An official Israeli statistic showed that more than 69,000 Israeli residents left the country during the year 2025.

Trump and Netanyahu agreed to move to the second phase of the Gaza ceasefire agreement.

In a moment where feelings of loss and consolation manifested, Ibrahim, the sole survivor of the targeting, son of the military spokesman for Al-Qassam Brigades "Abu Ubaida" Hudayfa Al-Kahlout, chose to draw the curtain on his father's life in a different way.

The initial direct losses in 15 vital sectors are estimated at more than $33 billion during 2025 amid the ongoing repercussions of the crime of genocide against our Palestinian people.

The number of martyrs in Palestine exceeded 72,000 martyrs since the start of the Israeli war on October 7, 2023, 98% of them in the Gaza Strip.

The Gaza Health Ministry announced on Wednesday that the toll of Palestinian casualties resulting from the Israeli genocide since October 2023 has risen to "71,269 martyrs and 171,232 injured".

The Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas emphasized on Wednesday that Israel's genocide war against the Palestinian people will not achieve its political or security objectives.

The health situation in the camps is catastrophic, children are in severe danger!

The year 2025 draws its bloody curtain on the Gaza Strip, leaving behind an unprecedented chapter in the chapters of the Palestinian Nakba.

Since the beginning of 2025, the Higher Planning Council affiliated with the Israeli Civil Administration approved 28,163 housing units, which is an unprecedented record for the number of units in one year.

The Israeli occupation requires, in addition to disarming the Islamic Resistance Movement "Hamas" and the tunnel weapons in Gaza, the withdrawal and collection of 60,000 pieces of Kalashnikov-type weapons.

Palestinian journalists formed the first line of defense for truth in 2025, as they were witnesses to the Israeli massacres and conveyors of facts from the heart of the event.

Continuing to deal with the deteriorating reality will lead to complete exhaustion of Palestinian resources politically and economically.

There is no problem between the central government and Somaliland until it goes to Israel.

Israel is retaliating against Palestinians by carrying out demolition operations on their homes.

Israel stands on the threshold of a new demographic era, characterized by a decline in natural increase and instability in the migration balance.

53% of multinational companies are considering relocating their investments, although 57% of them continue to operate stably.

The targeting of civilians in Gaza continues coinciding with the worsening suffering of the displaced amid the weather depression striking the sector.

A new spirit is beginning to form in the Middle East from among the ruins and destruction, expressing rejection of endless cycles of violence, and striving to build a future for children.

On Sunday evening, I gave a lecture to a group of about forty university students at Reichman University. My lecture, naturally, was about negotiations, and primarily about how to make peace between Israel and Palestine—two states for two peoples. For some reason, in the first half of my talk, I didn't pay enough attention to the fact that many of these students had spent most of the past two years in reserve duty, fighting in Gaza. Their questions and comments did not try to hide how and where their opinions were formed. It was a big challenge, because the experience of being an Israeli soldier in Gaza over the past two years leaves little room for considering alternative ideas. There is a strong need for the individual to justify what they did in Gaza for two years, and October 7 constitutes a very strong motivator to believe that what Israel did in Gaza was completely correct.
And it is also difficult to challenge the prevailing thinking (which is largely groupthink), because most of the mainstream Israeli media has become an echo chamber for statements by the IDF spokesperson and government members. It is also difficult because we generally tend to read what we agree with and listen to it, and we tend not to challenge ourselves by reading or listening to things we disagree with.
In light of that, presenting alternative narratives to what we have gone through—not only in the past two years, but over the past decades—supported by a large amount of real data, facts, and actual events, poses a new challenge for the listeners. I don't think I actually convinced any of the students who didn't agree with me from the start. But I am quite sure that I posed real challenges for those who disagreed with me—and they were the majority.
And when I presented the two-state solution as the only solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (because the conflict is about the land and the identity of the two peoples and the country—the same land for both peoples between the river and the sea), one student responded by saying: I don't care if there's a Palestinian state alongside Israel, I just don't want to see them anymore. Let them have a state, but we'll build very high walls so they won't cross into Israel again. Another student said: I have no mercy for them, let them rot, I don't care. Israel is not obligated to give them anything. A third student responded that the conflict is essentially a conflict between Judaism and Islam, not a political conflict. And he said: Islam is against the Jews because Muslims see Jews as heretics.
I replied that there is no solution to the conflict based on higher walls and stronger fences. True peace can only exist when there is cross-border cooperation. There will be no peace if Palestinians feel they are living inside a cage condemned to poverty. Even today, about 85% of what Palestinians buy comes from Israel, and 65% of what they export goes to Israel. Peace must be built through cooperation in every possible aspect of life—from culture to tourism, trade, and even education. We must learn from each other, and for that, every Israeli should study Arabic from the first grade, and every Palestinian should study Hebrew from the first grade.
And I said that we are not obligated to feel pity for the Palestinians, and we are not obligated to give them anything. What we need is to stop being an obstacle to their economic and political development. Most of the obstacles to Palestinian economic development are Israeli restrictions and barriers on the Palestinian economy—from the banking sector to trade restrictions on imports and exports, to the movement of people and goods, and so on. We are not obligated to show 'mercy,' but it makes no sense at all for Israel to want poor Palestinian neighbors. The prosperity of Palestinians is a national security interest for Israel.
And regarding the claim that Israel is not obligated to 'give the Palestinians anything,' I did not hide the fact that Israel will be held largely responsible—for the damages it caused in Gaza. Even now, and at this early stage, there is a demand that Israel pay the cost of removing millions of tons of rubble resulting from buildings and infrastructure that were bombed and demolished by Israel in Gaza. This will not pass without consequences.
As for whether this is a religious conflict between Islam and Judaism, I claim that it is not; rather, it is a political conflict over the land and identity, where many identity issues are strongly rooted in religion. Even Hamas, I said, is not exactly 'the Muslim Brotherhood' from which it emerged; Hamas is a Palestinian national Islamic movement, not a transnational Islamic movement. Hamas's goal was 'liberating Palestine from the Zionists,' not making the whole world Muslim. And there is something many don't know: during 18 years of Hamas's complete control over Gaza, Islamic law—the Sharia—was not made the law of the land. Gaza was governed by Hamas under Palestinian civil law, not Islamic religious law.
I presented to the students what I see as a logical, even simple equation between Israel and Palestine: Israel will not have true security if Palestinians do not have true freedom; and Palestine will not have true freedom if Israel does not have true security. It's that simple. Israel needs security, and Palestinians need freedom.
But a student asked: How can we trust them—they have violated every agreement we signed with them. So I replied: First, both Israel and the Palestinians have violated every agreement signed. No party has fully implemented the agreements they signed. Second, the Oslo process was extremely naive. There was an implicit assumption in the Oslo agreements that we would work together and build enough trust to negotiate the difficult final status issues—the Palestinian state, borders, Jerusalem, refugees, etc.
I said that we cannot allow ourselves to sign naive agreements, nor allow ourselves to repeat the same mistakes. There must be a clear, written, and agreed-upon 'endgame'—meaning that agreements should start with the understanding that the outcome will be a two-state solution for two peoples. Second, we cannot enter a new peace process that does not guarantee the full implementation of the commitments undertaken by both parties. This means that we must create a reliable third-party mechanism to monitor and verify the implementation of the agreements. There must be measurable steps with defined criteria, and a third-party mechanism that decides when to move to the next stage based on the implementation of the parties' commitments as stated in the agreements. The subsequent stages involve greater risks, so a third-party monitoring and verification mechanism significantly reduces the risks. There was broader and more interesting discussion, but since I meet and lecture to groups of Israelis and Palestinians often, there will be more to share in the future.
And I concluded my talk with the words I often say when I meet students: Don't believe anything I said! Put a question mark at the end of every sentence you disagree with, then verify what I said. But don't just go to sources you agree with—look for other voices and sources you disagree with, and challenge yourselves to confront an alternative reality to the one you feel completely safe with in your lives.
===================================
I replied that there is no solution to the conflict based on higher walls and stronger fences. True peace can only exist when there is cross-border cooperation. There will be no peace if Palestinians feel they are living inside a cage condemned to poverty. Even today, about 85% of what Palestinians buy comes from Israel, and 65% of what they export goes to Israel

- Dr. Hussein Al-Dik: The meeting showed near-complete agreement on major issues, especially the Gaza Strip file and the transition to the second phase..
- Khalil Shahin: The coming phase may witness showy steps by Trump without implementation that changes the reality in the Gaza Strip..
- Dr. Ahmed Rafiq Awad: The American administration has retreated from the seriousness of implementing "Trump's plan" and Netanyahu succeeded in relieving the pressure to push the agreement path..
- Muhammad Al-Rajoub: The meeting confirms the strength of the alliance between Washington and Tel Aviv, but it revealed deep strategic contradictions regarding the future of the West Bank..
- Dr. Qasi Hamed: The most complex file is the West Bank file, and Trump does not want to reach the collapse of the Authority or the outbreak of a broad confrontation..
- Dr. Raed Abu Badawiya: The most dangerous in the meeting is turning the West Bank into the direct political price for the understanding between Netanyahu and Trump..

 The recent meeting between US President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu represents a clear strengthening towards Israeli influence in the Middle East region and a deliberate disregard for Palestinian rights, where Trump fully adopted the Israeli vision.
According to writers and political analysts and specialists and university professors in separate interviews with "Al-Quds", the meeting revealed Trump's open support for Netanyahu, which strengthened his political position internally and allowed him to manage Palestinian files in a way that serves his electoral interests without offering any real concessions, as well as strengthening Israeli influence in the region.
The writers and specialists and university professors believe that despite talk of steps towards the second phase in the Gaza Strip and reconstruction, the field reality has not changed, as Israeli control over the crossings and control of aid remained in place, without pressure on the occupation to change its policies, leaving room for Netanyahu to exploit Trump's statements to enhance his image before the Israeli public.
A pivotal station and a political victory for Netanyahu..
Professor of Political Science and International Relations and specialist in American affairs Dr. Hussein Al-Dik confirms that the meeting between US President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida constituted a pivotal station in drawing the map of the coming Middle East, and represents in essence a clear political victory for Netanyahu, who came out of the meeting achieving most of what he aspires to, both regionally and at the level of the domestic Israeli political scene.
And Al-Dik explains that Netanyahu, who is suffering from a sharp decline in opinion polls and his inability to ensure a future majority for him and his right-wing allies, greatly benefited from the unprecedented praise that Trump gave him, when he described him as "the great man and war hero", considering that these statements fall within an early electoral propaganda campaign directed at the Israeli public and society.
And Al-Dik points out that these statements have a profound impact internally in Israel, in light of the great confidence that the Israeli society has in Trump, as the president whose name is associated with the release of Israeli prisoners from the Gaza Strip, and the special and exceptional relationship between Washington and Tel Aviv.
And Al-Dik clarifies that Netanyahu, known for his political cunning, succeeded in managing the meeting and tailoring its outputs to his benefit, benefiting from prior moves made by the Zionist lobby and its allies in the United States, including those with financial, economic, and extensive relations with Congress and the American administration.
And Al-Dik points out that Israel, whose standing within the American society has declined in the past two years, has reactivated its organizations and lobbies, in addition to Christian evangelicals and "MAGA" groups, to influence American public opinion and re-image its image.
On the external level, Al-Dik confirms that the meeting showed near-complete agreement on major issues, especially the Gaza Strip file and the transition to the second phase of the American plan.
"Sunrise Plan" scenario as an alternative to the second phase..
And Al-Dik explains that Trump's talk of imminent reconstruction is linked to activating a clause in the American plan that allows reconstruction in areas controlled by the Israeli army in case of delay in transitioning to the second phase, in reference to what is known as the "Sunrise Plan" that is expected to start from Rafah, which sends a message that Trump's plan is still going ahead, and that Netanyahu has not been an obstacle to it.
And Al-Dik points out that the possibility of reopening the Rafah crossing, and entering humanitarian aid according to the agreed mechanisms, could constitute tangible achievements if realized, and give Trump an opportunity to market a political success domestically and internationally.
And Al-Dik excludes in contrast, the realization of a scenario of disarming Hamas quickly, considering that this path needs a long time, and perhaps years, as shown by previous international experiences, noting the existence of differences between Israeli, Egyptian, and American estimates regarding the time frame for this process.
Regarding managing the Gaza Strip, Al-Dik explains that the talk of a Palestinian technocratic committee still faces major obstacles, in light of the lack of a clear reference, and Israeli and American rejection of its connection to the Palestinian Authority, in addition to security complexities and the existence of armed militias and a suffocating humanitarian crisis, which makes the work of any technocratic government fraught with risks.
As for the West Bank file, Al-Dik sees that there is a difference between Trump and Netanyahu, with American pressure to stop settler attacks, while files on Iran, Lebanon, and Syria saw broad consensus, with giving Netanyahu a green light for possible military action against Iran, albeit postponed due to internal Iranian conditions, fearing that any attack would unite the Iranian street behind the regime.
Slowing the transitional path towards the second phase..
The writer and political analyst Khalil Shahin confirms that the results of the meetings held by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu with US President Donald Trump, in addition to his meetings with the Secretary of State and Trump's close advisors, clearly indicate Netanyahu's success in slowing the transitional path towards implementing the issues related to the second phase of Trump's plan for the Gaza Strip.
And Shahin explains that this slowdown was one of Netanyahu's main goals, who realizes the difficulty of convincing Trump to retreat from a plan that carries his name, and enjoyed broad international support, including a resolution issued by the Security Council and the holding of international summits supporting it.
Nevertheless, Trump – according to Shahin – needs to show some progress in transitioning to the second phase, even if it is a formal progress that fits the slow pace preferred by Netanyahu.
Promotion linked to an election year in Israel..
And Shahin points out that Netanyahu's strategy revolves around exploiting all elements of regional tension, including the continuation of military escalation in Gaza, operations in Lebanon and Syria, in addition to the looming threat of war against Iran, for internal political purposes linked to an election year that has practically begun in Israel.
And Shahin notes that Netanyahu may resort to advancing the date of elections, perhaps to mid-2026, which means he needs a period of no less than six months to exploit the atmosphere of war and tension to enhance his electoral chances.
And Shahin clarifies that Netanyahu is keen not to take any steps that can be interpreted internally, whether from his partners in the ruling coalition or from his more extreme electoral base, as concessions that align with Trump's plan.
And Shahin gives as an example the Rafah crossing file, explaining that any step of this kind will be limited and reversible at any time, because it requires withdrawals from around the crossing, which is politically difficult for Netanyahu to undertake.
And Shahin sees that Netanyahu achieved an important gain by refocusing on the condition of disarming Hamas and all weapons in the Gaza Strip, citing Trump's statements in which he emphasized the necessity of Hamas agreeing to disarm, or resorting to imposing it by force even by the countries supporting the plan.
And Shahin expects that the coming phase will witness steps of a showy nature by Trump, such as announcing the formation of a "Peace Council" in January 2026, and perhaps holding a meeting for it on the sidelines of the Davos Forum, in addition to talking about forming a Palestinian technocratic governing body and an international stabilization force, without this being accompanied by actual implementation that changes the reality on the ground in the Gaza Strip.
And Shahin confirms that the field reality will remain as is, with the continuation of the occupation army's control over about 58% of the Gaza Strip area, and the possibility of expanding this control, in addition to continuing assassinations and control of aid.
And Shahin expects the continuation of Israeli military operations in Lebanon, with relative calm in Syria within undeclared understandings, and the continuation of pressure on Iran while keeping the military option on the table.
And Shahin points out that the net result is limited political progress in exchange for giving Netanyahu additional time in which he maintains the cohesion of his ruling coalition, and focuses on his internal files, benefiting from Trump's support and portraying himself before the Israeli public as the leader capable of managing the relationship with Washington without offering real concessions.
The meeting's outputs reflected submission to the Israeli agenda..
The writer and political analyst Dr. Ahmed Rafiq Awad believes that the results of the meeting that brought together US President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu came "disappointing to a great extent" regarding the Palestinian issue in general, and the Gaza Strip and the West Bank in particular, confirming that this meeting did not achieve any real breakthrough that can be built upon politically or field-wise.
And Awad explains that the meeting's outputs clearly reflected the American administration's submission to the Israeli agenda in all the files discussed, where Washington seemed to have fully adopted the Israeli vision, whether in political, security, or even humanitarian issues, which confirmed the continuation of the great and continuous American support for Israel without any conditions or controls.
And Awad points out that the American administration seemed retreating from any serious determination to implement what is known as Trump's plan, noting that Netanyahu succeeded in relieving the American pressure and the political momentum that was relied upon to push the agreement path forward, which was reflected in the American position that is not clear to the Palestinians, but in contrast was completely clear to Israel in terms of continuing military and political support, and adopting Israeli threats and conditions as they are.
According to Awad, many bet that this meeting would constitute a turning point or an entry for tangible changes, but the facts proved that the meeting was not up to the expectations, and did not lead to any real solutions or proposals feasible on the ground, in light of the absence of any real pressure on Israel or the American administration from the guarantors or mediators or regional and international parties.
Pushing towards the second phase with Israeli measures..
And regarding the possible scenarios after the meeting, Awad suggests that Israel, with American support, will move to what is called the second phase of the agreement, but according to Israeli conditions and criteria exclusively, exactly as the first phase was implemented in a way that serves Israeli goals.
And Awad explains that this may include keeping what is known as the "yellow line" as a fait accompli border, with deducting more than half of the Gaza Strip area and keeping it under Israeli control.
And Awad points to the possibility of continuing full Israeli control over humanitarian aid, and over any stabilization force that may be formed if it happens at all, in addition to keeping the Rafah crossing file hanging without any serious discussion, as for the West Bank, the talks did not lead to any notable results.
And Awad warns that the expected outcomes indicate the continuation of the Israeli war but at a low pace kept silent about, within a strategy aimed at managing a long-term conflict under the cover of a ceasefire, so that it disappears from international attention.
And Awad considers that the American administration's adoption of the Israeli vision for the second time, despite international decisions like Resolution 2803, reflects the guarantors' inability to bring about any real change in the American position.
Direct threat messages to Iran..
The academic and researcher in public administration and political science Muhammad Al-Rajoub believes that the meeting that brought together US President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu came to confirm once again the strength of the political and security alliance between Washington and Tel Aviv, but at the same time revealed deep strategic contradictions, especially regarding the future of the West Bank and the risks of pushing the region towards a broader regional escalation, especially with Iran.
And Al-Rajoub explains that the main message that came out of the meeting is strong American support for Israel, but this support is not devoid of a clear diplomatic and regional price.
And Al-Rajoub points out that the meeting showed agreement on transitioning to the next phase of the ceasefire plan in the Gaza Strip, but this agreement was coupled with harsh conditions, the most prominent of which is dismantling Hamas' weapons, which confirms that the goal is not addressing the roots of the conflict, but imposing a temporal settlement from a position of strength.
And Al-Rajoub points to the meeting also including direct threat messages to Iran, in case it continues to develop its missile program or advances militarily, considering that these messages reflect the desire of Trump's administration to impose a timeline for the regional settlement without seriously addressing occupation issues, at the forefront of which is the West Bank.
Despite the verbal harmony between the two parties, Al-Rajoub confirms that Trump acknowledged the existence of differences with Netanyahu on the West Bank file, which means that American policy towards settlements and Palestinian self-rule is still prone to friction with the Israeli position, and may turn into an internal pressure factor within Israel itself.
And in the security and military dimension, Al-Rajoub sees that the successive statements and upcoming arms deals reinforce the idea that Israel's military protection will remain the axis of the American relationship with it, regardless of the president's identity, which entrenches harsh balances in the region and raises the possibilities of confrontation, especially with Iran and its allies in Lebanon and Syria.
As for the domestic political level, Al-Rajoub explains that Netanyahu seeks to exploit American support to strengthen his political and judicial position internally, while Trump seeks a diplomatic victory that reintroduces him as a dominant mediator in the Middle East, and this exchange serves electoral and personal goals for both parties, but it is done at the expense of the Palestinians and prolongs temporary solutions.
Managing the conflict not solving it..
And regarding possible scenarios, Al-Rajoub suggests consolidating a conditional calm in Gaza in exchange for a postponed escalation, or transferring pressure to the West Bank through expanding settlement and tightening security measures.
And Al-Rajoub did not rule out a calculated regional escalation with Iran through limited strikes or proxy confrontations.
And in the worst possibilities, Al-Rajoub warns of the failure of understandings and the return to a broader war, which makes the meeting a point before the explosion not a tool for containment.
And Al-Rajoub confirms that all these scenarios fall within the framework of managing the conflict not solving it, pointing out that the fundamental question that the Trump-Netanyahu meeting did not answer remains: How long can the explosion be postponed without addressing its real roots?
Arranging priorities and pressing necessities..
Professor of Political Science at Al-Quds Open University Dr. Qasi Hamed believes that the relationship between US President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu does not witness fundamental differences in the major files, specifically the Iranian file and Hamas movement, but the real divergence between the two parties lies in arranging priorities and pressing necessities for each file, which directly reflects on the nature of mutual pressures between them.
And Hamed explains in his talk about the recent meeting between Netanyahu and Trump, that Netanyahu currently faces simultaneous pressures in three main files, the first of which is the Iranian file, where Netanyahu is subjected to American pressure not to risk involving Israel and the United States in a new war with Iran.
And Hamed points to Trump's position who issued clear warnings to Iran against any attempt to develop its nuclear program, which makes this file a tool in Netanyahu's hand for bargaining and political pressure on the American administration, without going to an open confrontation without American green light.
As for the second file, according to Hamed, it relates to the transition to the second phase of the ceasefire agreement in the Gaza Strip, as Netanyahu does not show real desire to transition to this phase, and prefers to extend the first phase or keep it, especially after achieving his basic goals from it represented in the release of Israeli prisoners.
According to Political Science Professor Dr. Qasi Hamed, Netanyahu uses the pretext of disarming Hamas to justify his rejection of transitioning to the second phase, in exchange for pressures exerted by Trump to push him to do so, within the framework of the president's efforts to consecrate his image as an international mediator and peace maker.
And accompanying these pressures, according to Hamed, political and diplomatic temptations for Netanyahu, including Washington's support for him in his upcoming electoral campaign.
And Dr. Hamed sees that the third file, and the most complex, is the West Bank file, where Trump does not want the situation in the West Bank to reach the point of collapsing the Palestinian Authority or the outbreak of a broad confrontation, and considers settler attacks and settlement expansion as dangerous indicators that may lead to a comprehensive explosion.
Despite the absence of a strategic disagreement between Trump and Netanyahu on the principle of annexation and settlement expansion, Hamed clarifies that the disagreement revolves around the timing of these policies and their limits, fearing that they may lead at this stage to an uncalculated field escalation.
And Political Science Professor at Al-Quds Open University points out that Netanyahu tries to exploit the West Bank file internally, by presenting settlement and annexation as a political achievement that he addresses to the Israeli right, especially in light of the pressures he faces from internal issues such as the "Haredim" file and preparations for the upcoming elections, and at the same time, Netanyahu shows caution from a comprehensive explosion in the West Bank that may turn against him politically.
And Hamed sees that the future scenarios for the relationship between Trump and Netanyahu range between bargaining and passing files and avoiding direct confrontation.
And Hamed suggests that Netanyahu will respond, even reluctantly, to Trump's steps related to transitioning to the second phase in Gaza, while continuing to put obstacles, while verbal escalation towards Iran will remain present without slipping into war, in exchange for an expected acceleration in the pace of settlement in the West Bank, considering it the most prominent card in Netanyahu's upcoming electoral calculations.
Clear understanding on managing the conflict instead of ending it..
Professor of International Law and International Relations at the Arab American University, Dr. Raed Abu Badawiya, considers that the meeting of US President Donald Trump with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu cannot be read as a step towards a political solution, but as a clear understanding on managing the conflict instead of ending it, in a context that consecrates the existing reality and postpones the essential issues through deliberate ambiguity.
And Abu Badawiya explains that the meeting, despite the absence of any announced political breakthroughs, established a basic equation meaning Washington's abstention from exerting real pressure on Netanyahu, in exchange for Israel's not obstructing the American path related to the Gaza Strip. And Abu Badawiya points out that this understanding was clearly reflected in the matching of the political discourse between the two parties, and in avoiding delving into fateful files, at the forefront of which is ending the war or opening a real political horizon for the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.
And Abu Badawiya clarifies that the meeting did not constitute a real negotiation space, but came as a framework for coordinating mutual interests, where Trump seeks to achieve a marketable political achievement domestically and abroad, while Netanyahu works to maintain the cohesion of his right-wing government and prevent its disintegration under the pressure of internal contradictions.
According to Abu Badawiya, the major issues were deliberately postponed through a policy of ambiguity, which allows both parties to avoid the cost of difficult decisions.
The West Bank as a direct political price for the meeting..
And Abu Badawiya points out that the most dangerous result of the meeting is turning the West Bank into the direct political price for this understanding between Netanyahu and Trump.
According to Abu Badawiya, while Gaza is managed as a temporary calm file, the West Bank is opened to an accelerated path to entrenching Israeli control through "functional annexation", which is embodied in expanding settlement, transferring powers from the military administration to Israeli civilian ministries, and tightening the security grip, without an official announcement of annexation.
And Abu Badawiya points out that this path does not exclude, but paves the way, for a partial annexation in the future of some areas or large settlement blocs, if an American silent umbrella is available, in harmony with the logic of the "Deal of the Century".
And Abu Badawiya points to the West Bank turning from a postponed negotiation paper to a political compensation tool internally for Netanyahu, while the conflict is redefined for Palestinians as a security and political management issue not a liberation issue, which effectively empties the idea of the Palestinian state of its content before the official announcement of its end.

This year bids us farewell without lifting its dark clouds from the sky of the Gaza Strip. Another heavy year has passed upon us, as we live under constant anxiety, pursued by policies of killing, starvation, and siege, and we welcome it and bid it farewell from within displacement tents, where the harshness of the weather mixes with the bitterness of loss, and survival itself becomes a daily act of steadfastness.
There is no doubt that October 7th was an exceptional event in the history of our Palestinian struggle, a pivotal moment that reminded us of a truth that the occupation tried to erase for a long time: that this people has not been broken, that its will for resistance is still alive, and that it is capable—in principle—of confronting and overcoming the occupation, if the minimum balance of power is provided, or even some justice in the positions of the world's countries.
However, the harsh truth that must not be skipped is that Israel did not wage this war alone. It fought Gaza with all the American military and security capabilities and technologies, and with full Western political and diplomatic cover, while we—here lies the real weakness—faced the war machine almost alone. No internal united front to lighten the cost, no Arab or Islamic back to support and defend us, and no international community that fairly addresses the Palestinians' legitimate right to resistance, or even in applying the two-state solution it claims to adopt, which the majority of the world's countries support in theory and ignore in practice.
Yes, it can be said that October 7th was a battle in which resistance triumphed in its first moment, but it opened in return the door to a comprehensive unequal war, in which we lost tens of thousands of martyrs and wounded, and during which the urban, economic, and social infrastructure of the Gaza Strip was destroyed. The Palestinian people were not defeated, and Benjamin Netanyahu did not achieve a political or moral victory, but he committed widespread massacres, destroyed the basic life systems of water, electricity, and hospitals, and turned more than two million people into displaced persons living in tents that do not protect against heat or cold nor preserve the privacy or modesty of their inhabitants.
By the standards of wars and their outcomes, and away from slogans and emotions, it cannot be denied that the estimates were wrong, and that the calculations did not take into account the size of the response, nor the nature of the international system, nor the readiness of this world to turn a blind eye to a crime of genocide committed live on air, as long as the victim is Palestinian.
And from here, a clear discrepancy emerges today between the general discourse of the Hamas movement and the discourse of the Palestinian street from the tent dwellers. The movement sees that it has achieved important breakthroughs in Western public opinion, pushed towards broader recognitions of a Palestinian state, and brought the Palestinian issue back to the forefront of the international scene.
In contrast, the Palestinian street—exhausted by wounds, loss, and displacement—looks at things from a different angle: the angle of the exorbitant cost, the spilled blood, the demolished homes, and the increasingly obscure future of the children.
This discrepancy does not mean betrayal, nor denial of the right of resistance as a legitimate right guaranteed by international laws, but it imposes a sincere and courageous national review that distinguishes between the legitimacy of the act, the wisdom of the decision, and between intentions and results. Peoples do not live on abstract meanings alone, but on their ability to endure long-term, protect their humanity, preserve their internal unity, and build a comprehensive strategy not driven by reactions.
This year bids us farewell while the Palestinian division remains dominant, and Gaza with all its wounds is still bleeding, but history has not been written yet. And the greatest lesson that should not be neglected is that our true strength lies not only in the courage of confrontation, but in unity of ranks, good judgment, and building a comprehensive national project that does not leave Gaza alone, nor the Palestinian alone, in facing an international system whose moral balance has been disrupted.
A year departs… and Gaza remains, with its wound, its patience and tears, and its right that does not lapse with time.
=========================================
This year bids us farewell while the Palestinian division remains dominant, and Gaza with all its wounds is still bleeding, but history has not been written yet. And the greatest lesson that should not be neglected is that our true strength lies not only in the courage of confrontation, but in unity of ranks, good judgment, and building a comprehensive national project that does not leave Gaza alone, nor the Palestinian alone, in facing an international system whose moral balance has been disrupted

Today, in Israel, licenses for 37 international non-governmental organizations were revoked, and the validity of the licenses for these organizations, which operate in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, expires on January 1st.

Although Israel had required international organizations to register in advance to continue their work, a condition imposed before the ceasefire and the approval of the UN Security Council resolution on Gaza, what followed revealed that the measure was not regulatory or administrative, but part of a pre-planned political strategy to dismantle the relief system, not to regulate it. With the ceasefire, it does not appear that the United States and Israel are heading towards alleviating the humanitarian catastrophe, but on the contrary, they are playing a systematic destructive role targeting the international humanitarian and judicial system, in a clear effort to redefine the rules of international law and international humanitarian law, to deny Israel's crimes in the Gaza Strip, and to provide political and legal cover that ensures impunity.

What is happening today is not limited to obstructing aid or administrative restrictions, but constitutes a conscious attempt to reshape the international system itself, based on the law of force rather than the force of law, serving Israel's interests exclusively, at the expense of the Palestinian people's rights, the dignity of the victims, and the meaning of international justice. In this sense, Israel is not managing a humanitarian crisis, but using it as a tool of sovereignty, and redefining international law as a privilege that it grants or withdraws according to its political and military calculations.

In this context, UN agencies and dozens of non-governmental organizations, in a joint statement, condemned the new Israeli registration procedures, describing them as "vague, arbitrary, and highly politicized". These procedures are not technical or regulatory, but represent a direct political control tool over humanitarian work in Gaza, transforming it into a field subject to the occupation's conditions and security priorities.

The prevention of several international organizations from registering, including reputable ones, opens the door to the actual collapse of the relief network in a sector where more than two million people depend on aid to survive. Refusal of registration means expelling international staff, halting operations, and cutting access to the banking system, i.e., complete paralysis of these organizations' ability to operate.

The United Nations has clearly warned that the collapse of international non-governmental organizations' work cannot be compensated, as these organizations pump more than a billion dollars annually into Gaza, manage about a third of hospital beds, most malnutrition treatment centers, and about 70% of food distribution points.

As for the Israeli pretexts for refusing registration, such as "antisemitism", "terrorism", and "delegitimizing Israel", they are nothing but elastic concepts used to silence any party that documents crimes or conveys victims' testimonies, and to turn human rights criticism into a political crime. Thus, human rights concepts themselves are turned into criminalization tools, and humanitarian solidarity is redefined as a security threat.

In the same context, Israel withdrew work permits from international humanitarian organizations to prevent them from operating in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, claiming incomplete registration procedures, with repeated fabricated accusations against some employees of involvement in "terrorist activity".
Israeli lawyers confirmed that the authorities provide no evidence, making legal defense almost impossible, while organizations that refuse to immediately hand over sensitive information about their Palestinian employees are classified in the "hostility" category,  in an obvious attempt to subject humanitarian work to security and military oversight.

Here, the talk is no longer about aid or relief, but about complete political subjugation: who is allowed to work, who receives assistance, how, and under what conditions and discourse.

The most dangerous is what is being prepared for after December 31st. According to European diplomatic sources, the United States is seeking to  "start from scratch" in coordinating humanitarian work, meaning emptying Gaza of organizations with accumulated expertise, and replacing them with new entities with no field presence, but politically aligned with the American-Israeli vision.

The talk about "screening beneficiaries", distribution conditions, and direct military administration reveals that the goal is not relief, but controlling the Palestinian society and reengineering it socially and politically, under the labels of "stability" and "peace".

Yesterday, Britain, France, and Canada, along with several other countries, issued a joint statement expressing their concern over «the renewed deterioration of the humanitarian situation in the Gaza Strip». Among the countries that supported the statement: Denmark, Iceland, Norway, Sweden, and Japan. However, these belated diplomatic positions remain futile, without real pressure, despite more than 80 days since the ceasefire.

Meanwhile, the United States is deepening its undermining of what remains of the international justice system, by imposing illegal sanctions on judges of the International Criminal Court due to their participation in the investigation of war crimes and crimes against humanity in Gaza. The Court described these sanctions as «a blatant attack on the independence of international justice», confirming that targeting judges for applying the law threatens the entire international legal system. The American message is clear: Justice is only allowed when it does not touch Israel.

This cannot be separated from Western and Arab positions. With the seriousness of subjecting humanitarian work and targeting the independence of international justice, most Western countries have contented themselves with bland reactions, in the framework of expressing concern or calling for «restraint», without practical steps or real political pressures. This silent complicity has given the United States and Israel a wide margin to impose new rules that weakened the status of international law and consecrated its selective application. Also, the adoption by some Western countries of the Israeli narrative under the titles of «security» and «counter-terrorism» came at the expense of the principles they have long claimed to adhere to, making the defense of humanitarian work and judicial independence conditional on the identity of the victims rather than legal reference.

As for the Arab position, it appeared inadequate to match the scale of the ongoing transformations. Except for general political statements, Arab countries have not succeeded in formulating a collective position capable of pressure or influence, or using their diplomatic, legal, and economic tools. This shortcoming not only reflects weakness in action, but leaves Palestinians in Gaza facing policies imposed on their lives and dignity without an effective regional support.

What is happening in Gaza goes beyond war and destruction, turning the sector into a testing ground for redefining international law, humanitarian work, and justice, according to the logic of domination and impunity. Israel is not content with starving Gaza, but seeks to control who provides it with food, who documents its suffering, and who demands justice for its victims. As for the United States, it provides political and legal cover, and punishes anyone who dares to break this equation.
In this scene, Gaza alone is not targeted, but the concept of humanity itself is targeted, and international law is reshaped to serve the logic of power rather than justice.

The Palestinian situation is living through one of the most dangerous moments in its modern history, not only due to the fascism of the Israeli occupation alone, nor merely as a result of internal divisions, but due to the convergence of two lethal factors: the arrogance of Israeli power supported by structural international bias, especially American, and internal Palestinian incapacity to produce a political and social alternative capable of breaking this infernal cycle. The occupation is not merely a temporary control project, but has transformed into an integrated system for managing Palestinians as a demographic burden that must be subjugated or eliminated, not as a people with rights. In contrast, the Palestinian political structure is no longer capable of transforming suffering into strength, nor pain into a project, but has become consumed in managing incapacity.

When power becomes policy and bias becomes a system

Israel today is not only waging a war of extermination, but is imposing a unilateral vision for the Palestinian future: a fragile, fragmented entity stripped of sovereignty, a society managed security-wise, a dependent economy, and a political horizon postponed indefinitely. This project would not have continued with this level of brazenness and arrogance without explicit or silent international bias, which justifies killing in the name of “security,” and treats international law as a selective tool rather than a binding reference. This bias has not only failed to protect Palestinians, but has contributed to reproducing the conflict. Whenever accountability is absent, power expands. Whenever politics recedes, war advances. Thus, Palestine enters a closed infernal loop, where violence begets violence.
Gaza today is not merely a battlefield, but a mirror of the failure of the international system. Even when a ceasefire is announced, it carries no real political or moral significance, other than reducing the daily death toll for a limited period. No serious reconstruction, no political path, or accountability. Only temporary management of a permanent catastrophe. In this sense, Gaza has turned into a laboratory for managing human pain, not ending its causes.

The Palestinian Authority: Incapacity as a fait accompli policy

In the West Bank, the Palestinian Authority is eroding dangerously. It is politically besieged, financially strangled, and functionally constrained. But more dangerously, it is losing its social base. An authority that cannot secure the minimum salaries for people, and abandons its history rooted in the legitimacy of resistance led by the national movement. At the same time, it lacks a vision to confront economic and social disintegration, meaning it is beginning to lose its practical legitimacy regardless of its legal reference. Here, one cannot suffice with explaining Palestinian incapacity solely by external factors; the absence of reform based on consensual legitimacy, the erosion of resistance legitimacy, and the postponement of democratic entitlements leading to the absence of accountability, all are internal factors that have deepened the crisis instead of containing it.

Hamas and the Authority: Different responsibilities

Political equality between Hamas and the Palestinian Authority does not hold, as each has a different position, function, and responsibility. But this does not exempt either from frank criticism.
Hamas bears heavy responsibility for linking Gaza's fate to military choices not built on national consensus, nor on sufficient assessment of societal cost. Resistance, no matter how legitimate, does not grant an open mandate to manage the lives of more than two million people without political or civilian accountability.
In contrast, the Palestinian Authority bears a more complex responsibility: it is the internationally recognized entity, required to represent the entire national body, but it has chosen, due to incapacity or narrow calculations, to manage the crisis instead of confronting it, and to preserve institutional survival instead of renewing popular legitimacy by devising governance tools capable of restoring trust and mobilizing popular energies.
The problem is not in the existence of political pluralism, but in the absence of any national framework that imposes accountability, utilizes pluralism as an element of strength, and prevents unilateralism in fateful decisions.

Can this infernal cycle be broken?

Breaking this infernal cycle will not come from isolated international initiatives, nor from betting on a sudden change in the balance of power. Rather, it begins with one indispensable condition: a realistic national consensus that reorders priorities on the basis of protecting society. This consensus does not necessarily mean resolving major issues at once, but agreeing on a minimum program: first, protecting people in the face of extermination and settler terrorism, and from economic and social collapse; second, unifying the moral and political discourse before the world; third, restoring the role of civil society in all its components as a lever for national steadfastness and preserving the social fabric from disintegration, and all of this requires national incubators in unified frameworks at the level of the organization and the authority.

Can life be managed independently of the occupation?

The experience of the First Intifada is not a myth, but its rich lessons show that managing life under occupation is relatively possible when society has organization, serious leadership attached to the national concern and people's interests, a sense of participation and responsibility, and effective networks for social solidarity. This in addition to clarity on who the enemy is. The occupation was no less cruel then, but internal confidence was higher, and popular legitimacy was clearer. Today, the challenge is not limited to the occupation, but manifests in the disintegration of the internal fabric. And if this disintegration is not addressed, nothing will remain to defend politically.

How can collapse be prevented?

Preventing collapse does not start from the outside, nor from anticipated international decisions, but from three interconnected internal circles:
First: Restoring the national function of the authority
Not as a illusory sovereign authority, but as a tool for social protection, public service, and managing the capacity for steadfastness. An authority incapable of paying salaries, and of protecting society from economic chaos, loses its practical legitimacy regardless of its political reference.
Second: Realistic unity, not ideological; unity built on a minimum program: protecting people, preventing chaos, unifying the national discourse before the world, which forms a solid lever for the possibility of answering the major questions. Unity today is a condition for survival, not a political luxury.
Third: A decisive role for networks and frameworks of civil society. When politics fails, society does not automatically collapse. Palestinians have proven that society, if its latent energy is mobilized rather than marginalized, will be capable of organizing itself, alleviating the effects of occupation and the repercussions of division together.
Today, the occupation is harsher, yes. But what we lack is not conditions alone, but internal confidence, leadership legitimacy, and organizational capacity. Managing life independently of the occupation is not withdrawal from the conflict, but redefining it: from an unequal military confrontation to a battle of steadfastness, organization, survival, and effective engagement with sweeping transformations in international public opinion.

A call to the world… Who hears Palestine's pain?

It is no longer possible to continue viewing the Palestinian tragedy as a “chronic conflict” without solutions, or a balanced struggle between two parties that “fail together.” This description is not only misleading, but morally comforting, as it exempts power from its responsibilities and empties international law of its content. Policies justified in the name of stability or security, from unconditional support for Israel, or calculated silence on grave violations, or settling for managing humanitarian crises, do not prevent explosion, but delay it and make it more destructive. The absence of accountability does not produce moderation, and depriving an entire people of horizons does not generate surrender, but more desperate and dangerous forms of conflict levels. And if the West is serious in defending an international system based on rules, values, and human principles, then Palestine is not an exception, but the clearest test of the credibility of this system. And continuing to treat human consequences without confronting political causes will only lead to reproducing the same infernal cycle that everyone claims to want to break.

Palestine today stands before two choices with no third:
Either a national consensus that reproduces politics as a tool of salvation, or a gradual fall in which the national cause turns into a humanitarian file without political horizons. The occupation seeks to impose this fall by force, and international bias facilitates the task with silence. But collapse will not become fate unless accepted Palestinianly. And history, so far, has not said its final word.

Estimates of more than 20,000 unexploded bombs in Gaza

•Local and international technical teams are working to identify locations of unexploded remnants, while the occupation does not currently allow their removal

•Signing agreements with international organizations to pave the way for mine clearance and removal of unexploded war remnants in Gaza

 There is no doubt that the reconstruction phase in Gaza is complex, intricate, and distributed across multiple stages, but the starting point for the recovery and reconstruction process begins with the removal of unexploded war remnants, due to the danger they pose to citizens and the technical crews working to continuously restore basic services within their limited capabilities.

According to a report issued by the Government Contact Center, the Ministry of Interior, through the Palestinian Mine Action Center, is working to strengthen the State of Palestine's partnerships with various international institutions to create the largest international alliance for mine clearance and removal of unexploded ordnance in Gaza, as soon as technical teams can enter and operate in the sector.

In light of the Center's accumulated experience, it has previously implemented unexploded ordnance removal operations in the West Bank, including clearing and removing minefields in sixteen sites, including Ein al-Sakout – Northern Jordan Valley, and Qabatiya, in cooperation with several international organizations specialized in mine clearance, including HALO Trust, the world's largest non-governmental humanitarian organization working on removing landmines and explosive war remnants, in addition to handling (2092) hazardous objects in various West Bank locations, in partnership with the Explosive Ordnance Disposal Police. In addition, the Center has conducted extensive awareness campaigns about the risks of mines and prevention.

On the Gaza front, field surveys have begun and contaminated areas in Gaza have been mapped through several local and international technical teams, alongside continuing training of local crews in preparation for the start of unexploded remnant removal in the sector.

On the ground, there is significant Palestinian coordination between relevant entities such as the Palestinian Mine Action Center, the Ministry of Public Works and Housing, and the Government Operations Room with the United Nations Mine Action Service (UNMAS), as it is the umbrella for all institutions working in the field of unexploded ordnance removal, and there are ongoing follow-ups and periodic meetings to exchange information and update joint plans. The field teams in the sector are placing warning signs at unexploded ordnance sites, but the occupation does not yet allow their removal, in addition to preventing the entry of necessary equipment to launch the operation.

Internationally, the Permanent Palestinian Mission to the United Nations in Geneva has intensified its contacts and meetings with disarmament and arms control organizations and Swiss authorities, aiming to remove unexploded war remnants, where estimates indicate the presence of more than 20,000 unexploded bombs in the sector.

According to UNMAS estimates, presented at the Donors Conference on Mine Action in the Palestinian Territories held in Amman last May, the cost of removing unexploded ordnance in Gaza is estimated at about 130 million dollars.

In Geneva, which is a major international center for global organizations and institutions, the Permanent Observer of the State of Palestine to the United Nations in Geneva, Ambassador Ibrahim Khraishi, held a series of meetings with several international entities specialized in removing unexploded war remnants, including a meeting with the Disarmament Department of the International Committee of the Red Cross, and a meeting with the Director General of the International Civil Defense Forces, Arjog Kalantarli last October, where he handed him the Palestinian plan and discussed with him the required efforts in Gaza, while Ambassador Khraishi emphasized the need to align all efforts under the supervision of the Palestinian Government, and full coordination with the Palestinian Mine Action Center and the Palestinian Civil Defense.

In addition, other meetings with mine clearance specialists in Switzerland and international organizations such as the Geneva International Centre for Humanitarian Demining (GICHD) and the Swiss Foundation for Mine Action (FSD), and other scheduled meetings, all aimed at mobilizing more international effort for the unexploded ordnance removal operation in Gaza, and mobilizing more international pressure to allow the entry of equipment, and enable specialized international organizations to operate in the sector alongside enhancing cooperation  and emphasizing the existence of a ready national plan at the Palestinian Center to implement it in Gaza, in Palestine, and agreements have been signed with five international organizations to work in the sector.

Preparations are also underway to hold an expanded meeting including the United Nations Mine Action Service, the International Committee of the Red Cross, the Implementation Support Unit for the Mine Ban Convention, the Geneva International Centre for Humanitarian Demining, the Swiss Foundation for Mine Action, the International Civil Defense Forces, and from the Palestinian side, the Ministry of Interior with its specialized agencies, headed by the Palestinian Mine Action Center and Civil Defense, with the participation of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Expatriates, for further coordination and preparation for field work in the sector, which contributes to accelerating work on the unexploded ordnance removal plan, paving the way for economic recovery and the reconstruction phase.

On Wednesday, the Gaza Strip witnessed a simultaneous Israeli military escalation on several fronts, including artillery shelling, air raids, and heavy gunfire.

The raid is still ongoing, amid an atmosphere of tension and fear of an escalation in arrests and violations against citizens.

The former US President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu held a joint press conference at the Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida, focusing on the developments in the war in Gaza, the future of the ceasefire, and regional challenges, especially Iran, affirming the strength of the US–Israeli alliance in a highly sensitive regional phase.

Trump said that his talks with Netanyahu were "fruitful" and resulted in "many conclusions", emphasizing that the United States will continue to support Israel politically and militarily. For his part, Netanyahu expressed his appreciation for what he described as "steadfast support" from Trump, considering that the relationship between the two sides forms a fundamental pillar for regional security.

The Gaza file topped the agenda of the conference, where Trump confirmed that the transition to the second phase of the ceasefire agreement is directly linked to the disarmament of Hamas. He added that the reconstruction of Gaza "will not be possible" as long as the armed movement remains, noting that any reconstruction efforts must be preceded by strict security arrangements that ensure no return to fighting.

Trump threatened Hamas that the results will be horrific for them if they do not disarm, claiming that 59 countries have expressed readiness to participate in international forces as part of the Peace Council. 

Netanyahu, in turn, emphasized that Israel will not accept any political or humanitarian settlement that leaves what he described as "the military threat" in Gaza. He confirmed that his government views the next phase as a real test of the international community's ability to ensure Israel's security, while maintaining humanitarian aid channels to the civilian population.

Regarding Iran, Trump made sharp statements, warning that any Iranian attempt to rebuild its nuclear or missile capabilities will be met with decisive military response from the United States and Israel. He confirmed that the deterrence policy must be clear and unambiguous. Netanyahu supported this position, describing Iran as "the greatest source of threat to stability in the Middle East".

The conference also addressed other regional files, including tensions on the Lebanese front with Hezbollah, and security challenges in the Red Sea, where both sides emphasized the importance of military and intelligence coordination to confront what they described as "the axis of multiple threats".

In a domestic political context, Trump expressed his personal support for Netanyahu, praising his leadership during the war. He referred to what he said was information he received about the possibility of an Israeli presidential pardon for Netanyahu, in reference to his legal cases, although official Israeli sources later rushed to deny the existence of such a decision.

The press conference reflected a hardline political tone, prioritizing security over any political or humanitarian paths, at a time when international pressures are increasing for a permanent ceasefire in Gaza, and providing a clear political horizon for the Palestinian–Israeli conflict.

The discourse of Trump and Netanyahu in Mar-a-Lago reflects a purely security vision for the conflict in Gaza, presenting the disarmament of Hamas as a prerequisite for any political or humanitarian process. This approach, despite its alignment with the Israeli vision, collides with a complex humanitarian reality, where it is difficult to separate reconstruction from political solutions. It also reproduces the equation of "security versus stability", which has proven its limitations in previous experiences.

It is noted that the joint emphasis on confronting Iran reveals an attempt to link the Gaza war to the broader regional context, allowing justification for deterrence and escalation policies. However, this linkage may expand the circle of conflict and increase the likelihood of open confrontation. Trump's insistence on a rhetoric of strength also reflects his desire to establish the image of "the tough president", whether in foreign policy or in his domestic political calculations

The meetings that brought together U.S. President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in Mar-a-Lago, Florida, revealed clear differences between the two sides regarding Israeli policies in the occupied West Bank, despite mutual efforts to maintain the relationship within its overall strategic framework. According to an American official, Trump and his senior aides expressed growing concern over undisciplined settler violence, the accelerating settlement expansion, and Israel's continued withholding of billions of dollars in Palestinian tax revenues, policies that have pushed the Palestinian Authority to the brink of financial and political collapse, according to the American website "Axios". 

A source confirmed to the site that the discussions were characterized by a friendly tone, but Washington warned that the deteriorating situation in the West Bank could negatively impact efforts to stabilize Gaza, and could undermine the U.S. administration's efforts to regionally expand the Abraham Accords. When asked whether Trump had raised the issue of settler violence during his meeting with Netanyahu, he acknowledged the existence of disagreements, saying that the two sides do not agree "100 percent" on the West Bank, but expressed confidence in reaching a "result" regarding it.

At the same time, the United States is pressuring Israel to release the withheld funds that it collects on behalf of the Palestinian Authority, which it has repeatedly refused to transfer since the October 7, 2023 attack. Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich is leading this approach, considering these funds "support terrorism," and openly declaring his aim to weaken the Palestinian Authority through what he described as "economic strangulation" to prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state, a position that reflects the growing weight of the far-right within the ruling coalition.

Netanyahu, for his part, faces significant pressure from his right-wing partners who are pushing for the expansion of settlements and the annexation of the occupied West Bank, alongside undermining the role of the Palestinian Authority. The West Bank has witnessed a notable escalation over the past year in attacks by extremist settlers on Palestinians and their property, with the Israeli occupation army documenting more than 752 incidents of violence and hate crimes since the beginning of the year, compared to 675 incidents during 2024, amid almost complete absence of judicial accountability, where indictments are rarely filed, and convictions remain exceptional.

Alongside settler violence, the Israeli government has proceeded to consolidate its civilian presence in the occupied West Bank, announcing the establishment of 11 new settlements and the legalization of eight additional settlement outposts. The United Nations had confirmed earlier this month that the pace of settlement expansion has reached its highest levels since at least 2017, considering these activities illegal under international law, a characterization rejected by the Israeli occupation authorities. 

Despite the disagreements over the occupied West Bank file, a senior Israeli official described the meeting between Trump and Netanyahu as "the best" among the meetings held by the two leaders since Trump's return to office. He noted that the meeting addressed major regional issues, including how to deal with the Iranian threat, the future of Hamas and Hezbollah, in addition to other security issues, according to "Axios". During the joint press conference, both Trump and Netanyahu took care to exchange compliments, with Trump praising Netanyahu, describing him as "a prime minister in time of war" who "did a great job," indicating the continued strength of the alliance despite tactical differences.

The U.S.-Israeli disagreements over the West Bank reflect the widening gap between political warnings and the actual ability to influence. Washington recognizes that the continuation of settlements and settler violence threaten the stability of the Palestinian Authority and undermine any future political path, but it has so far limited itself to signals of concern without translating them into real pressure tools. It seems that the U.S. administration is betting on containing the repercussions rather than confronting the roots of the crisis, fearing damage to an alliance it considers a cornerstone in its regional strategy.

The Trump administration also recognizes that what is happening in the West Bank points to a structural shift in Israeli policy, where the land is no longer a subject of negotiation but a field for imposing permanent facts. In this context, weakening the Palestinian Authority becomes a strategic choice, not a side effect. The continuation of this approach not only threatens what remains of the two-state solution, but also portends the reproduction of chronic tension spots that could explode at any moment, putting the U.S. bets on regional stability to a tough test.

The American President Donald Trump concluded the year 2025 in Palestinian–Israeli policy in the same way he began it: with blatant, overt bias, devoid of any claim to balance or respect for international law. He ended the year by hosting Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, wanted by the International Criminal Court as a suspect in war crimes, at his private resort in Mar-a-Lago on Monday, December 29, 2025, where he showered him with praise and commended "his leadership" and "military achievements," completely ignoring his government's record of widespread destruction and civilian killings. Most tellingly, Trump did not mention Israel's ongoing violations of the ceasefire in Gaza, nor the devastating human cost of these violations, in a scene that clearly reflected that American policy was not concerned with ending the war, but with protecting those who wage it, no matter the consequences.

Since his return to the White House, Trump has reshaped American policy toward the Palestinian–Israeli conflict on the basis of complete bias toward Israel, not only in its security aspect, but in its broader political and settlement project. This approach reached its peak during Israel's devastating war on the Gaza Strip, where Washington provided unconditional political and military cover, ignoring the unprecedented scale of the humanitarian catastrophe that befell Palestinian civilians.

American support was not limited to supplying Israel with advanced weapons and ammunition, but also included systematic disruption of any international path to accountability, through the use of veto power in the Security Council, rejection of repeated calls for a ceasefire, and questioning the reports of international human rights organizations. This cover turned the war on Gaza into an open-ended operation without temporal or moral limits, contributing to deepening the destruction, rising casualty numbers, and expanding the scope of forced displacement.

In contrast, Palestinians were reduced in American discourse to a "security problem" encapsulated by Hamas, in deliberate disregard for the true roots of the conflict, represented by the prolonged occupation and blockade for years, and the complete blockage of the political horizon. The Trump administration showed no readiness to recognize Palestinian national rights, or even to commit to the minimum standards of international humanitarian law that mandate the protection of civilians during conflicts.

However, focusing solely on Gaza hides another no less dangerous aspect of American policy, manifested in what is happening simultaneously in the occupied West Bank and occupied East Jerusalem. While the world was preoccupied with the war on Gaza, the West Bank witnessed an unprecedented escalation of settler violence, including organized attacks on Palestinian villages, burning of homes and farms, physical assaults and field killings, often under the protection of the Israeli army, and amid total American silence.

This escalation coincided with a remarkable acceleration in the pace of settlement, reaching unprecedented levels, whether through approval of thousands of new settlement units, or through the legalization of random outposts that were previously considered illegal even under Israeli law itself. As for East Jerusalem, the Israeli government continued to impose Judaization policies, from demolishing homes, revoking identities, and expanding settlement around the Al-Aqsa Mosque, in a systematic attempt to change the city's demographic and political reality.

The American position on these developments was characterized by explicit complicity, whether through abstaining from any serious condemnation, or settling for vague statements not followed by practical measures. In fact, Trump's policy provided, practically, a political umbrella for these practices, by treating settlement as a "fait accompli," not a crime under international law, which encouraged the Israeli government and settlers to proceed without fear of accountability.

This American complicity reaches its peak when it comes to the killing of Palestinians holding American citizenship in the occupied West Bank, where facts reveal a recurring pattern of impunity that undermines any American claim to defend its citizens or principles of justice. Several Palestinian Americans have been killed since Trump took office (as in recent years) by Israeli army fire or settlers, under circumstances documented by human rights organizations and eyewitnesses, without any of these crimes leading to real accountability or legal prosecution.

Each time, the American State Department settles for stereotypical statements calling for "investigation" or expressing "concern," then practically closes the files once Israel announces the opening of a formal internal investigation, which often ends in acquitting the killers or blaming the victim. This automatic American acceptance of the Israeli narrative, even when field evidence contradicts it, reflects a conscious political decision to provide diplomatic protection to Israel, even if the price is the blood of American citizens.

More dangerously, this disregard is not limited to individual cases, but reflects a systematic policy that considers the Palestinian American an exception to the concept of "citizenship" that is supposed to enjoy full state protection. While political, media, and legal pressure tools are mobilized when an American is harmed anywhere else in the world, the Palestinian American is treated as a marginal case, whose life is reduced to equations of "Israeli security."

This approach not only encourages the repetition of crimes, but sends a clear message to Israeli settlers and soldiers that killing a Palestinian, even if he holds an American passport, will not entail political or legal consequences. Thus, American citizenship is transformed from a protective shield into a worthless detail, as long as the killer is Israeli and the victim Palestinian.

In this context, the Trump administration presented what was called the "Gaza Plan" as a political exit, but it essentially treated the effects rather than the causes, focusing on disarming Palestinians and re-engineering the administration of the sector, without any commitment to ending the occupation or recognizing Palestinian political rights, whether in Gaza or the West Bank. Thus, it seemed that Washington was dealing with the Palestinian issue as a fragmented security–humanitarian file, not as an integrated national liberation issue.

Regionally, this approach reinforced a growing sense that the United States is no longer a mediator, but a fully biased party. The American bombing of Iranian sites confirmed that the logic of force has become the preferred tool in managing regional files, at the expense of diplomacy and political solutions, while the Palestinian issue is left out of any serious strategic calculations.

The most dangerous aspect of Trump's policy is not only his unconditional support for the Gaza war, but in providing comprehensive cover for a broader Israeli project aimed at liquidating the Palestinian issue, through combining widespread destruction in Gaza, creeping annexation in the West Bank, and Judaization of East Jerusalem. Under this approach, international references erode, and the door is closed to any fair and viable political solution.

Trump's policy toward Gaza and the West Bank reveals a single integrated vision, not separate files. The war in Gaza, settlement expansion in the West Bank, and Judaization of Jerusalem are all links in a single path that enjoyed explicit American support or complicit silence. This approach does not seek to end the conflict, but to manage it by force, imposing permanent facts on the ground.

In the foreseeable future, Trump's policy appears to be a recipe for further explosion. A people being bombed in Gaza, attacked in the West Bank, and uprooted from Jerusalem cannot be subdued by force forever. Without a radical change in the American approach, stability will remain an illusion, peace postponed, and violence likely to recur in harsher forms.