The New York Times revealed, based on internal government documents declassified by court order on Friday, that last year, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio personally approved the deportation decisions of five foreign students and activists, following their participation in pro-Palestinian university protests and their writings critical of the Israeli war on the Gaza Strip. These documents offer a rare glimpse into how the administration of President Donald Trump handled freedom of expression in American universities when it intersected with foreign policy and bias towards Israel.

The documents, spanning hundreds of pages, were unsealed after Federal Judge William G. Young, appointed by former President Ronald Reagan, approved a request submitted by the New York Times and other media organizations, deeming their publication to be in the public interest. The government had previously sought to seal these files, claiming they contained details related to sensitive federal investigations.

The case concerns five foreign students: Mahmoud Khalil (Palestinian), Rumeysa Ozturk (Turkish), Mohsen Mahdavi (Palestinian), Badar Khan Suri (Indian), and Yunsu Chung (Chinese). All of them were legally residing in the United States and were prominent in university protests condemning the Israeli aggression on Gaza. Nevertheless, they were arrested last spring and faced a direct threat of deportation.

The documents show that the Department of Homeland Security submitted official memos to the State Department recommending the deportation of the five students, mostly based on their protest activities and public writings. The memos indicate that the administration considered these activities, in their political context, to be an expression of "support for terrorism" or "anti-Semitic rhetoric," despite internal acknowledgment that these descriptions might not withstand judicial scrutiny.

In one of the most significant points, a memo specifically concerning Mohsen Mahdavi, a university student at Columbia University and a green card holder, warned that the judiciary might view his actions as protected expression under the First Amendment of the US Constitution. The memo stated that "the courts are likely to scrutinize the legal basis for this decision very closely."

Judge Young, who reviewed the documents and heard witness testimonies during a trial held in Massachusetts last July, concluded that the Trump administration unlawfully targeted the students because of their political views. He considered what happened to constitute a clear violation of freedom of expression, especially when it concerned opposition to the Israeli government's policies and military operations in Gaza.

In a remarkably worded ruling, the judge described the conduct of Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Secretary of Homeland Security Kirstjen Nielsen as an "unconstitutional conspiracy" aimed at "hunting down" a limited number of students to send a message of intimidation to thousands of non-American researchers and academics. He stated from the bench: "These secretaries failed in their constitutional duty to protect freedom of expression."

For its part, the State Department defended its decisions, considering Rubio's actions to be within the framework of protecting national security. A spokesperson for the department affirmed that "a visa is a privilege, not a right," and that the United States would not, in his words, allow the harboring of those suspected of supporting terrorism.

However, the documents reveal a stark contradiction in the government's position, as Homeland Security officials admitted that in most cases, they found no clear legal basis for deportation, except by relying on a rarely used 1952 law that grants the Secretary of State the authority to deem foreigners deportable for foreign policy reasons. The memos explicitly confirmed that the agency "did not identify any other basis for removal," including charges of material support for designated terrorist organizations.

In the case of researcher Rumeysa Ozturk from Tufts University, investigators admitted there was no evidence of her involvement in anti-Semitic or terrorism-supporting activities. Nevertheless, they recommended revoking her visa based on the "totality of circumstances," which in reality revolved around an opinion piece she wrote in a student newspaper calling for a boycott of investments linked to Israel.

As for the files concerning Mahmoud Khalil and Yunsu Chung, both from Columbia University, they focused on their participation in protests during which leaflets containing phrases attributed to Hamas were distributed, without any evidence that they were responsible for preparing or distributing them.

The documents also reveal that a special team within Immigration and Customs Enforcement, known as the "Tiger Team," reviewed the files of more than five thousand students linked to pro-Palestinian protests, using information from websites such as "Canary Mission" and "Betar US," two Israeli agencies known for tracking and publishing personal data about pro-Palestinian activists.

In conclusion of the case, Judge Young issued a ruling allowing immediate challenge to any future attempt to deport members of the academic organizations that filed the lawsuit, placing a legal burden on the government to prove that its actions do not involve retaliation based on opinion or academic activity.

Thus, this case not only reveals the targeting of specific students but also places the Trump administration before a broader accusation: using immigration and national security tools to suppress freedom of expression when it conflicts with the official US political line towards Israel, setting a dangerous precedent that threatens the core of academic freedoms in universities.

Israel seeks to restrict the number of Palestinians returning to Gaza to ensure that more leave than enter.

Where is the police? Or is negligence a policy?

Closing the center will deprive hundreds of students of their right to education and economic opportunities.

We want to ensure that all restrictions on aid entry are lifted and removed.

Judging the effectiveness of this council will not be through statements or media headlines, but through its actual ability to implement what is required on the ground.

The occupied West Bank is experiencing its worst humanitarian crisis since 1967.

30 tons of rubble besiege every person in the Strip, and removing this enormous volume will take at least 7 years.

Death in Gaza is no longer only linked to bombing, but has come from hunger, cold, lack of shelter, and absence of medicine.

It cannot be dealt with as a humanitarian vision or a rescue project for a devastated sector, as much as it is an integrated political project disguised under an economic and urban cover.

The crisis in Gaza is far from over, especially as people are dying daily.

The Rafah crossing will open for passage in both directions, and President Trump is closely monitoring the matter.

The Peace Council aims to make the Gaza Strip more secure and prosperous.

Israel seeks to engineer the crossing to be a tool for reducing the population density in the Strip.

Washington – Said Arikat

In a remarkable move that brought renewed attention to cinema's ability to transform individual pain into collective memory, the film "The Voice of Hind Rajab" received an official nomination for the "Oscars," the most significant cinematic awards in the world, in the Best International Feature Film category. This makes it one of the most prominent works competing in the 2026 edition. This nomination comes at a time when discussions are intensifying about the role of art in documenting wars and conflicts, and about the ethical boundaries between conveying reality and re-enacting it.

The film, by Tunisian director Kaouther Ben Hania, is based on one of the most painful Palestinian tragedies in recent years: the tragedy of Hind Rajab, a five-year-old Palestinian girl. On January 29, 2024, Hind found herself trapped inside a car targeted by the Israeli occupation army in the Tal al-Hawa neighborhood of Gaza City. Amidst the gunfire and fear, she cried for help over the phone, clinging to life with her small voice, counting the minutes while waiting for an ambulance to rescue her. But the wait stretched on until it became a trap; the voice went silent, the call faded, and she was later found dead inside the vehicle, her story becoming a stark mirror to the brutality of a genocidal war mercilessly targeting childhood.

whose phone call for help became a global symbol of the Israeli occupation's criminality, as well as for civilians trapped in danger zones. Although cinema has always addressed tragedies and wars, "The Voice of Hind Rajab" approaches the event as a pure testimony that does not seek sensationalism, but rather the truth that imposes itself on the narrative.

The work presents itself as a documentary-drama, blending real audio clips with a cinematic treatment that reconstructs the crucial moments of the story. This blend opens up a sensitive space: the film does not merely chronicle, but places the viewer within the feeling of time, pressure, and fear, as if trying to make the audience experience the weight of minutes that can change a person's fate.

The nomination in the Best International Feature Film category is not just a technical achievement; it indicates that the film has succeeded in penetrating the circle of influence to a global level, where works from different cultures and cinematic schools compete. This category often serves as a wide gateway for non-English-speaking cinema to make its voice heard in the world, away from the traditional "centrality" of Hollywood narratives.

Observers believe that the film's power stems not only from its subject matter but also from its intelligent choice of focus: sound as a narrative hero. When the camera is unable to see what is happening, sound arrives laden with hope and fear, becoming an undeniable moral document. From this perspective, "The Voice of Hind Rajab" transforms into an experience that transcends ordinary viewing, approaching an emotional confrontation with the question: What does it mean for a human to be heard but not saved?

On the other hand, this nomination reflects the continued rise of Kaouther Ben Hania as a prominent Arab-international name, especially after her works have garnered a wide critical and festival audience. It seems that "The Voice of Hind Rajab" enters the Oscars not as a "political news item" as much as it is a cinematic work that attempts to test the role of art as a means of reconstructing truth before the world's screens.

The 2026 Academy Awards ceremony is scheduled to take place on Sunday, March 15, 2026, in Los Angeles, a date when all eyes will be on whether the film will turn its nomination into a historic win, or merely solidify its presence as one of the most discussed international works this season.

The nomination of "The Voice of Hind Rajab" for an Oscar proves that cinema no longer merely tells a story but has become an arena for challenging official narratives. The film's strength is that it engages the viewer not only through images but through "sound" as living evidence that cannot be easily falsified. In an era where tragedies are reduced to numbers, cinema comes to restore the victim's name, face, and tone of fear. This type of film does not provide definitive answers, but it imposes an inescapable moral question.

The true significance of the nomination lies in opening a new door for Arab and international cinema to present works that are not "touristic" or decorative, but rather shocking in their honesty and the reality of their weight. Nevertheless, the challenge remains: how can human dignity be preserved when pain is transformed into artistic material? The film succeeds when it avoids emotional exploitation and gives the story its due without exaggeration. A potential win would mean that the Academy has begun to see "testimony" as an artistic value no less important than any innovation.

Kushner's vision contradicts UN estimates, as the Office for Project Services confirms that Gaza contains 60 million tons of rubble.

Hamas today stands at a rare crossroads in its political history, after a war that left Gaza devastated and placed the movement before a comprehensive strategic test. This is not merely about a tactical review, but about a potential repositioning that could redefine its role within the Palestinian national project and its standing in the region. Between the option of engaging in an Arab and international path that opens horizons for reconstruction and stability, or remaining in isolation imposed by its ideology and past calculations, Gaza appears to be a mirror of larger regional challenges, where Arab and international interests intersect with the movement's stakes in its political future.

In this context, the American Peace Council, announced by former President Donald Trump, plays a pivotal role as an influential factor in guiding Hamas's choices and strategy. The Council's work was not limited to providing political and economic frameworks for governing Gaza, but also established mechanisms for monitoring the implementation of any agreements and direct supervision of executive operations in the Strip. This continuous presence makes any Hamas move contingent on shared international and Arab standards, and acts as a stimulating pressure factor for the movement to adopt more disciplined policies responsive to Arab and international initiatives, instead of continuing in an undisciplined confrontational logic.

The recent war, with its unprecedented destruction and immense human cost, not only shocked the reality in Gaza but also exposed the limits of the model that governed conflict management throughout the past years, clearly demonstrating that continuing with the same logic is no longer possible or sustainable. Hence, the growing talk of Hamas transforming into a political actor suitable for the current phase cannot be treated as a rhetorical maneuver, but rather as an indicator of a deep realization that the next phase requires different tools and a different position.

This transformation comes at a complex regional and international moment, where the rearrangement of the Palestinian scene, especially in Gaza, intersects with clear Arab efforts to manage the conflict with Israel within less costly and more controllable limits. The announcement of frameworks for governing Gaza, and attempts to form technocratic committees, cannot be separated from an Arab desire to remove the Strip from the cycle of constant engagement, and to re-present the Palestinian issue to the world, especially to the United States, within a rational political framework that focuses on stability, reconstruction, and preventing a comprehensive explosion. In this context, Hamas finds itself facing the choice of conditional engagement in this path, or remaining in a position of rejection that may lead to further isolation and attrition.

Returning to the Arab and regional embrace appears here as a pivotal element in Hamas's repositioning. This embrace cannot be reduced to its Sunni dimension only; rather, it is a comprehensive Arab embrace, both Sunni and Arab Shiite, which has begun to deeply reconsider all the conflicts imposed on the region over recent decades. Experience has proven that linking the Palestinian issue to cross-border regional axes, foremost among them the Iranian axis, was a costly choice that did not serve Palestine as much as it transformed it into an arena within a regional struggle for influence and status between Iran and Israel. This conflict, in its essence, is not connected to the rights of Palestinians or their national aspirations, but to the calculations of regional powers that use Palestinian geography as an advanced pressure tool.

Notably, this realization is no longer exclusive to Sunni Arab political elites but has also begun to take root within Arab Shiite circles, which now clearly see that the Iranian project, in its current ideological form, does not serve their national interests or enhance the stability of their countries, but rather drains them and places them in constant confrontation with their Arab surroundings. This shift in the consciousness of Arab Shiites represents a highly significant development, as it restores the اعتبار (consideration/value) of the unifying political Arab identity and puts an end to attempts to reduce conflicts to sharp sectarian binaries. In this framework, Palestine once again becomes a unifying Arab issue, not a card in a sectarian conflict or an expansionist project.

Hamas's alliance with Iran, which was imposed at a certain stage under the pressure of siege and isolation, can today be described as a major strategic error. This alliance granted the movement military support with limited political impact, but it cost it the loss of its Arab depth, weakened its ability to maneuver, and provided Israel with a ready narrative to portray the conflict as part of a regional confrontation with Iran, rather than an issue of occupation and national rights. Worse still, Gaza was repeatedly pushed to be a testing ground for regional messages unrelated to the lives of its inhabitants or their future.

In contrast, Sunni Arab and regional states today appear more interested in re-containing Hamas rather than demonizing it, and in re-presenting it to the world within a disciplined Arab framework that opens channels with Washington and reduces the level of international hostility. This does not mean whitewashing the movement's image or unconditional acceptance of it, but rather realizing that its complete exclusion is no longer realistic, and that integrating it into an Arab political equation may be less costly than leaving it hostage to external axes. This path aligns with a broader Arab approach based on managing the conflict with Israel instead of escalating it, and achieving gradual gains, however limited they may seem, instead of sliding into open-ended wars with no horizon.

In the background of all this, a growing trend in American policy emerges, which can be read as an attempt to close the chapter of ideological conflicts in the Middle East. The United States seems to be seeking to remove Iran from the Arab sphere, not by militarily overthrowing it, but by dismantling its regional influence and stripping it of its cross-border ideological function. The goal, as understood from this trend, is to push Iran to transform into a state more focused on its internal affairs, less exporting crises, and more interested in good neighborliness, including with Arab countries and even with Israel. This path, although it may seem ambitious or with uncertain outcomes, reflects an American conviction that the continuation of the proxy Iranian-Israeli conflict drains the region and undermines any possible stability.

Despite all these facts, the most prominent question remains about Hamas's capacity and true intention to change. The movement, according to its identity and ideology linked to the Muslim Brotherhood, adheres to a rigid ideological vision that combines religious and political dimensions, and places resistance as the sole option for liberation at the core of its discourse. This ideological commitment makes it difficult to predict the extent of its willingness for real strategic change, or whether any transformation might be limited and temporary, linked to tactical requirements that do not go beyond managing the current crisis.

Within this complex scene, Hamas's transformation becomes part of a broader regional re-engineering, not just an isolated Palestinian decision. Its disengagement from the Iranian axis and its return to the Arab sphere aligns with a regional and international trend that seeks to liquidate proxy conflict arenas and redefine disputes within controllable political frameworks. This transformation, if well managed, could open a new horizon for Gaza and re-present the Palestinian issue as a matter of rights and occupation, not as a security file or a regional card.

In conclusion, Hamas stands at a historical testing moment, either to grasp the ongoing transformations and reposition itself within its natural Arab embrace, benefiting from the changing regional and international mood, or to remain captive to equations that have proven their failure and high cost. The success of this transformation does not depend on Hamas alone, but on a genuine Arab readiness to offer an alternative, and on the ability of Palestinians to regain their independent national decision. What is certain is that the next phase will not be like what preceded it, and remaining in yesterday's logic may be the greatest danger to the future of the Palestinian cause itself.

Preparations for the opening of the crossing have actually been completed, and it is expected to happen within 48 hours of the official approval.

Gaza is a beautiful piece of land on the sea, and it can become a great place if invested in correctly.

"The fake captain".. a security breach shakes the Israeli occupation army amidst the chaos of war.

The speech by Palestinian Prime Minister Dr. Mohammad Mustafa at the Davos Economic Forum 2026 came at a pivotal political and economic moment, not only for Palestine but also for an international system that appeared exhausted by accumulated crises and hesitant to bear the cost of radical solutions. From this perspective, the speech cannot be read as a mere protocol address at an economic forum, but rather as a conscious attempt to reposition the Palestinian issue within the global consciousness, by shifting it from a discourse of conflict and abstract rights to a discourse of stability, governance, and long-term economic risks.

What distinguished Mustafa's speech was his understanding of the Davos audience: heads of state, financial policymakers, leaders of international institutions, and investors who are not driven by moral sympathy, but by calculations of stability, risks, and returns. Therefore, he did not begin his speech with the narrative of Palestinian oppression, despite its legitimacy, but with a question that at first glance seems technical: How can a world striving for growth and stability ignore an open hotbed of instability in the heart of the Middle East? In this sense, Mustafa redefined the Palestinian issue as an international system issue, not a deferred local conflict file.

In this context, the two-state solution in his speech appeared not as a traditional political slogan, but as a functional necessity for regional stability. Occupation, as he presented it, is not only a violation of international law but also a structural impediment to development, a constant source of market disruption, supply chain fragmentation, and growing security risks. This link between the political and the economic reflects the transition of Palestinian discourse from the stage of moral demands to the stage of building a rational argument directed at global decision-making centers.

When Mustafa emphasized the necessity of empowering the Palestinian Authority and extending its jurisdiction over all Palestinian land, it was not merely an affirmation of political legitimacy, but a proactive attempt to paint a picture of a workable partner in the post-war phase. The implicit message here is that a political vacuum is more dangerous than the conflict itself, and that any project for reconstruction or economic recovery will not be possible without a unified political address, capable of administration, accountability, and fulfilling international obligations. In this context, Mustafa presented the Palestinian Authority as a governing structure that does not seek sympathy, but practical authorization.

Economically, the speech carried a striking shift in language. Instead of talking about aid, Mustafa used terms like planning, investment, and sustainable reconstruction. He tried to move Palestine from the image of an emergency humanitarian economy to the horizon of a post-shock economy, where the reconstruction of Gaza and the West Bank becomes a long-term project, conditioned by political stability and good governance. This approach clearly aligns with the logic of international financial institutions, which are no longer willing to inject money into unstable or unaccountable environments.

However, one of the most significant dimensions of the speech was its shifting of the moral burden from Palestinians to the international community. Mustafa did not ask the world to feel the suffering of Palestinians, but to bear its responsibility towards an international system that claims to respect law and human rights. Here, the discourse shifted from a language of pleading to a language of quiet accountability, as if the Prime Minister was implicitly saying: the failure of the solution is not a result of the absence of a Palestinian vision, but a result of the hesitation of international will.

At its core, the speech can be read as part of building a new Palestinian narrative for the post-war phase, a narrative that does not deny the magnitude of the tragedy, but refuses to remain captive to it; a narrative that seeks to redefine the Palestinian not as a perpetual victim, but as a political and economic actor capable of managing their state if the imposed restrictions are removed. This narrative shift is extremely important because it addresses the world in its own language and breaks the stereotype that has confined Palestinian discourse for decades.

Nevertheless, the speech is not without structural challenges. It relies heavily on an international community that has repeatedly demonstrated the limited extent of its willingness to move from words to actions. Furthermore, the success of the proposed vision remains contingent on complex internal Palestinian factors, primarily political unity and rebuilding trust between citizens and governing institutions. Despite this, the value of the speech lies not only in its direct results but in its serious attempt to reframe Palestine's position in the world's mental map.

Dr. Mohammad Mustafa's speech in Davos 2026 was not merely a Palestinian participation in a global economic forum, but an attempt to reintroduce the Palestinian issue into the heart of global discussion through the gateway of economics, stability, and governance. It is a speech that reflects the transition of the Palestinian leadership at the discourse level from crisis management to thinking about post-crisis management, and from addressing conscience to addressing interests, presenting the world with a clear choice: either invest in a just and sustainable solution, or continue to pay the cost of open chaos.

US President Donald Trump's speech at the Davos Economic Forum was not a fleeting protocol event, but rather a clear political declaration of the features of a new international phase, in which international legitimacy recedes in favor of the logic of power, and relations between states are reduced to the equation of deals and economic coercion.

From the first moment, the tone of the speech seemed condescending, seeing in the international system nothing but a burden restricting American will.

Trump did not speak of global cooperation or balanced partnerships, but rather of who pays, who commits, and who is punished. Here, Davos transformed from a platform for economic dialogue to a pulpit for political dictation, reflecting a structural shift in the American political mind: from leading the international system to bypassing it and controlling it from the outside.

Greenland and Gaza: One Logic

Trump's re-raising of the issue of "owning" Greenland, even in a negotiating formula, is not an isolated detail, but a clear expression of a mentality that considers geography a commodity, and sovereignty a negotiable file.

This same logic is applied today to Gaza, where the Palestinian issue is managed as a security-humanitarian matter, not a matter of national liberation and political rights.

In both cases, the will of the people is marginalized, the land is reduced to its strategic dimension, and international law is replaced by top-down arrangements imposed by the balance of power.

Gaza, according to this logic, becomes a testing ground for the peace of power: reconstruction without sovereignty, calm without a political horizon, and administration without national rights.

The United Nations on the Margins

The absence of any serious reference in Trump's speech to the role of the United Nations or resolutions of international legitimacy is not a coincidence, but rather consistent with accumulated American policy based on: obstructing the Security Council, withdrawing from international agreements, and replacing UN references with bilateral or regional understandings led by Washington.

In the Gaza file, this marginalization is clear: UN resolutions without implementation, versus an American administration that acts as the sole authority, not as a partner within a multilateral international system.

Security for Payment

Trump's attack on NATO and his linking of security to financial payment reflects a dangerous redefinition of the concept of collective security.

Security is no longer a mutual commitment, but a paid service. This is the same logic applied in Gaza: aid instead of rights, relief instead of a political solution, and temporary stability instead of a just peace.

In conclusion: Trump's speech in Davos confirms that the world is heading towards a post-international legitimacy phase, where conflicts are managed by the logic of power, laws are emptied of their content, and the issues of peoples are reduced to security and technical files.

However, historical experience confirms that the peace of power does not last, and that what is imposed without justice is doomed to explode. Gaza, like Greenland, is but a magnified mirror of a world where the international system is eroding, and the future of law and justice is being tested on the edge of brute force.

————

Historical experience confirms that the peace of power does not last, and that what is imposed without justice is doomed to explode. Gaza, like Greenland, is but a magnified mirror of a world where the international system is eroding, and the future of law and justice is being tested on the edge of brute force.

When a government violates democratic principles, massive peaceful demonstrations can send a powerful message. They are a means for the people to collectively express their commitment to democratic values and call for change without resorting to violence. The massive protests that followed the killing of Renee Good by Immigration and Customs Enforcement in Minneapolis were not spontaneous, but an explosion of anger and an accumulation of long-standing tensions with the government.

The demonstrations emerged from the struggle to reconcile law enforcement authority with greatly eroded public trust. The public's reaction reflects deep concerns about how immigration affairs are managed, how federal power is exercised, and the absence of accountability when deadly force is used by federal agents.

The protesters in American cities against Immigration and Customs Enforcement are doing what must be done, even if it involves serious risks. But there is no alternative to people taking to the streets and demonstrating peacefully. Popular protest is not symbolic or abstract; it is a concrete action of critical importance, as it makes it harder for the government to commit crimes without accountability.

The protests that followed Good's killing were driven by fear and insecurity as much as by grief, as demonstrations spread across the country. A consistent pattern emerged in cities with widely varying political and social spectra. Protesters expressed similar concerns, including the breakdown of law and order and the disgraceful conduct of the Trump administration.

The continuation of peaceful, persistent, and repeated demonstrations involving millions from coast to coast is an essential condition for protecting our democracy and ending the nightmare that has swept the country. Millions of Americans, regardless of their political affiliations, races, origins, or religions, who care about the future of the country, must take to the streets with one message:

We will not back down, we will not surrender, we will not be intimidated, we will remain steadfast and firm, and we will resort to any other peaceful means, including civil disobedience and strikes, until Trump ceases his violations of our democratic principles and fully adheres to his constitutional oath to defend and protect the Constitution.

However, expressing opposition is not limited to peaceful protests; open dialogue is another means of expressing opposition, and it can include various groups. Community leaders, educators, civil society organizations, and even ordinary citizens can contribute to public dialogues and community forums. It is about creating a space where people exchange their views and listen to each other. Saving our democracy is a shared duty and responsibility at the societal level.

Without effective accountability mechanisms, public trust erodes, and protest becomes the only remaining tool for citizens. From a political perspective, the scale of these protests indicates an institutional imbalance: law enforcement systems rely not only on legal authority but also on the consent of the people.

The people who will bear the brunt of dictatorial rule must be the first line of defense, ready to confront any threat, intimidation, or use of force, and remain steadfast and firm in their commitment to protecting our precious democratic way of life.

It must be emphasized repeatedly that continuous and widespread popular protests across the country from coast to coast are the only way to stop the lawless Trump administration from destroying our democracy before it is too late.

———

The massive protests that followed the killing of Renee Good by Immigration and Customs Enforcement in Minneapolis were not spontaneous, but an explosion of anger and an accumulation of long-standing tensions with the government.

Nazmi Al-Salman: The occupation continues to establish an unprecedented settlement reality within systematic strategic policies to impose new facts on the ground and change the face of the West Bank

Muhammad Abu Allan Daraghmeh: Despite its unofficial disapproval, the American administration does not oppose annexation, by turning a blind eye to the unlimited settlement expansion in the West Bank

Anas Abu Arqub: Israel relies on the "settlement belts" strategy, which aims to create a network of interconnected settlements around Palestinian cities and villages to isolate them from their surroundings

Mazen Al-Ja'bari: Area "C" constitutes about 60% of the West Bank's area, and if it is emptied of the possibilities of life and sovereignty, nothing will remain of the idea of a state except a political title over isolated population islands

Amir Makhoul: The Israeli right is currently going through a difficult and critical stage and will seek to strengthen its control geographically, but it is unable to strengthen it demographically, as the migration balance to the settlements is not positive

Within systematic policies to impose new realities on the ground to change the geographical and demographic realities in the West Bank, the occupation is establishing an unprecedented settlement reality in the occupied Palestinian territories to control them, through decisions issued by various occupation institutions such as the army, the so-called "Civil Administration" and nature protection, in conjunction with settler violence, and what has become known as pastoral settlement, which controls vast areas of land throughout the West Bank, and has begun to form points for the launch of settler violence and their organized terrorism.

Writers and specialists warn in interviews with "Y" that the facts on the ground indicate an unprecedented increase in the pace of aggression by the occupation and its settlers, which is being carried out by organized groups of settlers trained to practice all forms of violence against citizens, including physical assaults, shooting, burning vehicles and property, stealing livelihoods, depriving citizens of water springs, and displacing them from their lands, noting that the issue of settlement encroachment in the West Bank is no longer limited to Area "C", but has extended to Area "B", and is even trying to reach Area "A", by imposing Israeli control over some sites on the pretext that they are archaeological, historical and religious sites, as is the case in Joseph's Tomb in Nablus.

Unprecedented increase in the pace of aggression and settlement

Nazmi Al-Salman, a specialist in settlement affairs, says: The Israeli occupation continues to establish an unprecedented settlement reality on the occupied Palestinian territories in all governorates of the West Bank, from Masafer Yatta in the south of Hebron, through Ramallah, Nablus, the northern and central Jordan Valley, and the north of the West Bank, specifically in Jenin, pointing to several systematic strategic policies of the occupation to impose new facts on the ground and change the face of the West Bank.

Al-Salman explained that the occupation aims to control Palestinian lands through decisions issued by various occupation departments such as the army, the so-called "Civil Administration" and nature protection, in conjunction with settler violence, which has become known as pastoral settlement, which controls vast areas of land throughout the West Bank, noting that the pastoral settlement outposts have begun to form points for the launch of organized settler violence and terrorism against the Palestinian people.

Al-Salman stressed that the facts on the ground and the extent of the attacks indicate an unprecedented increase in the pace of aggression against our people, which is being carried out by organized groups of settlers trained to practice all forms of violence against citizens, including physical assaults, shooting, burning vehicles and property, stealing livelihoods, depriving Palestinian citizens of water springs, and displacing them from their lands.

He explained that "in the face of this organized violence and terrorism, as indicated by the facts, it is done with the consent and protection of the occupation army, and dozens of Palestinian Bedouin communities have been forced to leave their homes and forced migration," stressing that this terrorism and fierce attack on citizens coincides with many decisions issued by various occupation departments, in a policy of sharing roles to achieve the main goal, which is to displace Palestinian citizens from their land and annex lands, through decisions that establish what is to come, most notably allowing settlers to buy land directly from the West Bank and allocating vast areas for pastoral outposts, and allocating huge budgets for new settlement construction projects and developing existing settlements, legitimizing pastoral outposts, and approving structural plans.

Al-Salman stressed that all these measures have led to the creation of an expelling environment, and forced many Bedouin communities to leave under continuous pressure from settler violence.

He said: In a clear continuation of the occupation's policy of expansion and annexation of Palestinian lands, the occupation's decision first comes to the return of settlers to settlements that were evacuated in 2005, especially in the northern West Bank, and the offering of tenders for the construction of thousands of housing units, and the occupation's approval of the establishment of 19 new settlements.

Al-Salman believes that these measures change the face of the West Bank and reshape Palestinian geography, as tenders for the construction of housing units have been offered in the vicinity of Jerusalem in what is known as E1, and another settlement project has been announced that separates the Qalqilya and Salfit governorates, and shows Palestinian towns and villages as isolated enclaves, while changes are taking place on the ground in favor of the settlers, such as: road construction, the establishment of bridges and sewage services, and communication and surveillance towers to serve the settlement project.

He added: These measures serve the occupation project that the Minister of Finance in the occupation government, Bezalel Smotrich, boasts about, which aims to bury the idea of an independent, geographically contiguous Palestinian state, and destroys the Palestinian dream of freedom, independence, and imposing sovereignty.

Al-Salman pointed out that "in the face of this unprecedented settlement encroachment that has swallowed vast areas of land classified as "C", and now has moved to the outskirts of Palestinian towns and villages in areas classified as "B", the Palestinian citizen stands unarmed and peaceful in the face of this occupying displacement project, and that it is necessary to support and strengthen the steadfastness of citizens through practical measures on the ground that citizens can feel, especially the land guardians who live in isolated farms and communities, with simple living necessities," adding that it is necessary to unify and integrate official and popular efforts to support the steadfastness of citizens, and to thwart the annexation and displacement project, and it is necessary to revive popular efforts, and to develop programs and plans to share citizens' concerns, and to emulate previous successful experiences, and to expose the occupation's policies at the international level through networking with many international organizations and human rights bodies.

Settlement encroachment is no longer limited to Area "C"

Muhammad Abu Allan Daraghmeh, a specialist in Israeli affairs, believes that "the issue of Israeli settlement encroachment in the West Bank is no longer limited to Area "C", but has extended to Area "B" and is even trying to reach Area "A", by imposing Israeli control over some sites on the pretext that they are archaeological, historical and religious sites, as is the case in Joseph's Tomb.

He confirmed that settlers have been allowed for some time to storm the city of Nablus, even in broad daylight, to perform their biblical rituals, which confirms that this falls within the framework of a systematic encroachment policy, which can be placed within three main contexts.

Daraghmeh believes that the first context is the endeavor to completely eliminate the two-state solution, which is actually being implemented on the ground. He referred to Smotrich's statements, who said that his life's dream is to end the idea of the two-state solution, stressing that "there will be no state between the sea and the river, but only the State of Israel," as he put it.

As for the second context, it lies in imposing new realities on the ground, which facilitates the official annexation process later. The current practices represent actual annexation, and what delays the official announcement is the lack of explicit American approval.

Daraghmeh explained that the American administration, despite its unofficial disapproval, does not oppose actual annexation, by turning a blind eye to the unlimited settlement expansion in the West Bank, which is clearly consistent with Smotrich's policy, who calls for the annexation of about 82% of the West Bank's area, and leaving 18% as cantons for Palestinians, without forming a real Palestinian entity or national gathering.

As for the third context, according to Daraghmeh, it relates to imposing new borders within the West Bank, pointing out that one of the most prominent evidences of this is the eastern wall of the Tubas Governorate and the northern Jordan Valley, which extends from the Ein Shibli area to the Tayasir checkpoint for about 22 kilometers. This wall comes within a broader project implemented by the occupation to completely isolate the Tubas Governorate from the Jordan Valley area.

He explained that what delays the annexation process is America's approval, which does not oppose actual annexation in the West Bank, noting that the separation wall being implemented from Ein Shibli to the Tayasir checkpoint, 22 kilometers long, and paralleled by a road extending along the area, forms part of a larger wall, two phases of which have not yet been announced by the Israeli occupation army.

Abu Allan Daraghmeh explained that this wall aims to impose new borders for the Tubas Governorate, by separating urban communities from agricultural lands in the Jordan Valley, which means isolating hundreds of thousands of dunams behind the wall. When completed, the governorate will be surrounded by a wall from the eastern side, which practically constitutes its final borders, despite its primary reliance on agriculture in the Jordan Valley area, which is besieged by the occupation army.

Abu Allan pointed out that after the war on the Gaza Strip, and during the past two years, about 33 pastoral communities were completely displaced, in addition to the partial displacement of about 12 pastoral communities, in the area extending from the northern Jordan Valley to the south of Mount Hebron, explaining that this displacement is carried out by the civilian arms of the occupying state, i.e., the settlers, who implement plans to control lands and attack Palestinians, under the patronage and protection of the Israeli occupation army.

Daraghmeh added: These attacks have now extended to various governorates of the West Bank, not only to areas classified as C, but also to areas classified as B, with the same approach continuing and settlers approaching city centers, if the pace of attacks remains the same.

Ways to confront settlement and occupation policy

Regarding ways of confrontation, Daraghmeh said: Palestinians no longer have effective tools to stop settler attacks, in light of the urgent need to unify the Palestinian political ranks, and to develop a national program to confront settlement and occupation policies.

Daraghmeh stressed that the continuation of the division, and the division of the Palestinian reality between the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, in addition to the projects proposed for Gaza, such as the so-called Peace Council, contributes to deepening the existing division. He stressed that the solution remains dependent on serious international and Arab action to stop the policies of the Israeli occupation state.

Focus on decisive action in desert areas

For his part, journalist and researcher specializing in Israeli affairs, Anas Abu Arqub, said: "Field readings indicate that the current stage of the settlement project in the West Bank focuses on decisive action in desert areas, especially the Jordan Valley and rural areas."

He stressed that settlement is no longer gradually creeping, but is advancing at a rapid pace that exceeds the expectations of the leaders of the Israeli settlement project. He added that in these areas, expansion is accompanied by the displacement of Bedouins to ensure exclusive control for settlers and to deprive local residents of pastures, while efforts continue to impose influence and expropriate agricultural lands in mountainous rural areas.

Abu Arqub pointed out that Israel relies in this context on the "settlement belts" strategy, which aims to create a network of interconnected settlements around Palestinian cities and villages to isolate them from their natural surroundings, stop their urban expansion, and impose demographic and geographical control.

He noted that internally interconnected settlements and settlements within the Green Line transform the surrounding lands into a continuous settlement extension, making Palestinian cities besieged islands with limited growth and development, as part of a long-term plan to reshape demographic and geographical maps to serve the Israeli presence.

Strategy of isolated settlement enclaves

Abu Arqub added that in addition to this, Israel adopts the "strategy of isolated settlement enclaves," based on expanding existing settlements and establishing geographically separate communities, supported by a network of bypass roads, checkpoints, and industrial zones, through confiscating private Palestinian lands and declaring them "state lands," explaining that this approach leads to tearing apart the Palestinian geographical space and undermining communication between villages and agricultural lands, and is accompanied by the destruction of agricultural lands that have been cultivated for decades and their transformation into settlement projects under the protection of the army and police, which reflects the goal of systematic control over the land, its fragmentation, and the imposition of new colonial realities that exclude Palestinians from their lands.

Abu Arqub warned that these policies have direct repercussions on Palestinian society, including weakening the agricultural sector, hindering access to land, distorting the environment and water resources, and creating increasing geographical and social isolation between communities, noting that experts confirm that generalizing this model in other areas, especially in Hebron, will increase fragmentation and undermine opportunities for sustainable development.

Abu Arqub stressed that the settlement project, whether as an Israeli government plan or a series of deliberate attacks carried out by settlers, enjoys actual international support through donations for arming settlers, political cover, or providing human resources for settlements, as a large part of the settlers hold European, American, and Canadian nationalities.

Abu Arqub believes that the ability of Palestinians to confront the settlement project by self-means, whether as individuals or as a political system, remains very limited, and cannot bring about change without a decision from the European Union or the United States to stop settlement, and to begin dismantling it and actually considering it illegal, otherwise the end of the Palestinian presence in specific areas is very near.

Area "C".. the actual decisive arena

Mazen Al-Ja'bari, a specialist in Israeli affairs, stressed that in the heart of the West Bank, Area "C" is the actual decisive arena for embodying the colonial project in Palestine.

He said: It is not just an administrative classification, but the space where land is managed as policy, through planning, licensing, road construction, resource control, and connecting settlement blocs to each other.

Al-Ja'bari added: For this very reason, Area "C", which constitutes about 60% of the West Bank's area, is the backbone of any future Palestinian entity; if it is emptied of the possibilities of life and sovereignty, nothing will remain of the idea of a state except a political title over isolated population islands.

A well-orchestrated colonial path reshaping the map

Al-Ja'bari believes that settlement encroachment in Area "C" can no longer be read as isolated events, but as a well-orchestrated colonial path that reshapes the map and transforms temporary control into actual annexation on the ground.

He pointed out that the figures for 2025 reveal the extent of this path, with structural plans for a total of 29,311 settlement units in the West Bank (excluding East Jerusalem) being pushed forward, which are not just paper projects, but official planning paths that pave the way for construction and consolidating facts.

Al-Ja'bari added: At the same time, part of this push moved to a more direct stage through record construction tenders totaling 9,629 units during the same year, meaning that the project is not content with expanding maps, but is moving towards establishing a permanent physical presence.

He stressed that "with the beginning of 2026, no slowdown appeared; as the pattern of pushing plans continued, and early indicators emerged such as advancing new plans for more than thousands of settlement units at the end of 2025 and early 2026, indicating an escalating pace to consolidate annexation and change the demographic and geopolitical features of Area "C".

He asked: Why is the battle focused specifically on Area "C"? He said: Because it is the area through which Palestinian cities and towns can be suffocated without directly invading them. When population blocs are surrounded by settlements, bypass roads, military zones, and planning restrictions, the Palestinian becomes a resident within a closed enclave, and the land around him becomes an open space for settlement expansion alone. Here lies the essence of encroachment, not just land confiscation, but future confiscation; by preventing urban expansion, suffocating the local economy, fragmenting communication between villages, and turning freedom of movement into daily hardship and continuous humiliation.

Al-Ja'bari explained that this policy gains its weight from a huge settlement demographic bloc; at the end of 2024, the number of settlers reached 503,732 in the West Bank and 233,600 in East Jerusalem, a total of 737,332 settlers. This figure is not just a population count, but a political, economic, and security pressure force that fuels annexation demands and transforms settlement into a system of governance over the land. The gradually forming result is a scene of scattered Palestinian "islands," surrounded by settlement blocs, road networks, and military checkpoints, turning Palestinians into residents of isolated cantons within a fragmented homeland.

He also asked: What will remain in Area "C" if the encroachment continues? He believed that there will remain an existence without space: Palestinian communities managed as a demographic issue, not a sovereignty issue, cities without depth, besieged villages, a disconnected economy, and a map that changes day by day to serve actual annexation and close the horizon of a state.

Al-Ja'bari believes that the way to stop this encroachment begins by returning Area "C" to the center of political and field engagement, not as a postponed file but as a title for the ongoing decisive action, and consolidating presence on the ground by protecting threatened communities and supporting agriculture, housing, and services to prevent slow displacement, and accumulating an organized legal and media battle that exposes the engineering of isolation and fragmentation and transforms settlement into a cost, not a gain, adding: The most important thing is to impose an effective political and economic price on the annexation project, because settlement advances when it is confident of the absence of deterrence. Only then can the equation of occupation without cost be broken, and the transformation of Area C into a permanent reality that ends the possibility of a state and leaves Palestine as isolated islands on a gradually swallowed land be prevented.

The dream of the Israeli right has reached its peak

For his part, Amir Makhoul, a specialist in Israeli affairs and director of the Progress Center for Policies, stressed that the dream of the Israeli right has reached its peak, and although the right seems to be living its golden age and best moments, fundamentally and deeply it is going through its deepest crises. The Israeli right is breaking; it broke in Gaza, where no actual settlement or displacement ultimately occurred. It also broke in Lebanon when it thought it was capable of sending archaeologists to search for synagogues and other things, in preparation for settlement and gaining a foothold, and the same is true in southern Syria.

Makhoul explained that the right was practically unable to legislate the annexation law due to Arab and international pressures, in addition to the American position, including the position of the American ambassador who may agree with the right ideologically, but in the end represents American policy. This policy fears the position of Arab countries, especially those that have diplomatic relations with Israel.

He pointed out that the right is currently going through a difficult and critical stage; it rules almost absolutely, but it is unable to implement its promised projects, whether the decisive plan or others.

Makhoul suggested that Israel is heading for an election year, which will be reflected in a very significant escalation against Palestinians in the West Bank, Jerusalem, and within the 1948 territories, especially in the Negev and coastal cities. He noted that indicators of this escalation have begun to appear with unprecedented clarity.

Makhoul added that the state of extremist right-wing lawlessness, supported by the army and state institutions, represents an attempt to save what can be saved of the right-wing project, and at the same time represents the peak of this project, specifically in the West Bank.

Makhoul explained that the right will strive with all its might to strengthen its control geographically, but it is unable to strengthen it demographically, as the migration balance to the settlements is not positive, neither for the settlers nor for Israel. At the same time, there are plans to build about one hundred thousand housing units, without actual settlers to live in them yet, which worries the right. It may try to push the Haredim to these areas, but that is not guaranteed.

The battle today is over land, not demography

Makhoul stressed that the right is in deep crisis, and therefore seeks to control the largest possible area of land, even through practices such as seizing livestock from Syria and transferring it to farms established for settler families, allowing each family to control thousands of dunams. The battle today is a battle over land, not demography, as the right is unable to displace or expel Palestinians, nor to bring enough Israelis to live in these areas.

Makhoul explained that control over land is linked to the plan to end what is known as Area "C", which is not only Smotrich's or Ben Gvir's project, but primarily Netanyahu's plan, with the aim of preventing the establishment of a Palestinian state, while intersecting with Smotrich's decisive plan, and Ben Gvir's plans for displacement and ethnic cleansing.

He considered that how to repel this project requires, as in Gaza, an Arab incubator, and he said in the absence of an organized or authoritative Palestinian capacity capable of actually protecting the population and preventing control.

He stressed the need for an effective Arab role, which makes pressure on Washington more effective than pressure on Tel Aviv, provided that this pressure is collective Arab pressure.

Makhoul stressed that organizing people and farmers within the framework of self-protection is important, but not sufficient, because it is about an occupying power, a state, an army, and armed settlers who possess all the tools of repression. He pointed out that the targeting is currently focused on remote areas, but it may later extend to cities, as is happening in Hebron, which seems more likely for this escalation, in the context of seeking to tighten control over the Jordan Valley.

Makhoul stressed that this does not necessarily mean Israel's success, emphasizing the existence of possibilities for diplomatic action through mobilizing Arab weight and the Arab bloc in the United Nations and at regional and European levels.

In a moment the White House intended to appear as the opening of a post-war phase, Jared Kushner, former advisor and son-in-law to US President Donald Trump, presented a multi-stage vision for reshaping Gaza during the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, on Thursday. Kushner stated emphatically that there is "no alternative plan" for the reconstruction of the sector, which has been exhausted by a two-year war between Israel and Hamas, and that it is time to move from managing destruction to engineering a new future that promises "peace and prosperity."

The "Peace Council," signed by US President Donald Trump, along with a handful of world leaders, on the sidelines of the Davos Economic Forum on Thursday, has become part of political history. However, what is striking about this event is not the fanfare of the signing or the handshake photos, but rather the emptiness of meaning surrounding it. So far, not a single clarification has been issued explaining the nature of the council's mission, its boundaries, its tools, or how it is supposed to touch the reality of Gaza and its citizens, whom Israel has not stopped killing, according to field reports, since the ceasefire began on October 10. While the council is supposed to be a title for reconstruction and post-war calm, Gaza appears before a world celebrating a new entity without providing a single guarantee to stop death or restore life.

Kushner, who played a pivotal role in the ceasefire negotiations that ended the fighting in October, presented what he described as a 20-point "roadmap," some details of which are based on elements of the truce agreement that has only been partially implemented so far. The plan, according to what was presented, starts from the south: by reopening the Rafah crossing on the Egyptian border, then gradually moving north, stage by stage, until the complete reconstruction of the entire Gazan geography is completed. The vision includes provisions related to establishing a port and an airport, re-establishing basic infrastructure, and developing tourism projects that contribute to creating a new economy for the sector.

However, the backbone of this vision, as Kushner stressed, is the condition of "disarming Hamas" as the key to any real reconstruction. He went further by saying that reconstruction will only begin in areas where disarmament is actually taking place, and that the implementation mechanism will be based on the principle of "security first" before cement and cranes. He also hinted at a controversial option: granting limited amnesty to some Hamas elements who agree to lay down their arms, with the possibility of integrating them into a new security apparatus in Gaza, as a transitional framework to stabilize the situation and prevent the return of fighting.

Kushner, despite his optimistic tone, admitted that a project of this magnitude would not be without obstacles: it would require many years, funding of no less than $25 billion, as well as complex political and regional agreements. But he said the White House chose to "plan for spectacular success," referring to a political will that wants to transform the ceasefire from a temporary stop to a permanent path.

Concurrently, Trump held what was called a "signing ceremony" in Washington to launch the new Peace Council; an entity originally designed to follow up on Gaza arrangements, but Trump hinted that its scope might expand to include other international conflicts. Despite the United States inviting about 60 countries to join, the ceremony was attended by only about 20 countries, including Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, Argentine President Javier Milei, and officials from Qatar and Saudi Arabia.

Orbán was the only European leader present, after other European capitals refused to engage in the council or expressed fears of a potential composition that might include Russia, and the possibility that the council could become a parallel platform that weakens existing international institutions—especially given Trump's rhetoric, which does not hide his disdain for some of these bodies.

But what attracted the most attention, politically and symbolically, was Israel's absence from the launch ceremony. Despite Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's statement that Israel would join the initiative with reservations about the presence of Turkey and Qatar—as supporters of Hamas—he was not present in Davos, where Switzerland is a party to the International Criminal Court, which issued an arrest warrant against him. Israeli President Isaac Herzog, who was in Davos, also did not participate in the ceremony, leaving a question mark about the extent of Israeli enthusiasm for the new path.

In a notable development, an Egyptian official announced during the event that the Rafah crossing—closed since the October 7, 2023 attack—would be reopened in both directions next week. This announcement comes as Israel had linked the opening of the crossing to the return of the last Israeli hostage in Gaza, Ran Gvili, which Hamas agreed to as part of the ceasefire arrangements.

In the face of criticism and skepticism regarding the effectiveness and composition of the council, Kushner called on those with reservations to temporarily suspend their judgments, saying: "Just calm down for 30 days... The war is over. Let's work together," in an attempt to give political and media momentum to a project that the White House sees as an entry point for consolidating its influence in a highly sensitive issue.

Experts believe that what Kushner is proposing is not a "reconstruction plan" in the traditional sense, but an attempt to redefine Gaza politically, security-wise, and economically all at once. Reconstruction here is conditional on disarmament, meaning that the restoration of life becomes a reward linked to changing the power structure within the sector. This logic creates a dilemma: Can lasting stability be built without a comprehensive political settlement that guarantees Palestinians a horizon and rights? Or will focusing on security alone reproduce the crisis in a new form?

As for the "Peace Council" launched amidst semi-empty seats, it appears to be an American declaration of desire to form a platform outside traditional international frameworks, based on selective alliances rather than broad consensus. Israel's absence from it, despite its direct involvement in Gaza, weakens its symbolism from the very first moment, revealing that the project has not yet matured to become a comprehensive framework. Peace councils are not measured by celebrations, but by their ability to bind parties and provide enforceable guarantees.

"Amnesty International" stated on Thursday in a statement regarding the signing and launch of the so-called "Peace Council" concocted by US President Donald Trump with the advice of his son-in-law, Jared Kushner: "The ceremony held today to mark the establishment of the so-called 'Global Peace Council' reveals a blatant disregard for international law and human rights, and represents a new and clear embodiment of the escalating assault on UN mechanisms, international justice institutions, and universal standards."

The statement indicated that "led by its anticipated president, President Donald Trump, and with membership including US allies, among them a number of heads of state personally invited by him, this alleged mechanism fundamentally contradicts the international legal order upon which the global system is based."

The world's leading human rights organization affirmed: "This represents a strong slap in the face to decades of efforts to promote global governance through adherence to universal values and achieving greater equality among member states. It also obstructs legitimate efforts to address shortcomings and gaps in the current system. Now, specifically, is the time when international law must be supported, defended, and applied, not abandoned in favor of temporary arrangements shaped and distorted by political and economic interests, personal ambitions, or vanity."

Amnesty International's statement reflects a sharp and clear stance on the Trump administration's attempt to create alternative political frameworks outside the international legal system, within a broader context of systematic undermining of multilateral institutions, especially the United Nations and international courts of justice. The organization's use of terms such as "blatant disregard" and "escalating assault" indicates that the matter is not viewed as a fleeting political initiative, but rather as part of a confrontational path aimed at redefining international legitimacy according to power balances, not agreed-upon rules.

It is noted that the statement attributes a personal character to the initiative, linking it directly to Trump's political ambitions and a narrow circle of allies, which deprives it of any claim to neutrality or inclusivity, and makes it a tool for reproducing hegemony instead of achieving peace.

This statement is consistent with Amnesty International's historical position on the Palestinian issue, where the organization consistently affirms that any just settlement must be based on international humanitarian law, UN resolutions, and the principle of peoples' right to self-determination. The organization has described Israeli occupation policies, in documented reports, as amounting to an apartheid system, and has explicitly rejected all initiatives that bypass inalienable Palestinian rights, or redefine peace in isolation from justice and accountability.

From this perspective, the organization views the proposed "Peace Council" as an attempt to impose political solutions that empty international law of its content and provide cover for existing violations, especially in Palestine.

US President Donald Trump launched the Peace Council on Thursday, which was originally focused on ending the war in Gaza before Washington said it might play a larger role, raising concerns among international powers.

But Trump stressed that the council would work with the United Nations.

Trump said, "Once this council is fully formed, we will be able to do almost anything we want to do. And we will do it in coordination with the United Nations," adding that the international organization has great potential that has not been fully utilized.

Trump, who will chair the council, invited dozens of other world leaders to join, saying he believes the council will address other global challenges beyond the fragile ceasefire in Gaza, and that he does not intend for the council to be a substitute for the United Nations.

Some traditional US allies have shown reluctance to join the council, either with cautious responses or by rejecting the invitation. Trump says that permanent members of the council must contribute to its funding by paying one billion dollars each.

Representatives from countries presented as founding members were present in the hall during Trump's speech, with no representatives from other major world powers' governments, or from Israel or the Palestinian Authority.

The signing ceremony took place in Davos, Switzerland, where the annual World Economic Forum, which brings together world political and business leaders, is held.

With the exception of the United States, no other permanent member of the United Nations Security Council has yet accepted to join the council, these five countries being the most influential in international law and diplomacy since the end of World War II.

Russia said late Wednesday that it was considering the invitation to join, after Trump said it had accepted. France refused, and Britain said Thursday it would not join at this time. China has not yet said whether it will join.

The establishment of the council was approved by a resolution of the UN Security Council as part of Trump's peace plan for Gaza, and UN spokesman Rolando Gomez said Thursday that the UN's involvement with the council would be limited to this context only.

Amnesty International's statement reveals a deep awareness of the seriousness of the ongoing transformations in the international system, where the threat is no longer limited to violating rules, but to replacing them with parallel mechanisms managed outside global consensus. The most dangerous aspect of these initiatives is that they are presented in the name of "peace," while marginalizing justice, which makes them a tool for perpetuating conflicts rather than resolving them, especially in the Palestinian context.

What Amnesty International warns against, according to experts, goes beyond the Trump administration itself, extending to a political precedent that may tempt other powers to dismantle the international system according to their own interests. In a world where universal institutions are marginalized, international law becomes a selective option, not a binding reference. For Palestine, this means the danger of transforming established rights into bargaining chips, granted or withdrawn according to the balance of power, not according to justice.

US President Donald Trump announced on Thursday that the United States had sent a "huge fleet" of warships towards Iran, a move with clear strategic implications, but one that – according to him – does not reflect a direct desire to use military force. Trump affirmed, in his remarks to reporters aboard Air Force One returning from Davos where he inaugurated the "Peace Council," that his administration prefers political and diplomatic solutions, while keeping all options on the table if developments necessitate it.

The US President explained that the military movement comes within the framework of what he described as "preventive deterrence," stressing that Washington is monitoring the situation in Iran "closely," amid escalating tensions against the backdrop of internal protests and sensitive regional issues. He added: "We have a huge fleet heading in that direction, and we may not have to use it," indicating that the military presence is primarily aimed at political pressure and preventing escalation, not igniting it.

In a related context, Trump reiterated his claim that his public threats led the Iranian authorities to back down from executing 837 protesters. He said: "They said they canceled the executions, they didn't postpone them," considering this as evidence of the effectiveness of his administration's "maximum pressure" policy towards Tehran. However, these statements were not supported by independent confirmations from human rights organizations or UN sources, which raises questions about the accuracy of this narrative.

The dispatch of the American fleet near the Iranian coast reflects Washington's continued reliance on military deterrence as a tool for political pressure. The American administration realizes that any direct confrontation with Iran would be costly regionally and internationally, and therefore prefers to display force rather than use it. This approach is consistent with the American doctrine of "peace through strength," but at the same time, it raises the level of tension and makes the margin for strategic error more dangerous.

Trump's statements regarding the cancellation of death sentences in Iran fall within his usual political discourse that links threats with humanitarian outcomes. However, the absence of independent documentation weakens the credibility of this claim and reveals the instrumentalization of the human rights file within a political and media battle. Human rights issues, when used as leverage, may lose their moral dimension and turn into a bargaining tool.

In a remarkable development, Trump touched upon what he called the "Peace Council," indicating that he theoretically has the right to remain its president for life after his presidential term ends. He said: "I have the right to stay if I want... we'll see what happens," adding that he is unsure if he wants to continue, even though the charter allows it. This statement drew widespread criticism, given its implications regarding the concentration of political influence outside traditional democratic frameworks.

Trump affirmed that the Peace Council could play a pivotal role in complex issues, foremost among them the situation in Gaza, and perhaps in other international crises. He indicated that the Council would work in coordination with the United Nations, denying accusations that Washington seeks to marginalize or replace the international organization through it.

The US President revealed that countries such as Russia offered to contribute more than a billion dollars to fund the Peace Council, the same amount required for permanent membership in the Council. In contrast, he acknowledged strong opposition from major countries such as the United Kingdom and France, while other countries, including Italy and Poland, expressed their desire to join, pending the completion of internal constitutional procedures.

It is worth noting that the idea of a "Peace Council" raises a deep problem related to the future of the international system. The attempt to create parallel frameworks to the United Nations reflects a loss of confidence in multilateral institutions, but at the same time threatens to dismantle international legitimacy. The participation of major countries in this council may enhance its influence, but it will open the door to a more divided global system less capable of producing consensus.

Regarding the controversy surrounding the bruise on his hand, Trump explained that he bumped into a table, and that his aspirin intake led to a change in skin color, indicating that the matter carries no alarming health implications, despite the repeated appearance of similar bruises over the past year.

We have serious doubts about a number of provisions of the Peace Council's charter, related to its scope of work, its administration, and its compatibility with the United Nations Charter.