehensive 're-occupation' that includes changing the landscape and building permanent military infrastructure.

In conclusion, the scene in Gaza remains suspended between the hammer of Israeli military fortifications and the anvil of the escalating humanitarian catastrophe afflicting civilians. With the continued construction of these bases, fears are growing of turning the Strip into a large prison divided into isolated cantons subject to strict technological and military surveillance around the clock.

Beneath the surface in Gaza lies a real ticking time bomb and a long-term threat: 2.2 million Palestinians living in inhumane conditions.

Groups of extremist settlers attacked the village of Jaljulia, north of Ramallah, early this Wednesday morning, targeting the Grand Mosque in the town. Local sources reported that settlers infiltrated under the cover of darkness and set fire to the prayer hall, causing flames to engulf large parts of the mosque's interior.

Video clips documented the extent of the damage caused by the fire, showing the mosque's walls completely charred and blackened by the intense flames. Residents of the village, in cooperation with civil defense teams and relevant authorities, managed to control the fire and prevent its spread to neighboring homes, despite the difficulties they faced in reaching the site and securing the necessary firefighting supplies.

The attackers did not stop at burning the mosque; they also scrawled racist and incitement slogans in Hebrew on its exterior walls, a move that reflects the escalating hate speech against Palestinians and their holy sites. Official Palestinian bodies described this attack as a heinous crime that falls within a systematic policy of terrorizing citizens and targeting places of worship in various governorates of the occupied West Bank.

Coinciding with the attack, Israeli occupation forces intensified their military measures around Ramallah, closing the iron gate at the entrance to Rawabi city. This sudden closure restricted the movement of citizens and hindered the arrival of aid, further increasing the field tension in the region amid the recurrence of these attacks under army protection.

This incident comes as part of a series of similar attacks that have recently targeted mosques. Last March saw the burning of the 'Muhammad Fayyad' Mosque in Duma town, preceded by an attack on the 'Abu Bakr Al-Siddiq' Mosque in Nablus. Observers confirm that these attacks follow a recurring pattern aimed at imposing a new reality in the West Bank, amidst the absence of international accountability for settlers and occupation forces.

A group of settlers infiltrated the town of Jaljulia and set fire to the Grand Mosque, causing extensive material damage and charring its walls.

The 'Hebron Protocol', signed in 1997, has once again returned to the forefront of political events, following unilateral Israeli decisions aimed at undermining Palestinian civil powers in the city. This agreement is the legal framework that regulated the reality of Hebron after the Oslo Accords, defining the distribution of security and civil tasks between the Palestinian and Israeli sides.

Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich announced the initiation of actual procedures to withdraw planning and construction powers from the Hebron municipality in large parts of the city in the southern West Bank. This step directly targets areas under Israeli security control, including the Old City and the vicinity of the Ibrahimi Mosque.

Under the new decision, full responsibility for urban planning files will be transferred to the Israeli authorities, which effectively cancels the administrative link of the Hebron municipality to these areas. Media sources reported that this measure practically ends the role of Palestinian institutions in overseeing urban expansion or restoring historical buildings in the heart of the city.

The danger of this shift lies in the fact that the Hebron Protocol remained for nearly three decades the sole guarantor of the city's administrative unity despite its security division. The agreement explicitly stipulated that security arrangements do not mean a permanent division of the city, while preserving the municipality's role in providing services to all residents without exception.

The 'Hebron Protocol' dates back to January 17, 1997, and came as a completion of the Oslo Accords and a result of escalating tensions following the Ibrahimi Mosque massacre in 1994. The agreement divided the city into two famous areas, H1 and H2, to define the scope of influence of each party during that transitional phase.

Area H1, which represents about 80% of Hebron's area, is under full Palestinian control in civil and security aspects, and is inhabited by the vast majority of the population. As for Area H2, it remained under Israeli security control, with Palestinians granted broad civil powers to manage their daily affairs.

Area H2 includes the most prominent historical and religious landmarks, most notably the Ibrahimi Mosque and the Old City, in addition to settlement outposts inhabited by hundreds of settlers. Occupation forces in this area impose strict restrictions on the movement of Palestinians, and frequently close the Ibrahimi Mosque during Jewish holidays.

Despite the Israeli military dominance in the area classified as H2, the Protocol guaranteed the Hebron municipality the exercise of its duties in the fields of infrastructure, transportation, and electricity. Municipal inspectors carried out their work in monitoring construction and planning in coordination with the relevant authorities, which the latest decision seeks to completely cancel.

For his part, Hebron Mayor Yousef Al-Jabari affirmed his categorical rejection of these measures, considering them a blatant violation of international agreements. Al-Jabari indicated that this step aims to strengthen settlement in the heart of the city and marginalize the official Palestinian presence in historical areas.

The Hebron municipality appealed to the American administration and the international community to intervene immediately to stop this Israeli encroachment on civil powers. Palestinian officials stressed that Washington, as a primary sponsor of the 1997 Protocol, bears political and moral responsibility for preserving the status quo.

In an attempt to absorb international anger, the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs tried to downplay the decision, claiming that it does not represent a formal cancellation of the agreement. Israeli sources claimed that the measures relate to specific powers, but the reality on the ground indicates a trend towards full administrative annexation of the area.

These developments come a few months after the occupation authorities granted legal legitimacy to a settlement committee to manage the affairs of the Old City in Hebron. This trend reflects the desire of the Israeli far-right to end any appearance of Palestinian sovereignty or administration in areas that include settlement outposts.

Hebron is considered an exceptional case in the West Bank, as it is the only city where settlers are present in the heart of crowded Arab neighborhoods. This overlap made the 'Hebron Protocol' a very sensitive document, as any infringement on it could lead to an explosion of the situation on the ground in the southern West Bank.

Observers warn that the withdrawal of planning powers will pave the way for an unprecedented wave of settlement within the Old City, where building permits will be granted to settlers easily. In contrast, Palestinians will face great difficulties in obtaining permits to renovate their homes or build new facilities, which threatens their forced displacement.

Withdrawing planning and construction powers from the municipality constitutes an infringement on agreements signed under international sponsorship and supervision, and with the participation of the American administration.

Since the post-Oslo era, the Palestinian project has largely been confined within a negotiating political horizon, considered the main path towards statehood, while development and institution-building receded to a secondary status. However, practical experience in the West Bank and Gaza Strip reveals that politics without a solid economic and institutional foundation becomes a fragile path, just as development without a sovereign horizon becomes constrained and fragmented. Between these two paths, the opportunity to formulate an alternative strategy that could have been based on “building the state before declaring it” through economy, demography, and establishing facts on the ground was lost.

This article discusses how politics was separated from development, and how a different path could have transformed the Palestinian project from managing anticipation to a gradual project of building sovereignty, despite structural constraints and the complex geographical and political reality.

At an early moment in the post-Oslo trajectory, it seemed that the Palestinian project entered a phase where its tools, not just its goals, could be redefined. There was an implicit assumption among a segment of the political elite that politics was the first and last key: negotiation, international recognition, and a final status arrangement that would come later as a natural result of political accumulation. In this conception, development and institution-building appeared as “derivatives” of a political process, rather than a parallel pillar. With this understanding, the state transformed into a postponed promise rather than a project built day by day.

But the practical history of the subsequent decades revealed something more complex: politics not based on a solid economic and institutional foundation becomes extremely fragile, while development that lacks a sovereign horizon becomes constrained and fragmented. Between these two extremes, the modern Palestinian experience was shaped, especially in the West Bank.

In this context, the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank was formed as a transitional governance framework, but it gradually transformed into a vast administrative apparatus without becoming a full-fledged state project. What was built was an administrative apparatus, not a sovereignty apparatus. Bureaucracy expanded, but without a clear governance philosophy; institutions emerged, but without real independence, high standard efficiency, or a long-term productive vision. The result was an entity dependent on external funding more than on a productive internal economy, and on external political stability more than on the legitimacy of internal achievement.

The flaw was not in the scarcity of resources, but in the way they were managed. Instead of treating development as a tool to build an unbreakable reality, it was treated as a secondary, postponed file. Universities, the economy, infrastructure, the judiciary, and even local administration did not transform into a comprehensive national project to create “facts on the ground,” but remained within the limits of partial improvements that did not rise to the level of the historical challenge.

More problematically, politics itself became an alternative to building, not a complement to it. Any failure in political progress was justified by the continuation of the negotiating path, without that translating into a radical review of the internal building method. Thus, a dangerous equation emerged: high-ceilinged political discourse, against limited executive capacity, and a field reality gradually eroding due to settlement expansion and geographical reshaping.

In contrast, it is important to consider what could have been an entirely different path, not as an ideal alternative, but as an unexploited possibility. Theoretically, since the 1990s, a strategy could have been adopted that assumed the absence of sovereignty does not mean freezing action, but redefining it: “Sovereignty is built before it is declared.”

In this alternative scenario, the priority was not politics alone, but transforming the land itself into a daily expansion project. In the West Bank, it would have been possible to move from managing an authority to engineering a space: economically interconnected cities, dense industrial zones, and an infrastructure network connecting Palestinian communities into a single, semi-independent economic system. Every economic project—a factory, a university, a road, a residential neighborhood—could have been treated as a long-term geographical consolidation, so that development would become a tool for “undeclared border demarcation” through density and continuity.

In this model, development transforms from an auxiliary policy to an expansion policy. Investment, instead of being scattered or externally dependent, becomes directed towards creating internal centers of attraction, reducing geographical voids and redistributing populations and resources in a way that creates cohesive demographic blocs. And population movement here is not just the movement of individuals, but an intense presence at strategic points that makes reality more stable and less susceptible to re-dismantling.

It would also have been possible to redefine the economy as a slow sovereign tool: education, production, administration, and justice are not separate sectors, but pillars for building an undeclared functional state. A productive internal economy—in modern agriculture, light industries, services, and technology—could have reduced society's fragility to political shocks, and given the national project a daily depth that does not rely solely on negotiation or external funding.

In this framework, this path would not have abolished politics, but rearranged it. Politics would become a complementary framework, not the sole center. The goal would no longer be to await the state through a final agreement, but to gradually produce it in reality before its recognition.

In the Gaza Strip, despite severe restrictions and blockade, efforts could have been directed towards a more independent productive economy: light industries, intensive agriculture, and a service infrastructure capable of creating an internal cycle that reduces reliance on aid. In East Jerusalem, the focus could have been on strengthening civilian and institutional presence, so that separation from its surroundings would become more politically and humanly costly, making it difficult to isolate or gradually empty it.

However, this scenario also reveals the limits of the idea. The effectiveness of “expansion through economy and demography” assumes a level of control over space, movement, and resources, which was not fully available. The land was not a free space, but a fragmented area subject to multiple restrictions, making any economic expansion project vulnerable to continuous fragmentation and restriction.

And in the Gaza Strip specifically, the path of political division since 2007 was an additional, deeply impactful factor, as it led to the existence of two authorities and two different paths, which weakened the possibility of building a unified national strategy, and blocked any comprehensive development vision that treats Palestinian geography as a single unit.

Nevertheless, the core of the problem remains clear: the problem was not only in the imbalance of power with Israel, but in the absence of a strategy that integrates politics and development instead of separating them. Instead of building a single project that makes economy and institutions tools of continuous political action, politics was treated as a separate path, and development as a postponed file, which produced a reality that is neither a complete state nor a coherent building project.

Thus, between a model that made politics a center separate from the land, and an alternative model that could have made development a form of daily sovereignty consolidation, the great paradox becomes clear: the state is not just a political event, but a long accumulation in economy, institutions, demography, and space. And in the void between these two paths, the Palestinian project remained suspended between the possible and the postponed.

While Palestinian universities continue to graduate tens of thousands of young people annually, the circle of unemployment widens and the economy's ability to absorb many of them declines, turning a university degree for many from a gateway to employment into a long waiting station on the lists of job seekers. In the academic year 2022/2023, Palestinian higher education institutions graduated more than 45,000 male and female graduates, at a time when the Palestinian economy is unable to provide job opportunities that absorb many of these energies and competencies, which widens the gap between education and employment year after year.

To understand this paradox, it is not enough to look only at unemployment figures and graduates; rather, one must look at the nature of the Palestinian labor market itself. Historically, the Palestinian workforce has been concentrated in three main sectors: public employment in national authority institutions and security agencies, the Palestinian private sector, and work within the Green Line. These paths were formed under exceptional political and economic conditions imposed by the occupation over decades, where a large part of employment and income became linked to factors that the Palestinian economy cannot control.

Today, it is clear that the core of the crisis lies not only in the number of graduates or the quality of specializations, but in the nature of the labor market that has been shaped over decades of economic dependency, to the extent that the Palestinian economy has become unable to absorb a large part of its human capital, despite the urgent need for it in the path of national development.

Re-engineering the Palestinian Labor Market

Since 1967, the impact of the occupation has not been limited to imposing restrictions that limited the growth of the Palestinian economy, but extended to reshaping the structure of the labor market itself. While productive sectors, especially agriculture and industry, experienced a continuous decline as a result of control over land and resources and the imposition of restrictions on investment, increasing numbers of Palestinian workers were employed in the Israeli labor market, especially in construction, agriculture, and services.

With the increasing reliance of Palestinian families on income from work within the Green Line, the importance of developing local productive paths capable of employing the growing workforce declined. Thus, the Israeli occupation contributed to redirecting work and income paths in a way that strengthened economic dependency and weakened the local market's ability to create sustainable job opportunities.

The Permits Economy and the Exposure of the Economic Model's Fragility

The impact of working within the Green Line was not limited to providing job opportunities and higher wages; over time, it led to the emergence of what can be called the "permits economy," where access to income sources became dependent on work permits subject to considerations and procedures outside the control of the Palestinian economy. Thus, a permit was no longer merely an administrative document to regulate the movement of workers, but transformed into an influential tool in shaping the labor market and distributing employment opportunities.

Before 2023, approximately 200,000 Palestinian workers were employed within the Green Line and settlements, making the income of a wide segment of Palestinian families dependent on continued access to this market. With the expansion of this pattern, the impact of the permit extended beyond the worker himself to affect families' economic decisions, consumption levels, and the financial stability of wide sectors of society.

If the West Bank has been subject to an economic model based on dependency on the Israeli labor market, the Gaza Strip represents the harshest face of this intervention, where the siege and systematic destruction of productive capacities have turned it into a hotbed of the highest unemployment rates in the world, making the challenge there go beyond the employment crisis to the erosion of the very foundations of production and life.

The events after October 7, 2023, also constituted a real test for this model; with the suspension of most work permits and the prevention of workers from accessing their workplaces, and the sanctions imposed by the seizure and looting of clearance funds, tens of thousands lost their sources of income in a short period. The repercussions extended to local markets, the private sector, and consumption movement, and the crisis was revealed by job losses, showing the extent of reliance on income sources outside the control of the Palestinian economy and its self-production and employment capacity.

The Gap Between Education and Employment: When Investment in Humans Has No Horizon

The transformations witnessed in the Palestinian labor market affected employment and income, and extended to the mechanisms that guide investment in education and skills. Under normal circumstances, the labor market sends economic signals that encourage individuals to acquire the knowledge and skills needed by the economy, by linking education and productivity to wage levels and career advancement opportunities, but the existence of job opportunities for Palestinians outside the local economy gradually weakened this relationship.

The Palestinian employment crisis does not reflect a lack of education or competencies as much as it shows the limited ability of the economy to invest in them. Therefore, phenomena such as high unemployment among graduates, the expansion of the informal economy, and the increasing reliance on individual and marginal work have become indicators of a growing gap between what the educational system produces and what the economy can actually absorb.

This gap has widened due to the prevailing societal culture towards education and work, where a university degree is still often seen as the most guaranteed path to professional success, while vocational and technical education does not receive the status commensurate with its economic importance. Families also play an influential role in guiding children's educational choices, which makes some educational decisions closer to social considerations than to the needs of the labor market and future employment opportunities.

Towards a More Sustainable Economic Model

The Palestinian experience reveals that the employment crisis is not limited to a lack of job opportunities, but rather stems from the nature of the economic model that has been shaped over the past decades. Numerous studies have shown that growth in the Palestinian economy has not been accompanied by parallel growth in productive sectors capable of generating long-term employment opportunities, but a large part of employment and income in Palestine has been concentrated in the Israeli labor market. Data from the Palestinian Economic Policy Research Institute (MAS) indicates that remittances from Palestinian workers in Israel constituted approximately 13% of the Palestinian GDP in 2017, and increased in the years leading up to the war to approach 17%, reflecting the significant reliance on labor within the Green Line to support economic activity.

Therefore, addressing the employment crisis requires more than providing alternative job opportunities or temporary employment programs; it calls for redirecting economic policies to build a national productive base capable of creating job opportunities, by directing investments towards sectors linked to local demand, promoting modern industry and agriculture, developing production chains, supporting small and medium enterprises, and linking education and training to the needs of priority sectors.

Building a resilient economy does not depend solely on government policies, but requires establishing a societal culture that recognizes the close link between consumption, production, and employment; every expenditure on a local product or service contributes to supporting a Palestinian establishment, provides income for a worker, and enhances the circulation of capital within the national economy. Therefore, supporting national products is a tool to expand the productive base and enhance employment opportunities. The transformation required today is not to replace one source of income with another, but to restore the basic function of the Palestinian economy as a producer of jobs, not a source of labor or unemployment, which necessitates a gradual transition towards an economic model based on production, skills, and added value, and relies on expanding the local productive base and enhancing the ability of economic sectors to invest in Palestinian human capital; the greater the contribution of productive sectors to GDP, and the higher the economy's ability to meet its needs independently, the greater the opportunities for job creation and achieving sustainable and more independent development.

The Palestinian Authority is currently grappling with one of the most complex financial crises since its establishment, due to systematic Israeli policies of withholding and deducting large portions of clearance funds. These funds, which represent the backbone of the general budget, have become a political and economic pressure tool directly affecting the Ramallah government's ability to manage citizens' affairs.

Clearance funds, which are taxes and customs collected by Israel on behalf of Palestinians under international economic agreements, are the main source of liquidity, accounting for more than half of public revenues. With the continued full or partial halt in the transfer of these amounts, official institutions have been unable to pay full salaries to public sector employees for many months.

The crisis is not limited to salaries but extends to a sharp contraction in overall economic activity in the West Bank, coinciding with a decline in external aid. This reality has forced the Palestinian government to adopt harsh austerity policies and disburse portions of financial entitlements to employees to maintain the minimum continuity of institutions.

Economic sources reported that the options available to Palestinian decision-makers have gradually dwindled after exhausting borrowing tools from local banks. The accumulation of financial arrears owed to the private sector and suppliers now threatens to halt vital services in the health, energy, and contracting sectors.

Experts believe that the fundamental question today is not about the already known causes of the crisis, but rather about the timeframe in which the Authority can withstand before reaching a stage of complete collapse. The government has exhausted its financial maneuvering capacity by postponing obligations, and the local economy is unable to generate alternative resources to compensate for the significant loss of liquidity.

In addition to the clearance crisis, the Palestinian economy is suffering another severe blow: the loss of tens of thousands of workers' jobs inside the Green Line since October 2023. This group used to inject billions of dollars annually into local markets, and their reduced income has led to weakened purchasing power and an unprecedented increase in poverty and unemployment rates.

Data indicates that annual government spending, which represents about a third of economic activity, has been severely damaged, negatively impacting internal trade. This close link between public spending and market vitality makes any disruption in clearance flows an earthquake affecting all productive and service sectors.

Amidst this bleak scene, serious concerns arise about the soundness of the Palestinian banking sector, which has become highly exposed to government and employee debts. Estimates show that about seven billion dollars in credit facilities are directly or indirectly linked to the government, making any long-term default a threat to financial stability.

On the international level, the Palestinian government is making strenuous efforts to mobilize donor support, currently relying on limited European grants and World Bank support to manage urgent matters. However, this support remains a 'painkiller' that does not address the root cause of the problem: Israeli control over Palestinian financial resources.

Palestinian calls to Arab states have been renewed, emphasizing the need to activate the financial safety net approved by previous Arab summits but not yet effectively and sustainably implemented. Observers believe that providing this network has become an urgent necessity to prevent the financial crisis from escalating into a social or security explosion that could be difficult to control in the occupied territories.

The international community, for its part, is called upon to pressure the Israeli side to release the withheld funds unconditionally, in compliance with signed agreements. Preserving Palestinian state institutions requires a regular flow of resources, not seasonal grants that do not cover the minimum operational and service expenses.

Meanwhile, the Palestinian government continues its financial and administrative reform efforts to control expenditures and reduce the deficit, despite limited results due to the lack of control over crossings and resources. These reforms aim to send reassuring messages to the international community and donors that the Authority is doing its utmost to manage available resources.

The future of the crisis remains dependent on the extent of international response and the pressure that can be exerted on the occupation government to stop the piracy of funds. Without the full restoration of clearance funds, the Palestinian Authority will remain in a vicious cycle of livelihood crises that threaten the stability of the entire region.

In conclusion, Palestinian resilience in the face of these economic pressures depends on internal cohesion and the provision of real Arab and international alternatives. The continuation of the current situation places the Palestinian economy before an existential challenge, requiring radical political solutions that end the forced economic dependency imposed by the Paris Protocol decades ago.

Continued withholding of clearance funds without providing external financial alternatives will make it difficult to talk about a real solution to the crisis, and the international community is required to bear its responsibilities.

The city of Hebron is going through a pivotal political moment that seems like an open declaration of a new phase in managing the conflict within the West Bank. This comes after statements by the Finance Minister in the occupation government, Bezalel Smotrich, regarding the cancellation of what is known as the 'Hebron Agreements,' a step that goes beyond administrative modification to a comprehensive re-formulation of the city's identity.

This step represents a gradual dismantling of the arrangements approved in the mid-nineties following the Oslo Accords, which regulated the redeployment of forces within the city. These agreements had created a fragile form of joint administration between a Palestinian municipal authority with civilian tasks and an Israeli military authority holding security decisions.

According to the new data, the occupation seeks to withdraw the remaining civilian powers from Palestinian hands and concentrate them directly in the hands of the Israeli administration. This approach includes fundamental issues such as organization, construction, and urban planning, in addition to managing infrastructure in wide and sensitive areas of the city.

Reducing the role of the Hebron municipality to merely formal service functions means moving from a restricted administration model to an expanded direct administration model. This shift affects the core of daily life for Palestinian residents and places the future of urban and residential existence in the heart of the Old City under direct and continuous threat.

Hebron cannot be read as an ordinary city; it is the most sensitive point of friction where historical and religious layers exceptionally intertwine. The Ibrahimi Mosque lies at the heart of this conflict, where the Israeli narrative attempts to impose its control over the place and transform it into a central element in the equation of political and field control.

Any change in the powers related to the urban surroundings of the Ibrahimi Mosque becomes more than just a fleeting administrative measure. It is a step that affects one of the most sacred religious symbols and reveals a desire to politicize the sacred and use it as a tool to formulate new realities on the ground that serve settlement agendas.

Extremist currents in the occupation government use biblical discourse to justify settlement expansion in the heart of the Old City. In contrast, the Ibrahimi Mosque remains in Palestinian and Islamic consciousness part of a deeply rooted religious narrative that cannot be divided, making the conflict over the place a conflict over identity and existence.

Withdrawing planning and construction powers opens the door wide to accelerating settlement projects and changing the demographic map. Controlling Palestinian urban growth and imposing strict restrictions on it is an effective means of reshaping sensitive areas to serve the long-term Israeli vision in the West Bank.

These patterns of control are not new; rather, they are a repetition of policies witnessed in other areas, where the transfer of powers leads to a profound change in the structure of the place. These measures aim to make a return to any future political settlement practically and field-wise impossible.

Hebron is considered a central link in a broader project aimed at establishing new realities and reducing the role of Palestinian national institutions. Given its population size and geographical location in the southern West Bank, any change in its administrative structure will have a significant impact on the entire surrounding area.

On a practical level, direct control over planning will lead to reshaping the urban structure to serve the settlement outposts distributed in the heart of the city. This deliberate demographic pressure aims to push Palestinian residents to migrate from old city centers and empty them in favor of settlers.

As for the Ibrahimi Mosque, the proposed changes threaten the fragile balance that has existed for many years. Reshaping the balance in this sensitive site could lead to an explosion of field conditions, given the mosque's great status in the hearts of Palestinians and Muslims around the world.

This decision is consistent with the current Israeli government's trends, which adopt extremist views calling for an end to the Palestinian institutional presence. They see previous agreements as merely a transitional phase that must be overcome to achieve full and direct control without any legal or international obligations.

Ultimately, Hebron emerges as an arena whose details are being rewritten by successive powers and decisions, sometimes away from media noise. Between political discourse and field reality, the truth remains that the city is being pushed towards a new reality that replaces old understandings with the logic of force and absolute control.

Hebron today is a new testing ground for equations of control and re-engineering reality, where politics intersects with religion and history with the present.

The Israeli Supreme Court today, Tuesday, issued a decision rejecting the request to release Palestinian doctor Hussam Abu Safiya, director of Kamal Adwan Hospital in the Gaza Strip. Abu Safiya's detention has continued since late 2024 without any formal indictment being issued against him, raising widespread human rights concerns about the fate of detained medical personnel.

Human rights sources reported that the court justified its decision by relying on what it described as 'secret materials,' a pretext that prevents the detainee or his defense team from accessing or refuting the evidence. Naji Abbas, an official in the 'Physicians for Human Rights' organization, criticized this measure, considering it to perpetuate the policy of arbitrary detention without a specific time limit.

Reports indicate that Dr. Abu Safiya is one of at least 14 medical personnel from the Gaza Strip whom the occupation continues to detain under harsh conditions for more than a year. Human rights organizations confirm that these doctors face general accusations without clear legal evidence being presented before the competent courts.

Regarding his detention conditions, 'Physicians for Human Rights' revealed that Abu Safiya has been in solitary confinement for about two weeks, and signs of severe weakness and weight loss appeared on him during a court session held via video call. Despite the denial of the Israeli Prison Service, lawyers confirm that he has been subjected to physical assaults and systematic deprivation of adequate food.

For its part, the Ministry of Health in the Gaza Strip and the Hamas movement denied the occupation army's claims that the doctor belonged to any military organizations, stressing that his work was purely humanitarian and medical. Abu Safiya had topped the humanitarian scene by refusing to evacuate the hospital in 2023, preferring to stay to care for premature and newborn babies under bombardment.

This judicial decision reinforces international concerns about targeting the health system in Gaza, as the arrest of hospital directors is seen as part of the pressures exerted on the medical sector. International bodies demand the necessity of providing protection for medical teams and the immediate release of detainees against whom no legal violations have been proven.

The message from this decision is clear: the possibility of depriving a doctor of his freedom indefinitely without charge or presentation of evidence in an open session.

Hebrew media sources revealed direct intervention by the administration of US President Donald Trump to thwart a large-scale Israeli military plan targeting the Gaza Strip during the past period. The sources explained that the plan was discussed extensively in political and security circles in Tel Aviv, but Washington expressed strong opposition to the details presented and demanded an immediate withdrawal from implementation.\n\nFollowing the American objection, the Israeli army began to adopt an alternative strategy described by reports as 'gradual and quiet annexation' of areas of the Strip's territory. This policy relies on slow field expansion instead of a comprehensive military confrontation that would have led to uncalculated regional and international repercussions under the current circumstances.\n\nField reports monitored the occupation forces shifting what is known as the 'Yellow Line' westward by a depth of up to 300 meters in several geographical sections of the Gaza Strip. These movements were notably concentrated in the Al-Tuffah neighborhood east of Gaza City, reflecting an Israeli desire to impose a new geographical reality that goes beyond previous internationally agreed understandings.\n\nFor its part, the Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas) expressed its categorical rejection of these movements, considering that manipulating the Yellow Line's positions constitutes a clear violation of the ceasefire agreement. The movement affirmed in a statement that these practices are primarily aimed at undermining the negotiation process and thwarting all efforts to end the ongoing conflict.\n\n"The Yellow Line" is the demarcation point to which Israeli forces retreated as part of the first phase of the American initiative launched in October 2025. Despite the agreement coming into effect, Tel Aviv continued to target Palestinians approaching this area, leading to the death and injury of dozens since the start of the truce.\n\nThese developments come in the context of previous statements by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, in which he acknowledged control over approximately 60% of the Gaza Strip's area. Netanyahu revealed in mid-May his government's ambitions to increase this percentage to 70%, which explains the recent field movements to annex more land.\n\nOn the humanitarian front, the occupation authorities continue to tighten the siege by preventing the flow of relief aid, essential medical supplies, and agreed-upon shelter materials. This intransigence exacerbates the suffering in the Strip, which has suffered massive destruction affecting about 90% of its civilian infrastructure due to the ongoing genocide war for more than two years.\n\nOfficial statistics indicate that the Israeli aggression has resulted in a heavy toll of victims, reaching approximately 73,000 martyrs and more than 173,000 injured. With the continuation of the 'silent annexation' policy and the violation of the truce, fears of a collapse of diplomatic channels and a return to comprehensive escalation are increasing in the absence of binding international guarantees.\n\nThe Israeli move constitutes a violation of the ceasefire agreement and aims to detonate the negotiation process and thwart efforts.

Official media reports stated that US President Donald Trump put forward a controversial proposal to entrust Syria with the task of disarming Hezbollah in Lebanon. This proposal came during official meetings Trump held with delegations from both the Israeli and Lebanese sides at the White House recently, with the aim of finding a way out of the ongoing military escalation.

Informed sources confirmed that the American proposal was not just a slip of the tongue, but a political vision that Trump repeated on several occasions in recent days. However, this proposal faced immediate opposition from the Israeli government and the Lebanese side, who expressed their categorical rejection of this type of intervention.

For its part, the Syrian side took a firm stance rejecting the American proposal, as Syrian President Ahmed Al-Shara affirmed in repeated statements that Damascus does not intend to engage militarily in Lebanese affairs. The Syrian presidency considered that the news talking about its forces entering Lebanese territory are nothing more than baseless rumors.

During his participation in the G7 summit in Evian, France, Trump renewed his praise for Syrian President Ahmed Al-Shara, describing him as a strong personality who is doing an amazing job. Trump indicated that Al-Shara has the ability to deal with Hezbollah effectively because he does not like them, in the words of the American president.

Trump justified his proposal by saying that Israel is fighting a long-term war against Hezbollah that has resulted in a large number of casualties without a decisive outcome. He added that he believes Syria would be more capable of accomplishing this task better and with fewer losses compared to current Israeli military operations.

In a related context, the American president sharply criticized Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, demanding that he adopt a more responsible approach to the Lebanese file. Trump expressed his dissatisfaction with the pace at which military operations are being conducted, stressing the need to complete the mission more quickly.

Diplomatic data indicate that Washington has been exerting continuous pressure on Damascus since the renewal of military confrontations in Lebanon early last March. These pressures aim to push the Syrian state to take direct measures against Hezbollah's military structure in the border areas and inside Lebanon.

Despite Trump's praise for the Syrian leadership, diplomatic sources confirm that Damascus refuses to be drawn into a new regional conflict in Lebanon. Observers believe that the Syrian position stems from a desire to maintain internal stability and avoid involvement in a direct confrontation with the active forces on the Lebanese scene.

These developments reflect a growing gap in visions between the American administration and the Israeli government regarding how to deal with border threats. While Trump tends towards regional solutions involving neighboring powers, Israel insists on maintaining direct military initiative to achieve its security objectives.

I suggested to Israel that Syria take care of Hezbollah, because frankly, I think they will do a better job.

Large forces from the Israeli occupation army stormed the city of Qalqilya in the northern occupied West Bank early Wednesday morning, carrying out a widespread campaign of raids and arrests targeting a number of citizens. Sources reported that the invading force was reinforced by approximately 16 military vehicles, in addition to foot units that spread out in several residential neighborhoods to secure the raid operations.

Israeli forces imposed a strict siege on the Nazal neighborhood within the city, completely closing its entrances and preventing movement before beginning to raid dozens of residential homes. The operation included harsh field investigations with residents, ending with the arrest of more than five Palestinians who were taken to unknown destinations amidst intense military reinforcements.

Incursions were not limited to Qalqilya but extended to various areas of the West Bank, where occupation vehicles raided Al-Fawwar refugee camp in the south, and Nablus city and Askar refugee camp in the north. These military movements come within the framework of the continuous escalation policy pursued by the occupation authorities against Palestinian cities and camps daily.

In a new crime by settlers, an extremist group set fire to the women's prayer area in a mosque in the village of Jaljulia, located in the central occupied West Bank, early Wednesday morning. The attackers spray-painted racist slogans in Hebrew on the mosque walls, causing a state of intense anger among the villagers who rushed to extinguish the flames.

Eyewitnesses confirmed that the fire caused severe damage to the contents of the prayer area and the external facades of the mosque before it was brought under control, noting that the village is subjected to repeated attacks. Settlers had carried out a similar attack last month targeting citizens' property and stealing their livestock under the protection of occupation forces.

Regarding field injuries, Palestinian journalist Moatasem Saqf Al-Hait was shot by the occupation army while covering clashes in the village of Deir Abu Mashaal, west of Ramallah. The clashes erupted after an attack by settlers on residents' homes, where occupation forces intervened to provide protection for the attackers and fired live ammunition at press crews.

In the town of Al-Mughayyir, east of Ramallah, medical sources reported that a 15-year-old girl was shot in the shoulder by occupation soldiers during the incursion into the town. The girl was transferred to a Ramallah hospital for treatment, where her condition was described as stable despite the seriousness of the injury's location, which targeted the upper part of her body.

Occupation forces continued to impose a tight military cordon on the town of Al-Mughayyir, closing all its main and secondary entrances to citizens and vehicles. This closure coincided with an intensive deployment of military vehicles and indiscriminate firing of tear gas canisters and live ammunition, leading to cases of suffocation among residents.

Areas of friction near settlements and settlement outposts in the West Bank are witnessing a significant escalation in arson and bulldozing operations and preventing farmers from accessing their fields. These attacks often occur under the eyes of the occupation army, which provides security cover for settlers to carry out their violations against Palestinian land and people.

According to the latest official data, the toll of the Israeli escalation in the West Bank since October 8, 2023, has reached catastrophic figures, with 1169 martyrs. Medical and human rights sources also recorded more than 12666 Palestinians injured by occupation and settler fire during the same period.

Human rights reports indicate that arrest campaigns have targeted approximately 23,000 Palestinians, while repressive policies and home demolitions have displaced nearly 33,000 citizens. These figures confirm the scale of the escalating humanitarian suffering in the West Bank in the absence of effective international oversight to curb these violations.

The West Bank is witnessing an unprecedented escalation in settler and Israeli army attacks targeting Palestinian existence and holy sites.

The New York Declaration enshrines the right of the Palestinian people to their independent state. Peace and security can only be built on recognition, and the only solution to this conflict is a two-state solution. Peace is not born from diplomatic summits or governmental agreements, but grows in the hearts and souls of peoples. We are following with concern the statements and actions of Ben Gvir and Smotrich... and that is why we froze them with sanctions. Israel's security can only be built on the two-state solution, and on recognition and respect. The implementation of the "E1" settlement project will not only constitute a major violation of international law and international humanitarian law, but will also necessitate a very strong response from European countries. We explicitly warned companies; those participating in the "E1" settlement project tenders will expose themselves to international sanctions. France condemns in the strongest terms the restrictions imposed by Israel in Jerusalem on churches and mosques and the prevention of access for Palestinians, Christians and Muslims, to holy sites. We were shocked by the way French and European citizens participating in the "Fleet of Resilience" were treated, and I referred this file to the French Public Prosecutor, who opened a special investigation. We have repeatedly expressed to the Israeli authorities, at all levels, our deep concern regarding human rights violations within Israeli prisons and detention centers. There is no alternative to UNRWA, and Israel's targeting of UN buildings and the demolition of its headquarters in Jerusalem is condemned, and these actions are illegal and a violation of international law. There is an unprecedented explosion in settler violence and settlement... We asked the European Commission to restrict imports from settlements so that they do not benefit from European trade agreements with Israel. We do not merely issue statements of condemnation and denunciation; France recognized the State of Palestine, which encouraged ten other countries to follow suit. We will leave it to the French judiciary, with complete independence, to rule on the cases of soldiers holding both French and Israeli nationalities who fought in Gaza. The international community is not only required to provide humanitarian assistance, but also to create incentives and exert pressure to make the right decisions to achieve the two-state solution. Paris - Interviewed by Mohammed Abu Khdeir Jean-Noël Barrot, French Minister for Foreign Affairs and Minister for Europe and Foreign Affairs, broke the stereotypical image of the reserved European diplomat, to declare for the first time in a clear voice that "France recognized the State of Palestine in 2025, and encouraged ten other countries to follow suit." He said: "We are following what is happening in Gaza and the West Bank with concern, and we do not merely issue statements of condemnation and denunciation." In what was considered the boldest moment in the interview, the Minister revealed details of the actual sanctions imposed on Itamar Ben Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich, saying: "These are the ones who are destroying the two-state solution, and that is why we froze them with sanctions." French Foreign Minister Jean-Noël Barrot spoke in a special and exclusive interview with (Al-Quds) in his office in Paris about France's "shock" at the treatment of French and European solidarity activists in the "Fleet of Resilience" and Palestinian prisoners, and revealed the opening of a judicial investigation into the "Fleet of Resilience" file, confirming that reports of abuses in Israeli prisons prompted the French Public Prosecutor to open a special investigation. Minister Barrot also spoke about the "unprecedented explosion in settler violence and settlement," and revealed an official European demand "to restrict imports from settlements so that they do not benefit from trade agreements with Israel," describing the situation in the Palestinian territories as "horrific." In an angry response to those who accuse Paris of merely condemning, the Minister said: "I do not know any country in the world that has done more for the Palestinian cause than France has in the past two years." This special meeting, which comes at a time when the occupied Palestinian territories are subjected to one of the most violent and severe Israeli attacks, with cruelty and complexity in the political and field landscape in Gaza, the West Bank, and occupied Jerusalem, amid an unprecedented Israeli escalation on the ground, may be an announcement of the birth of a bolder European stance towards Israel, or merely diplomatic statements that will melt away when dealing with what the region is exposed to. The full text of the interview is as follows: Q: Thank you for this opportunity. First, I would like to start with the situation in Palestine, and perhaps you are following what is happening in the West Bank and Gaza, after the martyrdom of more than 72,000 Palestinians and the destruction of more than 80% of Gaza. What is your opinion? How can we stop this massacre and genocide in Gaza? Despite the announcement of a ceasefire, the killing of Palestinians in Gaza has not stopped. Netanyahu announced that he would expand the areas controlled by Israel and occupy 70% of the besieged strip. What is your position? And how do you view the situation in the West Bank? A war in another style, what is the reason for this silence? After the Israeli army used to kill 100 citizens daily, today it kills 7 to 10 citizens daily, destroys entire residential blocks in Gaza, demolishes dozens of homes in the West Bank, what is your position? Don't you think that should stop? A: Since the beginning of the war in Gaza, after October 7, France has stood by the Palestinian people. It hosted the first international humanitarian conference in Paris in November 2023, which raised one billion dollars to support the Palestinian people. France was one of the first countries to send military ships to treat wounded children, men, and women from Gaza. Then, last year, or 18 months ago, France, along with Saudi Arabia, launched a major international initiative to revive the two-state solution and reaffirm the Palestinians' right to self-determination. This initiative led to a declaration adopted by the United Nations on September 12 of last year, paving the way for a peace plan. It is a peace plan that has achieved some results, meaning that the war in Gaza has stopped, although the ceasefire is constantly violated. The last hostages were released, and we saw a slight but insufficient increase in the delivery of humanitarian aid to Gaza. The implementation of this peace plan, which includes the disarmament of Hamas, as well as the issue of Palestinian leadership in Gaza, and the prospect of a Palestinian state, is still faltering. That is why we hosted hundreds of leaders from Israeli and Palestinian civil society in Paris, who were invited to implement the peace plan and the two-state solution. This is very important, and I had to say that before mentioning what we are doing in Paris, because the peace plan has become stalled. We are witnessing an unprecedented acceleration of illegal settlement in the West Bank, and a sharp escalation of violence, which has led us to take a series of European and national sanctions against entities, individuals, and government officials responsible for this. We believe that this clearly constitutes a violation of international law and human rights, and also contradicts Israel's own interest and security. That is why we are trying today to build this bridge in Paris. Q: You are talking about an initiative, but who is your partner in Israel for making peace in the region? Netanyahu is not interested. He destroyed the two-state solution and wants to make Israel bigger. He spoke about this at the United Nations and raised a map of Greater Israel. A: That is why it was very important to rally 142 countries around the New York Declaration, which revives the two-state solution and reaffirms the right of the Palestinian people to establish their state. This large and overwhelming majority of countries that adopted this declaration sent a very strong signal to the United States and to the Israeli government, that there is no other path to peace and security. In fact, the peace plan supported by the United Nations refers to this New York Declaration. A diplomatic initiative of this kind may seem somewhat abstract and far from the suffering of people on the ground. But the situation would probably have become much more difficult if we had not affirmed these very important principles. And you say that the two-state solution is dead, and we say it is alive. The best proof of this is this gathering today of Israeli and Palestinian activists who work daily to prepare for peace and create the conditions for it. Peace does not come only through diplomatic conferences or agreements between governments, but it can also grow in the souls and hearts of people. Q: Are you engaging in dialogue with the Israeli side, or with the Israeli government, about the two-state solution? Do you have a partner? A: We are engaging in dialogue, but we have very strong disagreements with the policy being pursued, and that is why we have imposed sanctions. Q: There is no one in the current Israeli government who sees a two-state solution, but Smotrich and Ben Gvir, who are central ministers working to destroy this solution you are talking about? A: And that is why we imposed sanctions on them. On both of them. Q: Do you see anyone in this government or in the Israeli opposition who includes the two-state solution in their political program for the upcoming elections? Even if Netanyahu disappears and this government falls and a new government comes, we do not see anyone in the opposition talking about the two-state solution. They all talk about how to destroy, and how to make Israel bigger. A: That is why it is very important that today in Paris we have Israeli figures and leaders who believe that Israel's security can only be built on the two-state solution, and on recognition and respect. This is our vision. This is the vision that led France to recognize the State of Israel in 1949, and which led France to recognize the State of Palestine in 2025. Peace and security can only be built on recognition, and the only solution to this conflict is a solution based on two states living side by side in peace and security. Q: What about Jerusalem? Israel continues to Judaize the city and demolish homes in the neighborhoods of Silwan, Sheikh Jarrah, and Al-Bustan. Does France recognize East Jerusalem as the capital of Palestine? And when will you start protecting Muslims and Christians in the city? In what country do you need permission to go to a church or mosque to pray? The occupation closes the Church of the Holy Sepulchre and Al-Aqsa Mosque whenever it wants. When will you act to push Israel to respect the status quo for Jerusalem and the holy sites for 100 years? When will the French or Europeans intervene to stop these practices? A: You have heard France condemn in the strongest terms this type of restriction imposed by the Israeli authorities on access to religious sites. We, in particular, and because of its connection to our history, pay special attention to the fate of Christian communities and Christian holy sites in Jerusalem and beyond. Our Consulate General in Jerusalem does its utmost to support communities targeted by extremist violence. Q: How do you view the demolition of homes in Jerusalem and the West Bank? The occupation municipality in Jerusalem announced that more than 20,000 homes in Jerusalem are unlicensed, and it is pushing for their demolition, while in return, they are building thousands of settlement units, and every week they have a plan for more settlement with the aim of Judaizing the city, the latest of which is the "E1" project, which will divide the West Bank into two parts and isolate occupied East Jerusalem. A: We have imposed sanctions, and we have made it absolutely clear to the Israeli authorities that the acceleration of settlement in the West Bank, as well as in East Jerusalem, is unacceptable. In particular, we warned that the "E1" project, which includes 3,400 units that could accommodate up to 15,000 people, and divides the West Bank into two parts and separates the West Bank from Jerusalem, will not only constitute a major violation of international law and international humanitarian law, but will also necessitate a very strong response from European countries. We also explicitly warned companies that if they participate in such tenders, they will expose themselves to international sanctions. Q: You said that Hamas released Israeli hostages from Gaza. What about our hostages? We have 10,000 prisoners held hostage. And perhaps you are following reports from Human Rights Watch, and B'Tselem, one of the most prominent Israeli human rights organizations, and what is happening to them. They were raped... and prisoners are being raped, they are treated very badly. How are you following this matter? There are thousands of them without any charge, without any guilt. They did nothing. Every day we have 300 or 200 or 150 new prisoners arrested by the Israeli occupation army. Arrest has become a kind of daily habit for the occupation army? And ministers like Ben Gvir, he is the one who orders and follows up on that. A minister in the government! How do you view that? A: Indeed, as you said, we were shocked by the way French and European citizens were treated under the influence of Mr. Itamar Ben Gvir when the "Fleet of Resilience" protest was arrested a few weeks ago and its activists were detained. We summoned our ambassador for clarification. And based on these clarifications, we took sanctions against Itamar Ben Gvir. Then, based on the detailed report issued by our Consulate General in Turkey, where the participants who had been arrested arrived, I referred the matter to the French Public Prosecutor, who opened an investigation; given the extent of the violations committed. We have, on several occasions, expressed to the Israeli authorities at all levels, our deep concern regarding human rights violations, including within prisons. Q: UNRWA. As you know, Israelis, since 1949, have been attacking UNRWA and attacking the United Nations. A few months ago, they attacked and destroyed UNRWA schools in the Gaza Strip, and in Jerusalem they demolished its headquarters. They are, in a way, destroying the right of return for Palestinians, and trying to cut off its funding, what is your position on targeting this UN agency. Will you fund UNRWA? How do you view the demolition of its main office in Jerusalem? Do you think UNRWA is still important in this situation? A: France has supported UNRWA for a long time, and also during the past three years. Our total commitment to Gaza and Palestine has reached 100 million euros annually. We contribute directly to UNRWA's funding, as well as to supporting the Palestinian Authority. We have also helped facilitate the reform of the UN agency, through a report prepared by my predecessor, Catherine Colonna, the former French Foreign Minister, which also proved that there is no alternative to UNRWA. We have proven that there is no alternative to it. And whenever UN buildings are targeted, we condemn these actions, because they are, once again, illegal. Q: "Condemnation and concern," we hear the same thing... Most countries condemn, denounce, and deplore, and Israel continues to kill, destroy, and displace Palestinians in Jerusalem, the West Bank, and the Gaza Strip, and imposes a new fait accompli on the ground and on Palestinians. When can serious action be taken and Israel be held accountable for the crimes it commits, and when will Security Council and United Nations resolutions related to the Palestinian issue be implemented? A: No, you cannot say that, sir. I mentioned my great support for Palestine. And I mentioned major rounds of sanctions. And I mentioned the recognition of Palestine, and that France's recognition of Palestine prompted ten other countries to recognize it. Don't tell me that I only condemn. Otherwise, direct this question to another European, not to me. Q: My point of view is that this applies to the whole world. We hear the United Nations repeating "we express our concern," and 157 countries condemn in the United Nations, and the International Criminal Court accurately describes the situation, and we do not see any real movement to stop what is happening in the West Bank and the Strip. A: Well, ask them. Ask me what the purpose of today is. Today, for the first time in a very long time, Israelis and Palestinians are meeting, together, with ministers from 15 countries. Perhaps you think this is unhelpful, but I think it is very important, and many of us here think it is important; because it is the only way forward to build a common future and build a bridge. I do not spend my time condemning. When you ask me if I condemn certain things, I condemn them. We are working. And we have worked very intensively over the past two years. In fact, I will say it more clearly: I do not know any country in the world that has done more for the Palestinian cause than France has in the past two years. We may differ. This is my opinion. If you know other countries, please do. Q: We are looking at the situation. I live in Jerusalem. That's why I said they don't care about condemnations. And we don't see any effect on the ground of decisions and movements to stop the war and stop the demolition of homes, the confiscation of lands, the destruction of infrastructure, the cutting down of trees, the displacement of citizens, and the building of settlements and outposts. A: Yes, that doesn't change anything. Q: They are building more and more settlements. That's why the second question comes. How do you view the killing of Palestinians by settlers, the demolition of homes, the theft of sheep, the theft of land, and the expulsion of people from their homes? The theft of their money and farms under the cover of the Israeli army and with its protection? According to the United Nations, settlers destroyed 28 small villages between Jerusalem and the West Bank in just two or three months. How do you view the crime of the settlers? A: We see a sharp escalation of violence. And we see the unprecedented acceleration of settlement. And we see that as a major issue, of course, for the primary victims who are the Palestinians, but also for Israel, because this creates conditions for instability and insecurity, and more broadly for the region. That is why, in addition to the sanctions we have already taken, we have asked the European Commission to restrict imports coming from settlements, which should not benefit from the trade relations that link European countries with Israel. And I very much hope, and I am conducting these discussions today with European commissioners - two of whom are in Paris for this civil society conference - that we can move quickly, because this situation, as you say, is horrific. Q: When will we see these settlers, and the government, the army, and the ministers on the blacklist? When will we sanction the soldiers who hold both French and Israeli nationalities who fought in Gaza? They have two nationalities, and they go for fun to kill in Gaza and then return. When will you sanction them? When will we see a blacklist or the names of these people? A: We expressed our anger after the publication of some particularly shocking videos by Israeli soldiers. The issue of the criminal responsibility of Israeli soldiers falls within the jurisdiction of the Israeli judiciary, which we call upon to fully investigate the alleged facts. As for our citizens, several complaints have been filed before the French judiciary. We will leave it to the French judiciary to rule on these cases with complete independence. Q: In light of the developments in the region, how do you see the future? Do you think peace will come from within Israel? Do you see a horizon on the Israeli side? Perhaps there are those who dare to declare the necessity of ending the occupation? Or should the solution come from outside? A: First and foremost, from within, and from the people who are in Paris today. These do not represent the majority today in Israel and Palestine, but they are true leaders who call for an end to settlement, an end to the occupation of Gaza, as well as the disarmament of militias, and Hamas, they want the two peoples to live in peace and security. But it is clear that the international community must help. And not only work to alleviate the suffering of the Palestinian people through humanitarian assistance, but also by creating incentives and exerting pressure to make the right decisions, so that the peace plan enters its second phase, Israel withdraws from Gaza, Hamas is disarmed, and the Israeli government puts an end to violence and illegal settlement activity. And then, to put everyone on the only path to peace and security, which is the two-state solution.

- Participants affirm that establishing a ceasefire in Gaza and Lebanon requires a sustainable political settlement - The US-Iranian agreement receives cautious welcome amid Western differences - The ceasefire in Gaza and Lebanon is merely a fragile truce, and transforming it into lasting peace requires radical approaches - Washington assumes the group's presidency in 2027 amid questions about the future of its role Paris - Mohamed Abu Khdeir - In a year described as one of the most sensitive for the Middle East and the world, leaders of the Group of Seven (G7) major industrial nations (United States, France, Britain, Germany, Italy, Canada, and Japan) met at the French resort of Evian-les-Bains, in a summit dominated by intertwined political, security, and economic crises. French officials described the meeting as a “crisis summit,” given the trade tensions between several member states, the accelerating developments in the Iranian and Ukrainian files, and the accompanying repercussions on international security and stability. Regional Proposals to Enhance Stability in the Middle East Several analysts and experts participating in the discussions accompanying the summit concluded that the current ceasefire in the Gaza Strip and southern Lebanon represents an important step towards de-escalation, but it does not in itself guarantee lasting stability in the region. One of the visions discussed during the summit is based on what has become known as the “Peace Triangle,” which connects Palestine, Jordan, and Israel within a broader framework of economic integration and regional infrastructure, extending from Egypt to Lebanon and Syria, with the aim of enhancing common interests and reducing the chances of returning to conflict. This proposal is based on the idea of making peace a strategic option based on mutual economic and developmental interests, so that the cost of conflict becomes higher than the gains of cooperation, similar to the European experience after World War II. Palestinian Dimensions of the Proposed Initiatives Some experts believe that the reconstruction of the Gaza Strip within a broader regional framework could create new economic opportunities for Palestinians, through infrastructure development, enhanced trade movement, and the reactivation of communication between the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, in addition to benefiting from available energy resources off the Palestinian coast. They point out that the success of any future economic projects remains dependent on the availability of a stable political and security environment that allows for attracting investments and implementing long-term projects. Political and Security Challenges to Implementing the Vision Despite the ambitions of this vision, it faces a set of complex challenges. The state of security instability in the region still poses a concern for investors, especially in light of the war on Gaza, developments in southern Lebanon, attacks on navigation in the Red Sea, and tensions related to Iran. Political obstacles also arise concerning the future of the Palestinian-Israeli political process, as Saudi Arabia, which is seen as a key partner in any broad regional project, emphasizes the necessity of an independent Palestinian state. In contrast, observers believe that the chances of progress towards this goal remain limited given the continued settlement expansion and the stalled political track. At the European level, the proposed regional projects face competition between several countries over hosting the main centers and stations for the planned economic corridors, which reflects a divergence of interests within the European Union. Palestinian and Arab analysts affirm that achieving any real progress in regional integration projects remains linked to finding a just political solution to the Palestinian issue that guarantees the establishment of an independent Palestinian state with East Jerusalem as its capital. Cautious Welcome for the US-Iranian Agreement The announcement of the initial understanding between the United States and Iran was the most prominent event during the summit. US President Donald Trump and Vice President JD Vance signed a memorandum of understanding for a ceasefire with Iranian Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, opening a sixty-day window for negotiations on the Iranian nuclear file and the issue of economic sanctions. Trump described the agreement as a step that could lead to positive results for regional stability. Western Divergences on Implementation Mechanism Despite the initial European welcome for the agreement, the positions of Western capitals reflected differences regarding the conditions for its implementation. French President Emmanuel Macron announced his country's readiness to contribute to securing navigation in the Gulf region in coordination with Britain, Italy, and the Netherlands, confirming the readiness of the French aircraft carrier "Charles de Gaulle" to move if needed. At the same time, Macron stressed his rejection of imposing transit fees in the Strait of Hormuz, considering that this could open the door to undesirable international precedents. For her part, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen affirmed that any easing of sanctions imposed on Iran must be linked to concrete steps on the ground and progress in files related to the nuclear program and issues related to regional security. European leaders also held consultations with a number of Arab and regional leaders to discuss the implications of the agreement on regional security and the situations in Lebanon and the Gulf. Ukraine Continues to Impose its Presence on the Summit Agenda In addition to the Iranian file, European leaders sought to keep the Russian-Ukrainian war at the forefront of international attention. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky participated in the summit sessions, calling for continued Western support for his country and increased sanctions on Moscow. European countries affirmed the necessity of continuing military and economic aid to Ukraine, while some European capitals still express reservations about some of the initiatives proposed to end the war. In parallel, European sources revealed efforts led by Germany, France, and Britain to revive a new negotiation track involving Ukraine, Russia, and the United States. The European Union also officially announced the launch of negotiations for Ukraine's accession to the Union, a step that European officials considered a significant development in the relationship between the two sides. Summit Outcomes.. Limited Consensus and Existing Differences The summit failed to issue a unified final statement for the second consecutive year, which reflected the continued differences among member states on a number of key issues. Among the most prominent outcomes of the summit were: Confirmation of the initial understanding regarding the US-Iranian agreement, and the continuation of negotiations during the next sixty days. Confirmation of the European position based on linking any easing of sanctions to practical steps from the Iranian side. Continued trade disputes between the United States and some European partners, especially regarding digital taxes and technological trade. Continued European support for Ukraine with ongoing discussions on ways to end the war. Global Economy and Artificial Intelligence In addition to political and security issues, leaders discussed challenges related to the global economy, including supply chain disruptions and the need to diversify sources of critical minerals that modern industries rely on. The summit also dedicated part of its work to discussing the regulation of the artificial intelligence sector, with the participation of representatives from major global technology companies, including "OpenAI," "Anthropic," and "Mistral AI," where discussions focused on regulatory aspects, child protection, and promoting the responsible use of modern technologies. Questions about the Future Role of the Group The Evian summit reflected the magnitude of the challenges facing the G7 in light of the rapid transformations in the international system. While the group still represents one of the most important global economic and political platforms, discussions showed clear differences among its members on the issues of Iran, Ukraine, and international trade. With the presidency of the group transferring to the United States in 2027, attention turns to Washington's ability to narrow the gaps of disagreement between Western partners and maintain the group's role in a world increasingly moving towards multipolar centers of power and influence.

The town of Taybeh, a Palestinian Christian village, has witnessed in recent days a series of racist aggressions by extremist settlers who terrorize peaceful, secure citizens in their quiet village. What is happening in Taybeh is also happening around the historic Saint Barbara Church in Aboud, as well as in other places in the West Bank. Settlers roam freely in all Palestinian camps, villages, and towns in the West Bank, seeking to terrorize, intimidate, and frighten citizens, making them live in a state of tension and fear of an unknown future. The area of settlements has expanded, and the issue of confiscating Palestinian lands and building settlement outposts has become a phenomenon we see with our own eyes, especially in the Bethlehem area and its surroundings, and the Ush Ghrab and Beit Sahour areas, where lands are being confiscated and settlements are beginning to be built. Where are we going? And where are those who used to boast and lie to us, saying that the solution is two states for two peoples? Given what we see on the ground today, what is left for Palestinians? Palestinian lands are being plundered every day. And where are the guaranteeing Western parties that supported the desired and promised peace? We see that nothing of the promised and desired peace has been achieved except more targeting and abuse of Palestinians, the construction of apartheid walls, and the placement of checkpoints and iron gates that prevent Palestinians from moving from one place to another. I believe that the overwhelming majority of Palestinians now realize that what was once said about “two states for two peoples” was a big lie. Since the signing of the ill-fated Oslo Accords, apartheid walls, military checkpoints, and settlements have increased, and the political leadership in Israel boasts that it does not want a Palestinian state and does not want peace with Palestinians. It is true that Gaza suffered from the war of extermination and its catastrophic consequences, but what is happening today in the West Bank is indeed a war of extermination, albeit with different methods and patterns. Entire families have left Taybeh and gone to other places in our world, and this is happening in the Bethlehem area and other places. Emigration does not only affect Christians, but all our people who live under siege and policies of abuse, starvation, and humiliation. What is currently happening in the West Bank is a systematic policy of expulsion, for a Palestinian who does not want to be a prisoner in the occupation’s prisons also does not want to be a prisoner in his land and homeland, and the West Bank has turned into a large prison. Our children and friends in the West Bank, who communicate with us daily, tell us that their wish is to come to Jerusalem. When the issue of reaching Jerusalem becomes a wish, then the whole world must discover and realize the enormity of the injustice our afflicted and oppressed people are subjected to. The freedom to access Jerusalem and the freedom of movement from place to place is a legitimate right and not a favor from anyone, and Palestinians should not remain prisoners in their towns, villages, and camps, unable to reach their Jerusalem and their holy sites, and to their jobs and work through which they provide sustenance for their families and children. What injustice are Palestinians suffering from? And Christians suffer as all Palestinian people suffer, rather we believe that there is an unprecedented conspiracy against the Christian presence in these lands. One of the fathers told me yesterday in Bethlehem that what Palestinian Christians are subjected to comes within the framework of a systematic plan aimed at emptying Palestine of its Christians, who are an essential component of its national fabric. And those who target Palestinian Christians target all our people, for the conspiracy affects all Palestinians who are wanted to pack their bags and leave their holy land. Christian churches around the world are called upon to make their voice heard, rejecting these policies that do not target Christians alone, but target all Palestinians. International and human rights organizations are also called upon to play a role in lifting these injustices suffered by Palestinians. The apartheid walls must fall, and the iron gates of different colors must fall, and Palestinians will not accept being imprisoned in their homeland and besieged in their holy land. Peace is not achieved through apartheid walls, iron gates, and policies of abuse and humiliation suffered by Palestinians. Peace requires justice, and justice today is absent, and it seems it will remain so until the face of this world changes to be more humane and just. Those who abuse Christian clergy and spit on Christian symbols and act racially towards the Christian presence are the same conspirators against Palestinians who plan to steal Palestinian lands and eliminate any possibility of an independent Palestinian state in this holy and blessed land. May God help our people in the face of this enormous amount of injustice, and may God preserve this people to remain steadfast and firm in their land in the face of all these challenges, conspiracies, and projects aimed at liquidating the Palestinian cause.

Washington's Message

Washington – Said Arikat – 17/6/2026

News Analysis

As eyes turn to Geneva, where increasing diplomatic leaks speak of a possible new agreement between the United States and Iran on June 19, ambiguity still surrounds the final details of the anticipated understanding. So far, no official announcement has confirmed the completion of the agreement or the date of its final signing. However, accumulated indicators suggest that both parties are approaching a political moment that may be the most significant in their relations since the collapse of the previous nuclear deal.

This development comes after months of mutual military tensions and economic pressures that pushed the region to the brink of a widespread confrontation. However, recent developments have revealed that both Washington and Tehran have reached a similar conclusion: continued escalation carries greater risks than potential benefits. On the one hand, the American administration realized that any open war with Iran could impose exorbitant economic and military costs that would be difficult to justify to the American public. On the other hand, Iran found itself facing increasing economic pressures and an urgent need to alleviate the financial isolation that has burdened its economy in recent years.

According to leaks from Western diplomatic circles, the agreement focuses on Iran's nuclear program, international monitoring mechanisms, and permissible enrichment levels, in exchange for a gradual easing of some economic and financial sanctions imposed on Tehran. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) is also expected to play a pivotal role in verification and follow-up operations, ensuring a permanent monitoring mechanism that allows for measuring Iran's compliance with the terms of the agreement.

Circulating information also indicates the possibility of a gradual release of some of Iran's frozen assets abroad and allowing a limited increase in Iranian oil exports, which could give the Iranian economy a much-needed breather. There is also talk of establishing joint mechanisms to address potential disputes and prevent the collapse of the agreement at the first political or security crisis, a point that negotiators see as essential in light of previous experiences between the two countries.

Nevertheless, key issues remain shrouded in ambiguity. The extent and duration of restrictions on Iran's nuclear program are not yet clear, nor are the details of the mechanism for reimposing sanctions in the event of a breach of the agreement. Similarly, ballistic missiles and Iran's regional influence remain among the most sensitive issues, especially as they have been a focal point of deep disagreements between Washington and its regional allies in recent years.

In the United States, the anticipated agreement has begun to stir clear political division even before its official announcement. The pro-agreement camp includes a number of former diplomats, nuclear non-proliferation experts, and prominent political figures who believe that diplomacy, despite its flaws, remains the most realistic option to prevent a new war. Among the names expected to defend the agreement are Senator Bernie Sanders, Senator Chris Murphy, and former Secretary of State John Kerry, in addition to a number of experts associated with influential research institutions such as the Quincy Institute and the Carnegie Endowment.

They argue that sanctions and military pressure have not succeeded in completely stopping Iran's nuclear program, and that the absence of an agreement could leave Iran freer to develop its nuclear capabilities. They also believe that the United States needs to focus its resources on other strategic challenges, primarily competition with China and rapid international developments in Asia and Europe.

In contrast, a broad camp of conservatives and hardline Republicans rejects any new agreement with Tehran. Prominent figures in this regard include Senator Tom Cotton, Senator Ted Cruz, Senator Lindsey Graham, former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, and former National Security Advisor John Bolton. They believe that any easing of sanctions will give Iran additional resources that can be used to strengthen its regional influence, and they argue that economic pressures were bearing fruit and should have been continued instead of returning to the negotiating table.

Economically, the importance of the agreement extends beyond the bilateral relationship between Washington and Tehran. Stability in the Gulf remains an influential factor in global energy markets, and any reduction in the likelihood of military confrontation could positively impact oil prices and international trade. Furthermore, a decrease in geopolitical tension could contribute to boosting investor confidence and reducing the volatility witnessed in markets during previous periods of escalation.

President Donald Trump's administration realizes that this economic dimension holds special political importance with the upcoming midterm elections approaching. If the agreement succeeds in achieving some stability and reducing energy-related concerns and inflation, the administration may be able to present it as evidence of the success of its foreign policy. However, if implementation falters or early disagreements emerge between the parties, the agreement could become a major subject of political attack from White House opponents.

In this context, the Trump administration's concept of "victory" seems to differ from traditional concepts associated with military decisive action. The administration does not necessarily view the overthrow of the Iranian regime or engaging in an open confrontation as a measure of success. Instead, it believes that forcing an adversary to return to negotiations and accept new restrictions can constitute a political and strategic achievement in itself. From this perspective, the administration may seek to market the agreement as evidence of the success of its maximum pressure policy in pushing Iran to make concessions it was not previously willing to make.

Conversely, the administration defines defeat as being drawn into a long and costly war without achievable goals or sufficient public support. Therefore, avoiding a widespread military confrontation is a fundamental part of the calculations that led Washington to prefer the diplomatic path over continued escalation.

One of the most sensitive questions remains related to Israel and its Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Previous experiences have shown that any US-Iranian understanding raises deep concern for the Israeli government, which fears that easing pressure could strengthen Iran's capabilities in the long run. Washington is likely to exert political and security pressure on Netanyahu to avoid any steps that could threaten the agreement. However, the White House's ability to impose its will will remain constrained by internal American balances and the extent of support Israel enjoys within Congress.

Ultimately, the importance of the anticipated agreement lies not only in its signing but also in its ability to endure after signing. The long history of distrust between Washington and Tehran, and the presence of strong opponents of the agreement in the United States, Iran, and Israel, make the implementation phase the real test of any understanding reached. If the agreement succeeds in overcoming these obstacles, it could open the door to a new phase of managing regional conflicts through diplomacy instead of military confrontations. However, if it fails, it will strengthen the voices calling for a return to the logic of force, and return the region to the cycle of tension that the current negotiations sought to escape.

US Vice President J.D. Vance announced the outlines of what he described as an upcoming 'regional peace agreement' between Washington and Tehran, confirming that the proposed memorandum is based on three fundamental, non-negotiable pillars. Vance clarified that the first principle is the complete abandonment of nuclear weapons ambitions, while the second principle focuses on ensuring permanent freedom of international navigation in the Strait of Hormuz.

Vance indicated in press statements that the third pillar relates to linking any economic gains or sanctions relief to Tehran's actual behavior on the ground. He stressed that Iranians will not receive any benefits unless they prove their commitment to strict conditions regarding stopping the funding of armed groups and fundamentally changing their political approach in the region.

These statements come at a sensitive time, as sources revealed that the United States and Iran are close to officially signing the peace agreement in Switzerland next Friday. President Donald Trump has already sent a draft memorandum of understanding to Congress for review, indicating the administration's seriousness in moving forward towards a comprehensive settlement.

The US Vice President clarified that any easing of economic pressure would be conditional on stopping support for what he described as 'terrorism' and abandoning attempts to rebuild the nuclear program. He added clearly that if Tehran continues its current approach, it will gain nothing, while real benefits await it if it makes a tangible shift in its foreign policies.

Vance criticized Iranian attempts to portray the agreement as an unconditional victory, describing such narratives as 'misleading propaganda' that ignores the harsh conditions imposed. He affirmed that the US administration fully understands that the gains Tehran aspires to are exclusively linked to changing the way the state is managed and dealing with the international community.

In his reading of the agreement's outcomes, Vance considered that the United States would be a winner in both cases, whether Iran complied or rejected the conditions. In case of rejection, Washington would continue to undermine the nuclear program and ensure the security of waterways, and in case of acceptance, the world would have achieved a great diplomatic victory by changing the behavior of an adversary regime.

Vance stressed that the agreement places Iran under close scrutiny, as the country will enter a 'test period' to measure its seriousness. He affirmed that the new US policy is based on the principle of 'trust in actions, not promises,' an approach he learned from President Trump in dealing with allies and adversaries alike.

In a related context, the US Vice President denied any intentions by the Trump administration to impose regime change in Tehran or install specific political figures. He clarified that Washington has never sought to restore Reza Pahlavi, the son of the late Shah of Iran, to power, considering that the form of government is an internal matter to be decided by the Iranian people alone.

Vance described the memorandum as transcending the bilateral relationship to be a comprehensive 'regional peace agreement' involving multiple parties in the Middle East. He indicated that the agreement would include the Gulf states, Israel, and Lebanon, with the aim of creating a stable security environment that ends decades of tension and armed conflicts that have drained the region's resources.

For his part, President Donald Trump promoted the agreement on social media platforms, describing it as a 'great deal' that will bring security and stability. Trump considered that his administration succeeded where previous presidents failed, by finding an acceptable formula of understanding for regional leaders that ensures real and sustainable peace.

Reports indicate that the agreement includes strict verification mechanisms to ensure that prohibited nuclear activities do not resume under any guise. The next phase is also expected to see rounds of technical negotiations to implement the provisions of the memorandum, especially regarding the opening of trade and financial channels that were closed due to international sanctions imposed on Tehran.

In conclusion, Vance affirmed that the ball is now in Iran's court to choose the path the country desires, either integration into the regional system and obtaining economic support, or remaining under the weight of isolation. He stressed that Washington is prepared for all scenarios, always prioritizing the security of its allies and the stability of navigation in vital waterways.

The agreement is very simple: no nuclear weapons, the Strait of Hormuz open, and benefits conditional on good behavior.

With the announcement of Trump's twenty-point plan and its international adoption to stop the war on the Gaza Strip early this year, documents were leaked last February concerning the American administration's intention to establish a massive military base south of Palestine, specifically in the area called the Gaza Envelope, covering an area of 350 acres. This base would serve as a military and civilian headquarters for operations, and it is said that it will be a headquarters for the multinational international force, relief organizations, and everything Gaza needs based on the American vision. It will be an alternative to the international coordination center previously established in "Kiryat Gat," which is clearly on the verge of closure after its failure, or rather its "sabotage," in most of its tasks. These days, the discussion about the American military base has returned, with the difference that its construction has already begun after comprehensive and accurate geological surveys were conducted in the designated area to guard against the presence of tunnels and underground voids. The irony is that this discussion coincided with the return of what is called the factions' dialogue in Cairo and the repetition of the same boring and exchanged ball game between Hamas and Israel about the condition of what comes first and what comes after: weapons or withdrawal? Israel is pushing people towards the sea by controlling 75% of Gaza's area. And America says we have started the second phase of the plan and will not wait for anyone... In general, America does not establish a military base somewhere on the surface of the earth for the sake of serving humanity or providing relief materials, but rather for very important implications: First: Maintaining a permanent presence in this place to extend its military influence in a region that has become classified as important for American interests. And to send a message to allies and adversaries alike that the United States now views geopolitical developments in this region as directly related to American national security. Second: American military bases are operational sites in times of peace and war, with their activities ranging from routine office work to launching fighters and missiles and attacking, passing through monitoring, surveillance, intelligence, and espionage. Third, and most importantly, the establishment of the American military base cannot be overlooked without a geostrategic consideration of the important geographical location it occupies. On one hand: Gaza is the back door to Egypt. On the other hand: Gaza is located on the eastern coast of the Mediterranean Sea, so is there a relationship between the planned military base and the high-level American/Cypriot military arrangements in Greek Cyprus, which include the development of two military bases in the city of Paphos and the Mari naval base? Despite Turkey's strong objection to this penetration, the Cypriot government asserts that the development of these bases aims for humanitarian purposes and evacuation operations when needed! Palestinian-wise, it seems we have not yet entered the field, as we are still stuck in the trap of weapons first or withdrawal...!

Political circles in Washington witnessed a state of turmoil following sharp statements made by US President Donald Trump, targeting a number of Republican Party leaders who oppose the preliminary agreement with Iran. Trump hinted at imposing severe political consequences on anyone who tries to obstruct the new diplomatic path led by his administration, stressing that the stage requires unity behind the White House's decisions.

These threats came during Trump's participation in the G7 summit held in France, where he was asked about the position of prominent Republican figures who had expressed public reservations about the terms of the agreement. Sources reported that the US President appeared firm in his response, indicating that any questioning of the feasibility of understandings with Tehran would face a strong political reaction within the party's corridors.

Trump specifically mentioned Senator Lindsey Graham, one of his most prominent traditional allies, warning him against continuing to question the undeclared agreement. Trump said in a tone not devoid of threat: 'If he's skeptical, he's going to be in big trouble,' before adding in a softer tone: 'I think he's fine,' in an attempt to contain the situation while maintaining the warning message.

These developments come at a time of deep division within the US Congress over the announcement of a preliminary agreement to cease hostilities between Washington and Tehran. Lawmakers express a mix of cautious optimism and scathing criticism due to the absence of official details about the terms of this agreement, which has led to escalating demands for full transparency from the administration.

Press reports indicated that a large number of Republican lawmakers refused to give their full support to the current steps, preferring to wait until the original documents are revealed. These lawmakers stressed that they would not rely on what they described as 'propaganda reports' promoted by Iranian media, emphasizing the need for them to see the full text of the agreement.

In this context, Republican Senator Tom Tillis mocked the ambiguity surrounding the ongoing understandings, questioning how to seriously deal with an agreement described as secret. Tillis considered that the lack of clarity weakens the credibility of American moves in the Middle East, and creates a state of uncertainty for allies and lawmakers alike.

Despite the criticism, members of both the Democratic and Republican parties welcomed progress on the thorny Iranian issue, but they all agreed on the need to present the details to the relevant committees. Observers believe that this agreement may reshape the features of the American role in the region, which requires national consensus that transcends narrow partisan differences.

For his part, Senator Lindsey Graham had linked in previous statements the success of any path with Iran to its ability to enhance regional stability through the Abraham Accords. Graham stressed that the most important strategic goal must remain to permanently halt Iran's nuclear ambitions, and to ensure the decline of Tehran's destabilizing role in neighboring countries.

Graham believes that expanding the path of normalization in the region represents the real guarantee for the success of any understandings with the Iranian side, stressing that the countries of the region must be convinced of a change in Tehran's behavior. He added that any agreement that does not lead to greater integration of Israel into the regional system will be considered incomplete and will not achieve the desired peace.

Informed sources explained that there is concern within the Republican Party that the new agreement will lead to a reduction of pressure on Iran without obtaining fundamental concessions. Lawmakers are demanding strict guarantees that prevent Tehran from using the expected financial returns to fund its proxies in the region or develop its missile programs.

In his assessment of the field situation, Graham indicated that Iran and its proxies have suffered significant strategic weakness during the past period, which puts them in a weaker negotiating position. He considered that their ability to produce additional nuclear capabilities has become very limited thanks to the continuous military and intelligence pressures they have been subjected to.

Analyzes indicate that Trump, through his attack on critics, seeks to impose a fait accompli before the upcoming elections, considering the agreement with Iran a major diplomatic achievement. However, this approach clashes with the desire of lawmakers to exercise their full oversight role over foreign policy, especially in matters directly affecting national security.

The question remains about the White House's ability to convince skeptics within the Republican Party of the feasibility of this path, in the absence of a written text that can be built upon. Political circles are awaiting what the coming days will reveal in terms of more details that may calm the fears of opponents or intensify the confrontation.

In conclusion, this internal conflict in Washington represents a real test of Trump's influence within his party, and his ability to pass major deals in the Middle East. While the president relies on political decisiveness, lawmakers insist that transparency and parliamentary oversight are the only way to ensure the protection of supreme American interests.

If he's skeptical, he's going to be in big trouble. I think he's fine.

Areas in southern Lebanon are witnessing continuous military escalation, as Israeli warplanes carried out a series of airstrikes targeting the Nabatieh district, including the towns of Nabatieh al-Fawqa and Kafr Tibnit. The airstrikes also hit the town of Ansariya in the Zahrani district via a drone, coinciding with intensive overflights by warplanes over the Iqlim al-Tuffah region and the execution of mock raids that caused a state of anxiety.

Field sources reported the infiltration of a number of occupation army vehicles towards the town of Haddatha in the deep south, a step that reflects the continuation of ground movements despite talk of de-escalation. This infiltration was accompanied by intense artillery shelling targeting the vicinity of Dar Al-Muallimin at the Nabatieh intersection, causing extensive material damage in the surrounding area.

Israeli artillery intensified its shelling from night until morning, with shells concentrating on the Ali al-Taher forest on the outskirts of Nabatieh al-Fawqa. Sources recorded shells falling in populated and vital areas, including the vicinity of the Nabih Berri Governmental Hospital and the Al-Maidan and Al-Rahibat neighborhoods within the city of Nabatieh, threatening the safety of health facilities and civilians.

In contrast, Israeli media revealed new restrictions imposed on army movements on the northern front, where offensive operations now require direct approval from the commander of the northern region. Reports indicated that Washington directly intervened to cancel military operations aimed at destroying strategic infrastructure in southern Lebanon during the strict past few days.

Haaretz newspaper quoted military sources as saying that the political leadership in Tel Aviv issued instructions to the army to avoid launching any large-scale attacks at the present time. The new instructions focused on the need to protect forces stationed in forward positions and avoid sliding into a comprehensive confrontation that could complicate the already faltering political and diplomatic scene.

A state of ambiguity prevails within the Israeli military establishment regarding the final direction of operations in Lebanon, in the absence of clear directives from the political level. Estimates are increasing that indicate the possibility of forces withdrawing towards what is known as the 'Yellow Line,' amid increasing international pressure pushing for a complete withdrawal towards the international borders.

On the political front, Tehran issued strong warnings to the Israeli occupation, considering that the continuation of violations in southern Lebanon threatens the existing memorandum of understanding between Iran and Washington. Iranian sources confirmed that the continued escalation represents a clear breach of the understandings aimed at ending the state of war and establishing stability in the region.

The leadership of the 'Khatam al-Anbiya' headquarters in Iran threatened a decisive and harsh response if Israeli aggressions on Lebanese territory do not stop immediately. Observers believe that this threat reflects the link between regional arenas and the path of indirect negotiations between Tehran and the American administration regarding outstanding issues.

Political analysts indicated that the postponement of the official signing of the framework for understanding negotiations between Iran and the United States is directly linked to developments on the ground in Lebanon. Washington requested a grace period to exert pressure on the Israeli side to ensure a halt to military operations and withdrawal from the areas it recently infiltrated.

The Iranian leadership is awaiting the implementation of American commitments regarding curbing Israeli movements before taking any additional step in the path of the framework agreement. The fate of major understandings remains dependent on the extent of the parties' commitment to a ceasefire in Lebanon, as the continued shelling represents a fundamental obstacle to any future diplomatic progress.

Iran awaits the implementation of American commitments to halt Israeli operations before proceeding with the signing of the framework understanding for negotiations.

- Kallas: "The two-state solution remains the only viable path to achieving lasting peace and stability in the Middle East." - "The situation in the West Bank is alarming, settlements continue to expand at an unprecedented rate, and settler violence is increasing without accountability." - The necessity of Israel's withdrawal from the Rafah crossing, ensuring its full opening, unimpeded flow of aid, and reconstruction in Gaza.

Paris - Mohamed Abu Khdeir - In a significant diplomatic move, the Arab World Institute in the French capital, Paris, hosted on Friday the international conference "The Paris Call for a Two-State Solution," which brought together a selection of foreign ministers and senior officials from over 15 countries, alongside representatives from Palestinian and Israeli civil society, just days before the G7 summit in Evian. The conference, which coincided with the first anniversary of the "New York Declaration" adopted by the United Nations in July 2025, provided an exceptional dialogue platform that brought conflict parties to one table, resulting in the "Paris Call 2026 document," which included an 8-point action plan, submitted to world leaders gathered at the Evian summit last Monday. In his opening speech, the French Minister for Europe and Foreign Affairs, Jean-Noël Barrot, delivered a strong message to the attendees, saying: "We could have found every reason in the world to give up and despair, but you are here! Your testimonies alone are motives for hope and action. France refuses to let the party of war triumph over the party of peace." Barrot added: "You are the true builders of peace, and without your courage and integrity, there will be no peace. Peace is not imposed by decrees; it must be rooted in minds and hearts." The French minister affirmed that "this year could be decisive," noting that the Palestinian and Israeli peoples are called to vote in the coming months; legislative and presidential elections in Palestine before the end of the year, to which President Mahmoud Abbas is committed, and legislative elections in Israel by autumn. For her part, the Vice-President of the European Commission and High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, Kaja Kallas, affirmed that "the two-state solution remains the only viable path to achieving lasting peace and stability in the Middle East." In her speech to the attendees, she said: "The lesson is clear: civil society is not an afterthought in diplomacy, but an indispensable element for building peace, and a source of hope." The European official warned of the deteriorating situation in the West Bank, stating: "The situation in the West Bank is equally alarming. Illegal Israeli settlements continue to expand at an unprecedented rate, and violence perpetrated by settlers is increasing without adequate accountability." She stressed the necessity of "Israel's withdrawal from the Rafah crossing and ensuring its full opening," and "unimpeded flow of humanitarian aid" and "the start of recovery and reconstruction efforts" in Gaza. The conference saw broad ministerial participation, with foreign ministers from Andorra, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Iceland, Luxembourg, and Monaco attending. Deputy ministers and ministers of state from Spain, Ireland, Norway, Mexico, Turkey, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Egypt, and the EU Commissioner for the Mediterranean were also present. The conference concluded with the issuance of the "Paris Call 2026" and its 8-point "Action Plan": imposing a permanent ceasefire and protecting civilians in Gaza, establishing a timeline for implementing the two-state solution with international guarantees, immediately halting annexation and settlement expansion, with sanctions for violence, ensuring aid access and funding Gaza's reconstruction with genuine Palestinian participation, disarming factions and providing regional security guarantees, supporting Palestinian Authority elections to prevent its collapse and reconnect Gaza and the West Bank, using regional integration as a catalyst for ending the occupation, not a substitute for it, launching an international fund to support peace institutions and civil society, in fulfillment of the G7's commitment. The conference saw an official American and Israeli absence. The Israeli Embassy in Paris commented on the non-attendance, stating that the conference "does not serve to promote peace," claiming that Palestinians "rejected proposals for a Palestinian state on five occasions." In contrast, the conference witnessed a symbolic closing moment on the Tournelle Bridge, where participants raised a peace banner, and artists Noa and Mira Awad performed an artistic segment embodying the spirit of hope. The "Paris Call" document was officially delivered to the leaders of the G7 countries, led by French President Emmanuel Macron, during the opening of the summit in Evian on Monday, in a step demonstrating that the political horizon remains open, and that peace remains a strategic option that cannot be abandoned. Text of the message submitted: Your Excellency Jean-Noël Barrot, Minister for Europe and Foreign Affairs of France, Heads of State and Government of the G7, World leaders gathered in Evian, Since we last addressed you, exactly one year ago, France and 14 additional countries recognized the State of Palestine. The New York Declaration, President Trump's 20-point plan, Security Council Resolution 2803, and the ceasefire in Gaza, have provided the necessary framework to advance a two-state solution based on peace, security, mutual recognition, and respect. However, the division in the region continues to widen. Gaza is devastated, and Israel remains under threat. Settler terrorism, settlement expansion, de facto annexation, as well as threats to the Palestinian Authority, continue to undermine the viability of a future Palestinian state. Israelis and Palestinians remain trapped in a cycle of fear, insecurity, and trauma. We meet again, because while the G7 countries gather in Evian, the conflict may once again be pushed to the sidelines. The window for a solution remains open, but the opening is narrowing. This time urgently calls for diplomacy based on partnership with civil society. Therefore, we appeal to you – the leaders of the G7 countries in Evian, and all countries represented here in Paris – to take the following actions: Impose a permanent ceasefire and protect civilians. Ensure and solidify the ceasefire to become a permanent and monitored arrangement, providing protection for civilians including medical teams, aid agencies, journalists, and civilian infrastructure. Transition the second phase of Gaza to a broader political-security track: guarantees against renewed attacks, reconstruction, governance transfer, regional security guarantees, and a credible process for disarming Hamas. Bring all initiatives into a single implementation track for a two-state solution in a regional format. A credible political horizon that can lead to a two-state solution on the 1967 borders with Jerusalem as the capital of both states, based on the viability of the West Bank, Israel's security, effective Palestinian governance, and the reconstruction and stability of Gaza. This is also what makes regional integration possible and meaningful. These are not separate issues, but interconnected goals that must be addressed as part of a single implementation track. Linking the New York Declaration, UN Security Council Resolution 2803, President Trump's 20-point plan, the International Alliance, and the Peace Council, into one coordinated implementation mechanism, supported by funding, including the vital work of civil society, to ensure both the ceasefire and the political horizon. Halt annexation to preserve a viable political horizon. Immediately halt annexation and settlement expansion to preserve the territorial integrity of the future Palestinian state. Protect Palestinian communities, dismantle the infrastructure of settler violence, and the impunity that protects it. Meaningful consequences for settlement expansion, settler terrorism, forced displacement, home demolitions, and all measures aimed de facto or de jure at annexation, including in areas such as E1, must include targeted sanctions, as appropriate, against individuals, entities, and contractors responsible for planning, funding, or building settlements, as well as against those directly involved in settler violence. Rebuild Gaza – for its people. Ensure unrestricted access for humanitarian aid and funding for essential services: hospitals, water, electricity, shelter. Significant progress in reconstruction, employment, protection, and services is part of the recovery process. This must be funded through a transparent multi-year mechanism, in which Palestinians have genuine ownership, including civil society and the private sector, involved in planning and implementation, to support the reconstruction and reconnection of Gaza and the West Bank. Strengthen mutual security through a responsible and human-centered security framework. Ensure that the security of Israelis and Palestinians is not at each other's expense, but through recognizing their essential interdependence. Disarm Hamas and armed groups. Protect Palestinians from violence, displacement, restrictions on freedom of movement, and violations of fundamental rights, and support a legitimate, reformed Palestinian police force. Support multilateral security guarantees, through G7 countries and regional partners, with security assistance conditioned on civilian protection, de-escalation of tensions, and accountability. Support the renewal of legitimate Palestinian governance through elections and institutional reform, prevent the collapse of the Palestinian Authority, and reconnect Gaza with the West Bank. Support the renewal of governance through presidential and parliamentary elections, which must take place this year, and must be enabled to be free and fair among all members of the Palestinian people. Strengthen institutional reform and improve service delivery, with significant participation from Palestinian communities. Preventing the collapse or emptying of the Palestinian Authority must be treated as a major security priority for Palestinians, Israelis, and the entire region. It is crucial to take immediate steps to release withheld tax revenues, restore banking correspondent channels, and ease movement restrictions. Otherwise, instability in the West Bank will deepen, Hamas's entrenchment in Gaza will accelerate, and Israel will be forced to confront a escalating security crisis with no political way out. Address regional integration as a catalyst for ending the occupation and promoting the two-state solution. Regional integration should serve as a catalyst for ending the occupation and promoting the two-state solution, not as a substitute for a Palestinian state. This means establishing a demilitarized Palestinian state through a political process, with concrete timelines and multilateral guarantees, with measurable progress towards statehood and territorial contiguity between Gaza and the West Bank. Expanding support for civil society networks and initiatives across the region, Palestinian, Israeli, Iranian, and Arab, is essential to curb regional escalation, including that between Israel and the Islamic Republic and its proxies. Join the International Fund for Israeli-Palestinian Peace, establish an expert advisory mechanism, and invest in political legitimacy, public narratives, and civil protection. No political or security framework will endure without a public capable of understanding, shaping, and supporting it. International and regional actors should establish an advisory mechanism bringing together Israeli and Palestinian experts, civil society representatives, private sector actors, women leaders, and youth representatives. This must be coupled with sustained investment in Israeli, Palestinian, and regional communities to prepare the ground for diplomacy. Join the International Fund for Israeli-Palestinian Peace launched this week by the UK, Canada, and Australia, and ensure it is adequately resourced to provide broad support directly to peacemakers, while fulfilling the G7's commitment to institutionalize the role of civil society. You do not bear this burden alone. We are already actively working in various arenas, both local and institutional. We need your help in using all diplomatic, economic, and political tools available to us, to help break this cycle. Invest in civil society as allies and partners, for we are ready to work with you on this vital mission to create a better future.

By Said Arikat

June 17, 2026

News analysis

Washington, D.C-If current diplomatic efforts succeed, the United States and Iran could sign a new agreement in Geneva on June 19, marking the most significant development in bilateral relations since the collapse of the 2015 nuclear accord. While many details remain unconfirmed, enough has emerged to reveal something more important than the agreement itself: how Washington, particularly the Trump administration, now defines strategic success in the Middle East.

For months, the United States and Iran appeared to be moving toward a dangerous confrontation. Military exchanges, economic pressure, and regional instability created fears that a miscalculation could trigger a wider conflict. Yet both governments ultimately reached the same conclusion: the costs of escalation had become greater than its potential benefits.

The emerging agreement reflects that reality. For Washington, the goal is not reconciliation with Tehran but the creation of a framework that reduces the risk of war while placing verifiable limits on Iran’s nuclear activities. For Iran, the incentive is equally obvious: relief from economic pressure and greater access to international markets and financial resources.

Reports suggest the agreement will focus on restrictions on Iran’s nuclear program, enhanced monitoring by the International Atomic Energy Agency, and mechanisms for verifying compliance. In return, the United States would gradually ease selected sanctions and permit greater economic engagement. Diplomatic leaks also point to procedures designed to prevent the deal from collapsing at the first disagreement.

This is unlikely to be a simple revival of the 2015 agreement. Iran’s nuclear capabilities have advanced, regional dynamics have changed, and American strategic priorities have shifted. Negotiators appear to be constructing a new framework tailored to current realities rather than attempting to recreate the past.

The domestic debate in Washington is already taking shape. Supporters include former diplomats, arms-control experts, and lawmakers who argue that diplomacy remains the most practical means of managing the Iranian challenge. Figures such as Bernie Sanders, Chris Murphy, John Kerry, and former Iran envoy Robert Malley have long maintained that military pressure alone cannot resolve the nuclear issue.

Their argument is rooted in experience. Years of sanctions, threats, and covert operations failed to stop Iran’s nuclear progress entirely. If the objective is transparency and limitation rather than fantasy solutions, inspections and enforceable restrictions offer more security than the absence of any agreement. Supporters also argue that the alternative to diplomacy is not Iranian surrender but a heightened risk of another costly Middle Eastern war.

Opposition remains strong. Republican hawks, neoconservative policy advocates, and many analysts aligned with Israeli security concerns argue that sanctions relief would strengthen Tehran economically and politically. Senators Tom Cotton, Ted Cruz, and Lindsey Graham, along with former officials Mike Pompeo and John Bolton, have consistently argued that pressure should continue until Iran accepts far more extensive concessions.

For critics, the agreement’s central flaw is that it seeks to manage Iran’s nuclear capabilities rather than eliminate them altogether. They fear Tehran will secure economic benefits while retaining significant strategic leverage. These concerns are certain to fuel an aggressive campaign against the deal in Congress and across the American political landscape.

Yet the most revealing aspect of the agreement is what it says about President Donald Trump’s understanding of victory. Traditional foreign-policy thinking often associates victory with military triumph, regime change, or decisive strategic dominance. Trump’s approach has generally been more transactional. Success is measured not by ideology but by outcomes.

Viewed through that lens, the White House can portray the agreement as evidence that economic sanctions, diplomatic isolation, and military deterrence achieved their objective. Iran returned to negotiations, administration officials can argue, because sustained pressure altered its calculations. Whether critics accept that interpretation is another matter, but it is almost certainly how the administration intends to frame the agreement.

Equally important is how the administration defines defeat. For Trump and many of his advisers, failure does not necessarily mean falling short of maximalist goals. Rather, it means becoming trapped in a prolonged military conflict with uncertain objectives and mounting costs. A large-scale confrontation with Iran would threaten energy markets, strain American resources, weaken public support, and distract Washington from broader strategic priorities.

This calculation helps explain why an agreement has become possible. Neither side has fundamentally changed its worldview. Tehran remains deeply suspicious of American intentions, while Washington continues to view Iran as a strategic competitor. What has changed are the costs of maintaining the status quo. Iran faces continuing economic pressure, while the United States increasingly recognizes the limits of military power in resolving the nuclear issue.

Regional and European actors have also contributed to this shift. Many governments fear that another major conflict in the Gulf would disrupt energy supplies, destabilize markets, and deepen global uncertainty. Their diplomatic efforts have reinforced incentives for compromise and helped create conditions more favorable to negotiations.

The agreement also places Washington in a delicate position regarding Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. If the administration proceeds, it will likely seek to discourage actions that could undermine the deal. The United States possesses significant leverage through military assistance, intelligence cooperation, and diplomatic support. Yet that leverage is not unlimited, given Israel’s substantial political influence within Congress.

The challenge for the White House will be to reassure Israel’s security establishment while discouraging unilateral actions that could derail diplomacy. The personal and political relationship between Trump and Netanyahu may play an important role in determining how effectively these tensions are managed.

The real test, however, begins after the signatures are placed on paper. History shows that negotiating agreements is often easier than implementing them. Decades of mutual distrust, domestic opposition in both countries, and resistance from regional actors will ensure that every provision is scrutinized and contested.

That is why the significance of the accord extends beyond the nuclear file itself. If it survives inevitable crises and political pressure, it could reduce regional tensions, stabilize energy markets, and allow Washington to focus more effectively on long-term competition with China and Russia. If it collapses, it will strengthen hardliners on all sides and reinforce the argument that diplomacy cannot resolve major international disputes.

For Washington, therefore, the agreement is not an act of trust. It is an exercise in strategic calculation. The administration appears to have concluded that avoiding a costly and unpredictable war is not a retreat from American power but one of its most effective expressions. In today’s Middle East, preventing a conflict may be the closest thing to victory that any administration can realistically achieve.

Ramallah - "Al-Quds" dot com - Wisal Abu Alia

The Palestinian public finance is facing one of the most severe crises in its history, as Israel continues to withhold Palestinian tax revenues, known as "clearance funds," which constitute the main source of government income. With the value of the withheld funds exceeding 15 billion shekels, the Palestinian treasury has entered an unprecedented phase of financial pressure, which has affected the government's ability to meet its basic obligations and directly impacted public services, economic activity, and the living conditions of citizens.

As the crisis escalated and reached a stage of complete withholding of "clearance funds" in recent months, the repercussions expanded to include various economic and service sectors, amidst warnings of exacerbating poverty and unemployment rates and a decline in the Palestinian economy's ability to withstand accumulated challenges.

Clearance... The Lifeline of Government Revenues at the Heart of the Crisis

Moayad Afaneh, an expert in financial and economic policies, confirms that the continuous withholding of "clearance funds" since 2019, and its escalation to complete withholding since May 2025, has plunged Palestinian public finance into a severe crisis that has affected all aspects of government spending.

Afaneh points out that the crisis forced the government to launch an emergency program that included reducing working hours in ministries and public institutions, lowering the percentage of salary payments to employees to about 50% of the salary with a minimum of 2000 shekels, in addition to accumulating private sector dues.

For his part, Dr. Haitham Daraghmeh, an economics professor and expert in economic affairs, explains that "clearance funds" represent more than 65% of government revenues and constitute the main source for financing the Palestinian Authority's obligations. He adds that the continued withholding of these funds has led to an inflation of government debt and deepened the financial crisis, noting that the value of the withheld "clearance funds" exceeded 15 billion shekels, which deprived the treasury of its most important financial resource and weakened its ability to meet its obligations towards employees, the private sector, and service providers.

Dr. Daraghmeh emphasizes that the Palestinian government was already suffering from financial pressures resulting from a decline in foreign and Arab aid, but the withholding of "clearance funds" deepened the crisis unprecedentedly, and deprived the government of the ability to fulfill many of its operational and service obligations.

Direct Repercussions on the Health and Education Sectors

The financial crisis has clearly reflected on basic services, especially in the health and education sectors.

According to Afaneh, the scarcity of financial resources led to a shortage of medicines in government health facilities, and the operation of some government clinics for only one day a week, which affected citizens' access to health services.

In the education sector, the regularity of the educational process declined, as school attendance in many government schools was limited to three days a week, equivalent to about 60% of the usual attendance, which widened the gap of accumulated learning loss and cast a shadow over the quality of education and the future of students.

Dr. Daraghmeh believes that the repercussions of the crisis were not limited to government institutions but extended to related economic sectors due to the decline in public spending and the government's inability to pay dues to suppliers and service providers.

Economic Stagnation and Unprecedented Contraction

The clearance crisis directly affected Palestinian economic activity, which witnessed a sharp decline recently.

Afaneh confirms that the Palestinian economy declined by about 24%, in parallel with an increase in unemployment rates to about 46%, and an increase in poverty rates to nearly 41%.

In turn, Dr. Daraghmeh describes the current economic situation as "unprecedented stagnation," explaining that the decrease in cash liquidity in the markets, the decline in government spending, and the irregular flow of foreign aid are factors that contributed to the paralysis of many economic activities.

He adds that the private sector is facing a complex crisis, as it provides services to the government, which has become unable to pay its obligations, and on the other hand, it suffers from a decline in demand and consumption and a decrease in liquidity, which has led to the faltering of many economic establishments.

Purchasing Power Declines and Markets Pay the Price

Bashar Al-Saifi, Undersecretary of the Ministry of National Economy, indicates that "clearance funds" used to inject approximately one billion shekels monthly into the Palestinian market, which was a major driver of economic activity.

He says that the decline in these flows as a result of Israeli measures has severely damaged the purchasing power of citizens, especially since the segment of government employees represents a large part of the consumer force in Palestinian society.

These repercussions are embodied in the daily lives of employees. A government employee from Nablus, who preferred to remain anonymous, says that the continued payment of salaries in partial percentages has placed thousands of families under increasing living pressures, as the available income is no longer sufficient to cover basic needs such as food, transportation, education, and monthly obligations. He adds that the lack of clarity regarding salary payment dates and percentages makes family financial planning more difficult, in light of the continuous increase in living costs.

He points out that many public sector workers were forced to borrow or postpone the payment of their financial obligations to meet daily expenses, which led to the accumulation of financial burdens on families. He explains that the effects of the crisis did not stop at employees but extended to local markets that largely depend on the purchasing power of this segment, as the decline in spending reflected on commercial activity and led to further stagnation in various economic sectors.

Al-Saifi adds that the crisis worsened with the continued prevention of large numbers of Palestinian workers from working inside the Green Line, which contributed to rising unemployment and declining income levels. The services and entertainment sectors were also severely affected, as citizens tended to spend only on basic needs, while some service sectors recorded a decline exceeding 90%.

Poverty and Unemployment... Vulnerable Groups Bear the Brunt

The repercussions of the crisis are more evident on poor and low-income groups.

Afaneh confirms that these groups were the most affected by the decline in public services, due to their inability to resort to paid alternatives in the health and education sectors. The decline in employment opportunities and market stagnation also increased living pressures on Palestinian families.

For his part, Dr. Daraghmeh confirms that the continuation of the crisis threatens a further rise in unemployment rates, especially in light of the decline in employment opportunities in both the public and private sectors, and the widening circle of unemployed graduates, including specializations that previously enjoyed high employment opportunities.

Searching for Solutions... Between Financial Management and Strategic Reform

Regarding ways to confront the crisis, Afaneh believes that the measures taken by the Ministry of Finance to rationalize expenditures and enhance revenues contributed to providing a margin of flexibility to manage the crisis, but they remain insufficient given the depth and prolonged nature of the problem.

He stresses the need to adopt a comprehensive national strategy based on international, diplomatic, and legal pressure to release the clearance funds, in addition to providing a financial safety net by international donors to support Palestinian public finance.

He also calls for a review of the Paris Economic Protocol and a reformulation of the financial relationship with Israel to ensure greater Palestinian control over its financial resources.

Dr. Daraghmeh agrees with this proposal, emphasizing that diplomatic action to restore the flow of "clearance funds" represents an urgent priority, in parallel with enhancing local revenues and controlling expenditures, despite the limited ability of these measures to compensate for the withheld revenues.

Al-Saifi, meanwhile, stresses the importance of international community intervention to stop Israeli measures that directly affect the Palestinian economy, warning that the continued withholding of "clearance funds" will lead to further economic contraction and deterioration of living conditions.

The clearance crisis reveals the fragility of the Palestinian economy's financial structure and its close link to political transformations and Israeli measures. While the government has managed to manage the crisis through emergency measures and financial austerity, the continued withholding of these revenues threatens to exacerbate pressures on public services, the private sector, and Palestinian families. With increasing poverty and unemployment rates and declining economic activity, there is an urgent need for effective political and international action to ensure the release of "clearance funds," in parallel with economic and structural reforms that enhance the Palestinian economy's ability to withstand and sustain itself.

International press sources revealed a radical shift in the confrontation between the United States and Iran, as Washington moved from demanding 'unconditional surrender' to accepting a temporary truce aimed at de-escalating the conflict. The report indicated that US President Donald Trump practically ended up accepting comfortable understandings with Tehran, after more than a hundred days of military escalation that followed the outbreak of war last February.

The terms of the new truce stipulate extending the fragile ceasefire for an additional sixty days, with an Iranian commitment to gradually reopen the Strait of Hormuz to international navigation. Technical measures include removing naval mines planted by Tehran and refraining from imposing any additional fees on cargo ships, thus ending a crisis that directly threatened global energy supplies.

Observers believe that the Islamic Republic's ability to withstand American and Israeli strikes, and its possession of a strategic leverage in the Strait of Hormuz, forced the White House to re-evaluate its calculations. Trump praised the agreement, which reflects a new political realism aimed at avoiding a long-term attrition that could lead to a global oil price explosion.

Sources quoted former US Ambassador to Israel, Dan Shapiro, as saying that this agreement is much weaker than the ambitious goals announced by Washington at the beginning of the conflict. Shapiro explained that the American focus ultimately centered on securing energy corridors, reflecting Tehran's success in convincing the US administration that ending the war on limited terms is better than its continuation.

On the nuclear front, the agreement included Iran's reaffirmation of its commitment not to develop nuclear weapons, with a mechanism for addressing its enriched uranium stockpile. Information indicates that Tehran agreed to reduce enrichment levels at its nuclear sites, to be under direct and strict supervision by International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors.

Iran currently possesses a massive stockpile exceeding nine thousand kilograms of uranium, including about 440 kilograms enriched to near weapons-grade levels. Through these understandings, Trump's team seeks to neutralize what the President describes as 'nuclear dust,' pending deeper negotiations scheduled to begin after the official signing of the memorandum of understanding.

In exchange for these technical concessions, Washington granted Tehran exemptions allowing it to continue selling oil in global markets throughout the truce period. This measure aims to alleviate economic pressures on the American domestic front, where fuel prices exceeded the four-dollar-per-gallon threshold, posing a political threat to the Republican Party ahead of the elections.

Informed diplomats believe that these understandings do not represent a final agreement, but rather a step to de-escalate the situation and prevent the strengthening of hardline currents within Iran. Sources confirmed that pursuing a complete surrender of the Iranian regime would have led to a more complex and dangerous situation for American interests in the region.

For its part, Tehran is focusing on achieving rapid economic gains to repair the damage caused by military attacks on its infrastructure. Despite losses in its military arsenal and the assassination of a number of its leaders, the regime showed cohesion with the transfer of power and the appointment of Mojtaba Khamenei as the new Supreme Leader succeeding his father.

Recent confrontations proved Iran's actual ability to disrupt five global oil and gas exports, as well as carry out precise strikes against American bases in the region. These facts gave the Iranian negotiator additional leverage, especially given Trump's desire to close foreign war files and focus on domestic affairs.

It is noteworthy that the new memorandum of understanding ignores thorny issues such as the ballistic missile and drone programs, as well as Iran's regional influence. These issues have always been a source of concern for Arab countries and Israel, which warned against engaging in a military confrontation that does not achieve clear strategic objectives.

Domestically in Israel, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu faces increasing pressure as elections approach, finding it difficult to market the war's outcomes as a real success. Experts believe that Israel cannot continue escalation against Iran without full American cover, especially regarding air defense systems and military funding.

Researcher Sanam Vakil from Chatham House indicates that both parties hold each other in a state of uneasy balance, with Washington using sanctions while Tehran uses the Strait of Hormuz. She adds that Trump's negotiation style may make this transitional phase last longer than the announced sixty days, with the risks that entails.

The question remains about the ability of this agreement to endure and transform into a comprehensive settlement, especially given Iran's history of prolonging negotiations. However, the only constant now is that the 'terms of the game' have changed, and the option of comprehensive military confrontation has receded in favor of a diplomacy of necessity imposed by realities on the ground.

The essence of the agreement currently lies in the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz, which has become the most important issue in the entire scene, revealing the extent of influence Iran possessed.

Since the launch of de-escalation paths and interim agreements in the Gaza Strip, it has become clear that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu does not view a truce as a step towards peace. Rather, he sees it as a tactical tool to reframe the terms of the conflict in a way that serves his political survival amidst the successive internal crises he faces.

Netanyahu is well aware that a definitive cessation of military operations would necessarily open the doors to legal and popular accountability for past failures. Thus, in his view, the negotiation table has transformed from a means to reach a comprehensive settlement into an arena for political maneuvering and buying time against both his opponents and allies.

Recent months have witnessed a recurring pattern of Israeli negotiating behavior based on modifying previously agreed-upon terms. Whenever parties approach fundamental understandings, new demands emerge concerning the disarmament of the resistance or radical changes in long-term security arrangements in the Strip.

These new demands, according to informed sources, aim to complicate the negotiating landscape and create obstacles that are difficult to overcome in the foreseeable future. By doing so, Netanyahu ensures the continuation of a state of 'no-war, no-peace' that provides him with political cover to remain in office without making substantial concessions.

A political reading of this approach reveals an Israeli attempt to shift the discussion from a ceasefire to a redefinition of post-war Gaza's reality. Netanyahu insists on transforming the Strip into a completely demilitarized zone, ignoring reconstruction efforts and the urgent humanitarian needs of the population.

This strategy relies on what is known in crisis management as the policy of 'raising the bar of demands' to justify any future failure in talks. By linking urgent humanitarian issues with complex security matters, the occupation seeks to hold other parties responsible for the faltering international and regional efforts.

This behavior cannot be separated from the nature of the right-wing ruling coalition in Tel Aviv, which rejects any end to the war without achieving 'complete victory.' Netanyahu finds himself forced to balance the pressures from his extremist ministers with increasing international pressures, making procrastination his only available option.

Despite this intransigence, recent reports indicate that the international community is beginning to lose patience with the strategy of prolonging the war. There is a growing conviction that military operations are no longer achieving tangible strategic objectives, but rather complicating regional and international situations.

International mediators continue to push for de-escalation and a transition to implementation phases, confirming progress on most technical points. However, additional Israeli conditions remain the biggest obstacle preventing these understandings from becoming a tangible reality on the ground.

The upcoming scenarios oscillate between three main paths: the first is the continuation of 'organized postponement' which keeps negotiations open without results. This path allows Netanyahu to maintain a delicate balance between his coalition's demands and external pressures through partial implementation of some clauses.

The second scenario is the imposition of a gradual settlement under the weight of real American and international pressures that Netanyahu may not be able to resist. In this case, he may be forced to accept painful concessions if the political and military cost of the current bleeding in Gaza increases.

The third and most dangerous scenario is a return to comprehensive military escalation whenever negotiations approach a final decisive moment. This option aims to reshuffle the cards again, but it carries the risks of a regional explosion whose repercussions Israel may not be able to contain.

Ultimately, Netanyahu is betting on time as a key ally to postpone major obligations and reproduce the terms of negotiation. However, historical experiences prove that procrastination can turn from a means of achieving gains into a strategic burden that tightens the noose around its perpetrator.

The fundamental question facing the region is not just about when the war will end, but about the moment Netanyahu will lose the ability to maneuver. The continuation of internal and external pressures may ultimately lead to the collapse of the postponement policy, putting everyone before the obligations of an enforced peace.

Netanyahu does not treat the truce as a station to end the war as much as he views it as a tool to manage the conflict and reshape its terms.

Recent political readings indicate that the Middle East region stands on the cusp of a major transitional phase, whose dimensions extend beyond mere temporary military de-escalation. Sources reported that the ongoing conflict between Iran and the American-Israeli alliance has created a new reality that will change the balance of power for decades to come, especially given the persistence of the root causes of the conflict.

Observers believe that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu finds in the current strategic vacuum an opportunity to escape his internal political crises. This personal and political motive may lead to continuous attempts to undermine any de-escalation, making the prospects of renewed escalation strongly present in the absence of a comprehensive settlement that ends the causes of tension.

On the Iranian domestic front, analysts expect Tehran to witness an unprecedented national cohesion following the repulsion of the joint military campaign. This cohesion will be bolstered by an anticipated economic recovery and a sense of national pride, which could lead to a new social contract that dissolves the differences between conservative and reformist currents under the umbrella of acquired legitimacy.

As for the Gulf region, Iran's emergence as a dominant regional player will necessitate a comprehensive redefinition of the regional security structure. Expectations lean towards neighboring countries being forced to engage in direct understanding with Tehran to protect their vital infrastructure, especially after the decline in confidence in Washington's ability to provide an effective protective umbrella for its allies' interests in the region.

This shift raises fundamental questions about the future of American military bases and Israeli intelligence assets in the region. It is still unclear whether Tehran will accept the principle of regional coexistence with countries that continue to host a military and security presence of powers it considers hostile to its national interests.

Regarding the normalization process, the possibility of the collapse of the 'Abraham Accords' emerges as a realistic option in light of the outcomes of the recent confrontation. The war has proven that the alliance with Israel did not constitute a deterrent, but rather turned into a strategic burden that made the signatory countries potential targets for retaliatory responses, which may push them to review their official relations.

Washington today faces a significant challenge in marketing a new narrative to advance the normalization process in the future, after security promises have lost their luster. The Arab trend towards lowering the level of relations with Tel Aviv may become the dominant feature in the coming phase, as a precautionary measure to avoid involvement in regional conflicts that do not serve the national interests of these countries.

Lebanon, in turn, will not be far from these transformations, as it is expected to witness a radical change in the political balance of power if the Israeli occupation is forced to withdraw. The recognition of Iran as an influential strategic power in the Lebanese arena will become a reality, which will compel local and regional powers to deal with this new given.

Estimates indicate that Arab countries close to the Lebanese government may rush to offer political concessions to ensure the stability of their allies, without conditioning the disarmament of the resistance. This shift reflects a growing realization that Hezbollah's military power has become an integral part of the regional deterrence equation that cannot be easily bypassed.

On the Palestinian side, resistance factions are moving towards strengthening their alliance with Tehran more deeply and permanently. This trend comes as a direct result of the Palestinians' feeling of betrayal by the international community and major regional powers that failed to stop the ongoing genocide in the Gaza Strip.

This rapprochement may mean a shift in the rules of engagement, where Iran may begin to deal with the Gaza issue in the same way it manages the southern Lebanon front. This includes the possibility of a direct response to any future Israeli aggressions, organically linking the fate of the Strip to the regional axis of resistance.

This scenario places the Hamas movement before complex political challenges regarding its relations with its traditional allies in the region. Full alignment with the Iranian axis may affect the ability of countries like Qatar to continue playing the role of mediator or hosting the movement's leaders, especially under increasing American pressure.

On the other hand, Israel is striving to separate the Palestinian issue from its regional conflicts with Iran and Lebanon, in an attempt to monopolize the Palestinian arena. However, the reality on the ground and emerging alliances indicate the failure of this strategy, with the intertwining of fronts and their transformation into a single unit in confronting Israeli policies.

In conclusion, questions remain about the extent of Israel's commitment to any ceasefire agreements or military withdrawal. Recent history indicates that non-compliance with pledges could immediately lead to a renewed comprehensive confrontation, leaving the region in a state of constant alert awaiting the outcome of upcoming diplomatic and military moves.

The Middle East region today stands on the cusp of deep and unprecedented geopolitical transformations, where the root causes of the conflict persist despite any temporary truce.