The first day of the fourth round of negotiations between the Lebanese and Israeli sides concluded in the American capital, Washington, on Tuesday evening. This round comes amidst complex field conditions and a wide-ranging Israeli military escalation targeting Lebanese territories. The delegations are scheduled to continue their meetings on Wednesday to complete the discussed issues.

This round is a continuation of a negotiation process sponsored by the United States of America, preceded by three intensive rounds held during April and May. These direct meetings aim to find a permanent formula for halting the combat operations that have ravaged the border region and led to the displacement of thousands of civilians from their villages.

For his part, the US Ambassador to Lebanon, Michel Issa, expressed remarkable optimism after the conclusion of the first day's deliberations, confirming in press statements from outside the US State Department headquarters that the talks are moving in a positive direction. Issa pointed to strong indicators that give hope for the possibility of reaching a final agreement between Beirut and Tel Aviv very soon.

In a related context, media sources revealed that the opening session of this round lasted for more than seven continuous hours of technical and political discussions. The discussions primarily focused on the issue of solidifying the fragile ceasefire that came into effect in mid-April, which faces major challenges threatening its collapse before its extension expires next July.

Lebanese Prime Minister Nawaf Salam affirmed in an official statement that the top priority for the Lebanese state is to solidify the ceasefire in all areas without exception. Salam stressed that the negotiation path represents the rational and least costly option for the Lebanese people in confronting the war machine, considering it the fastest way to restore national sovereignty.

Salam added in his statement that unifying national efforts under the umbrella of the state is the only guarantee to end the Israeli occupation and ensure the return of the people of the south to their cities and villages from which they were forcibly displaced. He called on all internal parties to support the official Lebanese position at this sensitive stage in the country's history to ensure the extraction of national rights.

On the internal Lebanese front, Hezbollah continues to express its strong opposition to these direct negotiations, describing them as a kind of political concession that does not serve the interests of the resistance. In contrast, the official authorities in Beirut insist on the necessity of exhausting all diplomatic means to stop the aggression and protect civilians from indiscriminate shelling.

On the ground, Israeli military operations did not stop despite the ongoing dialogue in Washington, as field sources reported a series of airstrikes and artillery shelling on border villages. These repeated violations resulted in civilian casualties and widespread destruction of infrastructure and residential homes, further complicating the negotiation scene.

In response to these attacks, military operations continued from the Lebanese side, with rocket volleys and drones targeting positions and gatherings of the occupation army in the Galilee region and northern occupied Palestine. These field developments confirm the fragility of the current calm and the urgent need for the parties to reach a binding agreement that ends the ongoing attrition.

Political circles are awaiting the results of the second day of negotiations, amidst significant international pressure to end the conflict and prevent its escalation into a comprehensive regional war. The bet remains on the ability of American mediation to bridge views on the contentious points related to final security and border arrangements.

Negotiations are the least costly option for Lebanon and the Lebanese, and our path through them is shorter to end the occupation and return the displaced.

The Planning and Building Committee of the Israeli Regional Council 'Hof HaCarmel' rejected a legal request aimed at protecting the mass and historical graves in the evacuated village of Tantura. This rejection came in response to a joint appeal from the 'Adalah' Legal Center and the 'Bimkom' Association, who demanded refraining from issuing building permits for tourist facilities that could lead to the desecration of the remains of martyrs and victims in the village.

The legal bodies based their request on new data and evidence revealed by an extensive professional investigation conducted by the British institution 'Forensic Architecture', in addition to documents from the Israeli army archives. This evidence confirms the existence of four mass graves and four historical graves belonging to the Palestinian village that was subjected to a massacre and displacement during the 1948 Nakba, which was not previously known to planning authorities.

Maps and technical documents indicate that three of these mass graves are located directly within the scope of the proposed tourism project on the beach of the 'Dor' settlement. The Israeli plan includes converting these sensitive sites into parking lots and areas for recreational activities and tourist facilities, which constitutes a blatant violation of the sanctity of the dead and the privacy of the victims' families.

For its part, the Israeli Planning Committee justified its rejection with procedural claims, considering that the plan was finally approved in 2013. The committee claimed that the legal period allocated for submitting objections had expired years ago, ignoring the emergence of new scientific and historical facts that necessitate reconsidering the project and amending it to protect archaeological and religious sites.

The human rights organizations criticized the committee's disregard for the request to form a specialized professional team to identify the grave sites, fence them, and protect them from bulldozing and construction. They considered that the authorities' evasion of their responsibility reflects a systematic policy aimed at undermining the dignity of the dead and the rights of their families to preserve their historical and human heritage in their evacuated land.

The occupation authorities also refused to provide information related to ongoing building permit applications, referring human rights centers to complex bureaucratic procedures under the Freedom of Information Law. Observers believe that this behavior lacks the transparency required in dealing with an issue that affects the feelings of thousands of displaced persons and relates to historically documented war crimes.

In a legal comment, Dr. Suhad Bishara from the 'Adalah' Center affirmed that the committee's response reflects a blatant disregard for new evidence that was not available at the time of the original plan's approval. She explained that the authorities chose to hide behind flimsy excuses despite the fact that actual building permits have not yet been granted, which legally allows for a change of course if there was a will to protect the sites.

Lawyer Sari Cornish from the 'Bimkom' Association stressed that dealing with these graves as if they do not exist threatens their continued desecration and obliteration under the guise of administrative procedures. She considered that this approach aims to impose a new reality on the ground that erases any material trace of the Palestinian village that existed before 1948.

For its part, the Tantura Displaced Persons Committee described the tourism plan as a direct continuation of the 'memory erasure' policy pursued by the Israeli establishment. The committee affirmed that the attempt to build recreational facilities over the bodies of the victims is a desperate attempt to silence the silent witnesses to the massacres and forced displacements that the village witnessed.

Sami Al-Ali, spokesman for the people of Tantura, explained that this decision constitutes a blatant assault on the human, religious, and historical rights of the displaced. He added that these practices contradict the simplest ethical values and international conventions that oblige states to respect mass burial sites and commemorate the victims instead of turning them into picnic areas.

Al-Ali accused the Regional Council and its planning arms of continuing the historical denial approach despite the living oral testimonies and documented research that prove the crime. He pointed out that hiding behind technical pretexts will not succeed in undermining the natural rights of the village's residents to preserve the sanctity of their dead and protect their historical narrative from extinction.

The people of Tantura concluded their statement by affirming their continued legal, popular, and moral struggle to protect the mass graves and reclaim their right to commemorate them. They stressed that the historical truth of Tantura is deeply rooted in the conscience of the Palestinian people, and bulldozers or tourism projects will not succeed in obliterating the features of the Palestinian identity rooted in the land.

Attempts to silence memory or remove evidence will not change historical truth, nor will they erase Tantura from the conscience of its people and nation.

Democratic Congresswoman Ilhan Omar launched an unprecedented attack on President Donald Trump, accusing him of employing fraud and corruption to achieve narrow political ends. Omar stated that the United States has never witnessed a president as corrupt and brazen as Trump, noting that his repeated attacks against her and the Somali community in Minnesota fall within this context.

In an opinion piece published by the British newspaper 'The Guardian', Omar explained that the American president systematically relies on hate speech and racism to divert attention from the political and legal crises plaguing his administration. She affirmed that targeting social components, especially Somali Americans, represents a means of escaping the criticisms and scandals that regularly pursue the White House.

These statements come in response to an attack launched by Trump during a cabinet meeting last week, where he described members of the Somali community in Minnesota as 'corrupt'. Trump also renewed his direct accusations against Representative Ilhan Omar of involvement in corruption cases, based on financial fraud files witnessed by the state in recent years, which the representative vehemently denied.

Omar categorically rejected linking individual crimes to the Somali community as a whole, asserting that Trump uses fraud files 'as a political weapon' directed against his opponents. In contrast, she accused him of protecting major donors and wealthy supporters, and working to enrich himself and his family by exploiting his presidential position and broad powers.

The Democratic representative criticized the presidential pardons and sentence commutations issued by Trump in favor of those convicted in massive financial fraud cases. She pointed out that the president granted protection to those involved in embezzlement operations estimated at hundreds of millions of dollars, despite judicial rulings against them by the US Department of Justice, which reflects a double standard in his accountability.

Omar revealed attempts by the Republican administration to allocate massive sums amounting to $1.8 billion to compensate those involved in the Capitol storming events that occurred in January 2021. She explained that this plan was only withdrawn after intense political and legal pressure, indicating the administration's desire to reward lawbreakers among its supporters.

Regarding local corruption issues in Minnesota, Omar stressed that state authorities dealt strictly with the 'Feeding Our Future' scandal. She pointed to the conviction of dozens of individuals who embezzled funds intended for feeding children during the COVID-19 pandemic, emphasizing that holding them accountable is a national necessity to restore confidence in social programs.

The representative accused Trump and his allies of turning the fight against corruption into a 'partisan spectacle' charged with racial incitement instead of genuinely seeking justice. She said that the irony lies in the fact that state officials were prosecuting fraudsters, while Trump was releasing some of them or granting them presidential pardons.

Omar warned of the serious repercussions of the administration's decisions to freeze more than $350 million from the state's Medicaid program allocations. She affirmed that the threat of withholding billions of additional dollars annually threatens the lives of more than 1.2 million people who depend on these services, considering it collective punishment for poor groups to achieve political gains.

There has been no president more corrupt and brazen in US history, and he resorts to hate speech whenever he faces a scandal affecting his administration.

Political circles in Washington are turning their attention to Iran's ninth president, Masoud Pezeshkian, who has emerged as an interesting figure after assuming office under exceptional circumstances. Pezeshkian, a 72-year-old heart surgeon, carries a reformist legacy dating back to his time as Minister of Health during Mohammad Khatami's presidency, which makes him, in the eyes of some American officials, a party with whom channels of communication can be opened.

Despite his calm demeanor and spontaneous appearance, Pezeshkian's personal and political life has been marked by challenges, as he lost his wife and son in a tragic car accident, which led him to dedicate his life to raising his three children and to political work. This personal past today intersects with a complex political reality, as the president tries to balance his reformist identity with the demands of governance in a system where centers of power are numerous.

In an unconventional move, Pezeshkian sent an open letter to the American people, calling on them to re-evaluate the true motives behind the tensions in the region, emphasizing that Iran should not be portrayed as a threatening monster. He affirmed in his writings that external pressures would only make his country stronger, holding Israel responsible for inciting conflicts that drain American forces in the Middle East.

Despite these attempts at openness, Pezeshkian's messages were met with official disregard in Washington, while domestically he faced sharp criticism and accusations of flattering the West. Informed sources confirm that the new president's prominence in international circles does not necessarily mean he possesses absolute authority, especially given the presence of strong rivals and a silent struggle for influence within the Iranian governing structure.

The strained relationship between Pezeshkian and the commander of the Revolutionary Guard, Ahmad Vahidi, stands out as one of the most significant obstacles to any fundamental change in Iranian foreign policy. While the president has an office and specific responsibilities, the Revolutionary Guard continues to enjoy huge budgets and extensive security powers that give it the ability to monitor the presidency's movements and restrict its reformist ambitions.

Experts on Iranian affairs in the American administration recommend caution when dealing with Pezeshkian, emphasizing the importance of not easing political and economic pressures. They believe that the Revolutionary Guard's weakening of the president's position, or his classification as an opponent of hardline currents, does not necessarily mean a change in the state's strategic approach, which requires continued international vigilance.

In contrast, Israeli circles are closely monitoring the development of Pezeshkian's political character, trying to predict how far he can go in confronting his internal opponents. The question remains about the heart surgeon's ability to survive political intrigues and navigate the minefield of power, in a system that prioritizes maintaining traditional power balances.

Pezeshkian, who was raised in Khatami's reformist school, has never expressed reservations about dialogue with international adversaries, but he faces strict restrictions from traditional centers of power.

Hebrew media sources reported that a state of skepticism prevails in Israeli military circles regarding the long-term strategic utility of controlling areas deep in South Lebanon, specifically the historic Shaqif Castle. Despite the occupation's claims that the field expansion aims to remove threats to northern settlements, assessments indicate that these steps will not lead to the disarmament of Hezbollah without achieving tangible political gains in ongoing negotiations.

Press reports stated that the army command hopes to use the ground movement as a political leverage, at a time when fortified centers of gravity in the capital Beirut remain far from being radically affected by field operations. Senior military sources admitted that the ability to effectively influence the disengagement between the Iranian and Lebanese fronts remains limited, which weakens the chances of achieving the major strategic goals of the military campaign.

The Israeli security establishment views the control of the South Lebanon highlands and Shaqif Castle as a 'tactical victory' that gives forces an advantage in surveillance and directing fire towards the Nabatieh region. However, the strategic question remains about the extent of this presence's impact on Hezbollah's future and military capabilities, especially since the current field control has not radically changed the face of the campaign so far.

Operations deep in Lebanese territory, according to the occupation's view, aim to neutralize direct threats represented by anti-tank fire and drones targeting border settlements. Although the army believes it has succeeded in deterring some of these threats, dealing with the danger of drones and rocket barrages remains limited, keeping the security of the north in a state of continuous danger.

In a related context, War Minister Yisrael Katz pledged that forces would remain in the areas they controlled to form part of a permanent 'security zone,' which raises questions about the human and material cost of this presence. Military sources confirm that the army currently does not plan to enter the city of Nabatieh, although it represents a strategic center of gravity for the party, fearing involvement in a long-term attrition that does not serve political goals.

Field data indicate that forces are currently working to clear the resistance's infrastructure up to what is known as the 'Yellow Line,' a task that may take many additional weeks. Military officials warn that defending settlements will be more difficult in the event of withdrawal, as threats will return directly to the borders, putting the occupation in a difficult equation between costly presence or fragile withdrawal.

Through ground pressure, the occupation seeks to achieve two crucial accomplishments at the negotiating table: severing the dependency between Tehran and Beirut, and launching a process to disarm Hezbollah in the south under international and local pressure. However, the military establishment admits that these goals are not easily attainable given the current data, making field movements merely local tactical shifts that do not rise to the level of decisive action.

Serious concerns arise about how the army will act if an international political agreement is reached, and whether it will be forced to withdraw from the territories it recently occupied. The Northern Command has prepared contingency plans to establish fixed positions adopting the 'Gaza model' in South Lebanon, but the chances of implementing these plans remain vague given the American restrictions imposed on air operations and broad strategic movements.

The realistic ability to influence the separation between the Iranian and Lebanese arenas is limited, and withdrawal simply means the return of the threat to the borders.

Hebron - Jihad Al-Qawasmi - The village of Sikka, west of Dura city in Hebron governorate, faces a triple Israeli siege that has tightened the lives of its residents: the apartheid wall, bypass roads, and new settlement outposts. The village has become besieged from three sides, and the Israeli goal is to displace farmers from the village to pave the way for the overwhelming settlement expansion that is devouring Palestinian lands. Theft of thousands of dunams. The head of the Sikka village council, Walid Hsheesh, says that the apartheid wall, to the west, cuts through citizens' lands near the school and is a few tens of meters from the homes of the village's citizens, estimated at about 1200 people, where the apartheid wall has encroached on vast areas of the village's land. About 3 km to the east of the village, settlers established a pastoral settlement outpost in 2016, affiliated with the nearby "Neghohot" settlement, where the settler residing in the pastoral outpost owns a herd of livestock and a number of workers, and controls thousands of dunams in the vicinity of the settlement outpost, launching many attacks from it on the lands of the village and surrounding villages, which have escalated significantly recently. A new settlement outpost. Hsheesh added that about two weeks ago, settlers seized an old house belonging to the Ajouri family, as well as the surrounding lands, where the settlers prevented the homeowners from accessing it, despite obtaining a paper from the Israeli police confirming their right to reclaim their home, but the occupation forces detained them and assaulted them when they returned to the house. The occupation forces also abused the citizens who were near the house, expelled farmers and their livestock from the area, then began to build a new settlement road leading to the house, before bringing caravans and placing them on the land. Hsheesh pointed out that since October 7, 2023, settler attacks have escalated, while the unarmed Palestinian has no choice but to defend himself in the face of settlers armed with weapons and supported by the occupation army, and thus the village has become besieged by settlement projects from its three sides. From the west is the annexation and expansion wall, from the north is the military tower and the settlement road connecting the "Neghohot" settlement and other outposts to the occupied interior, and from the east is the "Neghohot" settlement and the pastoral outpost. Destruction of plant and animal production patterns. Hsheesh summarizes the environmental and agricultural damage inflicted on the agricultural village due to settlement, saying: Access to agricultural lands for plowing and cultivation has been prevented, and sheep herders from the village and neighboring villages have been prevented from accessing these lands and grazing in them, thus allowing the settler to monopolize them and continue his attacks on citizens' property from them, which contributed to the imposition of settlement control over them. He adds, "After preventing citizens from accessing their lands, the settlers grazed vast areas of land, inflicting heavy losses on the landowners, as the number of livestock in the village decreased after the settlers took control of the pastures, and farmers in the village now raise their sheep on expensive feed. He continued, the occupation prohibited the use of the northern and western lands of the village, especially in the Al-Baqa'a area, which is estimated at about 300 dunams, under the pretext of security due to its proximity to the settlement road, which was clearly reflected on the citizens of the village. These lands were cultivated with vegetables and grains, and have not been cultivated since the occupation prevented work in them. Huge losses for farmers. Hsheesh pointed out that about (100) dunams of the village's olive-cultivated lands, belonging to the families (Hsheesh, Al-Zir, Abu Samra, Qteit, Rashed, Al-Ajouri, Abu Eid), were cut off by the wall, and many trees were uprooted, noting that the occupation began building the wall on the village's lands in 2006, starting with a barbed wire fence, and soon converting it into a concrete wall in 2016, and access to the lands held behind the wall became through a gate in the wall near the town of Beit Awwa. He pointed out that after October 7, 2023, the occupation prohibited entry to these lands during the olive harvest season, thus inflicting great losses on farmers, and also causing other damage to the lands due to not allowing farmers to care for them, and also prohibited work in the lands east of the wall, and near citizens' homes and village neighborhoods, under security pretexts, estimating the area of prohibited access lands at about 200 dunams, noting that the village's olive-cultivated lands, located in the northern part of the village, on which the occupation army built a military tower for its soldiers, are estimated at about 40 dunams, some of which are owned by citizens of Sikka village, and the other part is owned by citizens from the neighboring town of Beit Awwa, but the prohibition applies to everyone. Dead animals, rodents, and insects. Farmer Dawood Hreibat said that settler and occupation attacks on Sikka village and its residents have become daily, and that the new settlement outpost established is dangerous for citizens and their lands, pointing out that after October 7, the settler grazed the cultivated crops in about 1500 dunams, with his livestock of more than 400 sheep in Wadi Kharsa and Al-Baqa'a up to the wall, and settlers also seized the adjacent lands of Sikka and Beit Awwa. He added that he saw the settler throwing his dead animals in the crops and among the trees, and around the water wells, pointing out that he and another farmer submitted a written complaint to the occupation police near the "Kiryat Arba" settlement, but it did not deter the settler from these actions, explaining that foul odors emanate in the areas where he throws dead animals, and rodents, flies, and insects spread in those areas, and staying or residing in or around them becomes difficult, and this makes farmers stay away from them, and this method is considered one of the methods used by settlers to attack Palestinian farmers, in addition to these armed settlers chasing shepherds and preventing them from accessing pastures, and he is one of them, as most days he cannot take his sheep out of their pen, as the pastures have come under the control of the settlers. Daily attacks. Citizen Mubasher Jawadeh, from Sikka village, confirmed that settler attacks have become daily, and as a result, he and his neighbors cannot sleep at night, as their homes are opposite the outpost, and they fear that settlers will burn their homes, as happened in many areas, pointing out that it used to take him five minutes to reach the town of Beit Awwa, and now it takes an hour and a half through the Marah Al-Baqar road to Dura and then to Beit Awwa, and this is an additional suffering for the residents. Citizen Saif Hsheesh explained that what is happening in his village of Sikka is a pastoral settlement, by the occupation forces and settlers, and their government that gives them all support, to control citizens' lands, explaining that the area of land threatened with confiscation exceeds 300 dunams, which is controlled by settlers and occupation forces.

The Arabian Gulf region witnessed a dangerous military escalation following the Iranian Revolutionary Guard's announcement that its facilities on Qeshm Island had been subjected to an American attack. Official sources confirmed that the explosions that rocked the island overlooking the strategic Strait of Hormuz targeted a communications tower, prompting Tehran to activate immediate military response options against American interests in the region.

In a rapidly developing field, the Aerospace Force of the Revolutionary Guard announced the execution of precise missile strikes targeting American military bases stationed in Kuwait. An official statement indicated that this move comes as legitimate defense and a direct response to the aggression against Iranian territory, emphasizing that the missiles hit their targets with high accuracy within the initial deterrence circle.

The Iranian statement warned that the era of operations without retaliation has completely ended, describing the missile attacks as merely an initial warning to international powers. The Revolutionary Guard clarified that any future action affecting Iranian sovereignty will lead to the transformation of the aggressors' headquarters and interests throughout the region into ashes, affirming that the armed forces will not hesitate to protect the borders by all available means.

For its part, news sources had detected violent explosions around Qeshm Island before the official statements were issued, amidst a state of security anticipation in international shipping lanes. These developments place the region before open scenarios of confrontation, especially with Tehran's confirmation that its next response will be seismic and decisive, exceeding all traditional rules and boundaries known in previous conflicts.

Any new folly or aggression that touches an inch of our borders and sovereignty will be met with a seismic and decisive response that transcends established rules and boundaries.

  Confiscation of 2478 dunams as archaeological sites and huge budgets for their seizure"Peace Now" movement: Netanyahu exploits every moment before the elections to create facts that facilitate the complete annexation of the West Bank to turn this country into a land designated for Jews only, materially and morallyJerusalem - Muhammad Abu KhdeirThe Israeli Civil Administration (military rule) issued an order to confiscate the archaeological site of "Herodium" and its surroundings, with a total area ofing 300 dunams, under "Confiscation Order H/03/26". This strategic site is located east of Bethlehem Governorate, in an escalating step within a systematic policy to impose control over holy sites and archaeological sites in the West Bank. The confiscation order includes the famous archaeological hill, excavation areas at the foot of the mountain, in addition to vast agricultural lands owned by Palestinian families from the Ta'amra area, threatening to displace farmers and cut down olive trees, which represent the backbone of the local economy there.In this context, the "Peace Now" movement said in a report yesterday: "The government led by Netanyahu is trying to exploit every moment before the elections to create additional facts on the ground that facilitate the complete annexation of the West Bank. Tourist and archaeological sites constitute another form of settlement. Their goal is not limited to seizing vast areas of Palestinian land, but extends to shaping public awareness, marginalizing the Palestinians' connection to the land, and turning this country into a land designated for Jews only, materially and morally."Roots and expansion of the measureThe roots of this measure date back to March 2024, when the Civil Administration, surprisingly, announced that 170 dunams within the Herodium site were "state land," a concept and system of unjust decisions and legislation used by the British Mandate in Palestine, then modified by the Israeli occupation authorities in favor of settlement. According to Palestinian legal sources, this classification aims to strip Palestinians of their properties based on flimsy arguments of not proving ownership within specific timeframes, which were often short under occupation. The new confiscation order includes this entire area, adding an additional 130 dunams located in the lower part of Herodium (Lower Herodium), which contains a huge pool dating back to the Herodian era, and archaeological arcades and gardens that were used as an ancient royal resting station.Race against time to change realityThe confiscation of Herodium does not come in isolation from a wide campaign launched by the occupation government against antiquities in the West Bank. On February 11, 2026, a record area of 2068 dunams was confiscated for the development of the Sebastia archaeological site in Nablus Governorate, which the Israeli "Peace Now" movement described as "unprecedented and unusual," because it is located within the fabric of a populated Palestinian village, and threatens the livelihood of residents who work in tourism and services related to the historical site. In May 2026, the scenario was repeated at the Nabi Samuel (Prophet Samuel) site north of Jerusalem, where an additional 110 dunams were confiscated, including a mosque and a religious shrine belonging to the Islamic Endowments. "Peace Now" considered this the first time that a religious site owned by the Islamic Endowments was forcibly confiscated.The Israeli narrative: Rehabilitation in preparation for controlFor its part, the Israeli occupation army justified this step through a statement by the Israeli Civil Administration, stating that the decision comes "to develop and preserve the archaeological site," and was taken based on "comprehensive professional assessments conducted by the antiquities official and the nature reserves official in the Civil Administration, which indicated an urgent need to organize the area and enhance preservation efforts; to prevent damage to archaeological remains of unique cultural and historical importance." The extremist Israeli Heritage Minister, Amichai Eliyahu, also announced a plan to rehabilitate the "Lower Pool" in Herodium, with the aim of making it capable of storing water again, and attracting tourists to what he considers "Jewish heritage." Local sources revealed that intensive development work has been carried out at full speed in recent months, focusing on the areas recently confiscated by the occupation, which confirms that the expropriation did not come by chance, but is an administrative facilitation for a plan aimed at transforming Herodium into a global tourist attraction within Israeli promotional programs, with complete disregard for the Palestinian character of the site and the surrounding Palestinian area.Archaeological and historical importanceHerodium (Jabal al-Fureidis) is considered a rare architectural masterpiece. It is the palace and fortress built by King Herod the Great between 23 and 15 BC. The Roman historian Josephus Flavius described it as a site built "to commemorate Herod's victory over the Hasmoneans and the Parthians," a name he immortalized throughout the ages. The site consists of three main parts: the fortified palace on the top of the mountain (Upper Herodium) which overlooks the Dead Sea and Jerusalem, the luxurious "Lower Herodium" complex which included a huge swimming pool (70 x 46 meters) and gardens and arcades, which is the section included in the recent confiscation, in addition to the northern slope where Herod's tomb was discovered. Archaeologist Roi Porat, who has been managing excavations at the site for years, said that "Herodium was considered the largest royal complex in the Roman world in its era, and extended over an area of 250 dunams, and included luxurious Roman baths and huge water channels that brought water from Solomon's Pools in Bethlehem."In 2007, archaeologist Professor Ehud Netzer of the Hebrew University announced the discovery of Herod's tomb, after three decades of research. The tomb was found amidst fragments of a red stone sarcophagus, believed to have been deliberately destroyed by Jews during the revolt against the Romans (66-70 AD), or perhaps during the Bar Kokhba revolt (132-135 AD).Netzer explained in his previous research that "Herod chose this isolated and remote site, which overlooks the horizon of Jerusalem, to be his final resting place despite all the glory he built throughout the kingdom around the world, and he planned to transform the entire mountain into a massive funerary monument on an epic scale," as published excavation documents indicate.Ironically, the Israeli narrative promotes the site as a Jewish site, yet it contains archaeological evidence confirming that it was used as a large Christian monastery between the fifth and seventh centuries AD, in addition to the existence of an entire Byzantine village at the bottom of the hill, reflecting the multiplicity of civilizations on this Palestinian land.Political and legal dimensions:Observers believe that this policy comes within a broader context to dismantle Palestinian Authority institutions and impose de facto Israeli sovereignty over areas classified as "C," which constitute about 60% of the West Bank's area. In February 2026, the Israeli government approved a series of decisions described by "Peace Now" as aiming to "open the West Bank as a real estate market for settlers," including transferring land registration powers from the occupation army to civilian bodies affiliated with the government, which makes it difficult for Palestinians to prove their ownership dating back to the Ottoman Empire and the British Mandate.For his part, Yonatan Mizrahi of "Peace Now" warned that "the current government has a clear messianic agenda, and wants to tell the world that this country is for Jews only, which condemns us to many more years of painful and bloody conflict that cannot be resolved."

RAMALLAH – Exclusive to "Al-Quds" – Settlers, yesterday morning, set fire to two vehicles in the village of Umm Safa, northwest of Ramallah, and spray-painted racist slogans and revenge threats on the walls of homes and facilities in the village, according to local sources confirmed to "Al-Quds".

Marwan Sabah, head of the Umm Safa Village Council, stated in an exclusive statement to "Al-Quds": that groups of settlers infiltrated the center of the village in the early morning hours, and set fire to his vehicle and his brother Muhammad Sabah's vehicle, before spray-painting revenge threats on a number of the village's house walls.

The head of the council described the attack as "the most dangerous against the village and its residents" since the establishment of the neighboring outpost in the Jabal al-Ras area, noting that the attack reflects a dangerous escalation in settler attacks on the village and targeting its properties and residents.

Sources in Umm Safa stated that a force from the Israeli army and border guards arrived at the village after the attack and requested surveillance camera recordings in the area. The sources accused the army of attempting to seize the recordings before the arrival of the Israeli police, considering that this could lead to the obliteration of evidence related to the attack.

The residents of Umm Safa, numbering about 700 people, live under continuous pressure due to settler attacks on their lands, crops, and homes, in addition to repeated attacks on citizens. The occupation authorities also continue to close the village entrances with iron gates and earth mounds for more than three years, forcing residents to take a long bypass road through Ajoul and Rawabi to reach their workplaces, schools, and daily errands.

Umm Safa witnessed violent clashes after occupation army forces stormed the village, conducted field investigations, detained a number of young men, and engaged in provocative actions against the residents that lasted for several hours.

In striking and dangerous statements, Tony Blair, a member of the executive committee of the so-called "Peace Council," recently announced that the Palestinian National Authority would have no role in administering the Gaza Strip, indicating that discussions would be held with Hamas regarding arrangements for the transfer of governance in the Strip. These statements coincided with Benjamin Netanyahu's announcement of his intention to expand Israeli military control to include approximately 70% of the Gaza Strip, at a time when the aggression continues and maps revealing expected areas of control and division are constantly emerging.These developments cannot be read as isolated positions or statements, but rather as interconnected links in a comprehensive political and security project whose fundamental goals remain unchanged. The ongoing aggression against the Gaza Strip is no longer merely a military war; it has become part of a process of reshaping Palestinian reality on foundations that completely contradict Palestinian national rights.The essence of this project is to continue the war of extermination and destruction in the Gaza Strip and create a repellent environment with the aim of pushing Palestinians towards forced migration, preventing the restoration of the unity of political, legal, and geographical jurisdiction of the occupied Palestinian land, and blocking any possibility of establishing an independent, sovereign Palestinian state with East Jerusalem as its capital, in accordance with international legitimacy resolutions.The implementation of this project is not limited to what is happening in the Gaza Strip alone, but is integrated with parallel and accelerating policies in the West Bank and occupied Jerusalem; while the war of extermination and destruction continues in Gaza, settlement operations and land confiscation are accelerating, and organized settler attacks under the protection of the occupation army are expanding, while calls and measures aimed at annexing large parts of the West Bank and imposing colonial realities on them are increasing.In this context, the occupation government continues its financial piracy policy by withholding clearance funds and seizing parts of them, exacerbating the financial crisis and undermining the ability of national institutions to carry out their duties. These policies collectively form part of a systematic attempt to weaken the Palestinian National Authority and undermine its political and administrative role, paving the way for imposing alternative arrangements that bypass Palestinian national rights and their legitimate institutions, and opening the way for reshaping the Palestinian reality to serve the occupation's long-term goals and plans.In this context, Blair's statements appear to be a clear revelation of the role assigned to the so-called "Peace Council." The council does not appear as an entity seeking to end the conflict or achieve a just peace, but rather as a political and administrative framework that works to manage the outcomes of the aggression and forcibly arrange the Palestinian scene in accordance with the Israeli and American vision. This is something we have repeatedly warned against since the announcement of the formation of this council and the presentation of its initiatives under humanitarian or developmental titles, while its true goals related to re-engineering the Palestinian political reality and bypassing the unified legitimate national representation of the Palestinian people.The most dangerous aspect of these proposals is that they seek to entrench the separation between the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, and transform Gaza into a separate and undefined political and administrative entity subject to special arrangements, which practically leads to the liquidation of the Palestinian national project based on the unity of land, people, and cause.In the face of these dangers, what is required from the Palestinians is no longer limited to reactions or condemnation statements, but rather seizing the national initiative by accelerating the departure from the squares of illusion; whether those who believe they can secure a seat through negotiation with the so-called Peace Council and its various formations, or those who overly bet that things will automatically fall into their hands after a while based on false and malicious promises that our people have experienced over many years.Leaving the squares of illusion and betting requires formulating a unified Palestinian position, whose basic pillar is ending the division and restoring national unity, activating the institutions of the Palestine Liberation Organization, and placing this entire file under its authority as the legitimate and sole representative of the Palestinian people, and given its international recognition and ability to invoke international legitimacy resolutions and the effects of international law. It also requires broad political and diplomatic action to expose these schemes to the international community, and to emphasize that the future of Gaza is a purely Palestinian matter, and that the Strip is an integral part of the Palestinian territory occupied in 1967.What is happening today confirms that the battle is no longer just a battle to stop the aggression, but a battle to defend the unity of the Palestinian cause and prevent the imposition of realities aimed at liquidating the legitimate national rights of the Palestinian people. Therefore, restoring the national initiative has become an urgent necessity that cannot be postponed, because the alternative is to allow others to draw the future of Palestine away from the will of its people and its established rights.

The report issued in May 2026 by the Research for Equitable Access and Learning (REAL Centre) at the Faculty of Education, University of Cambridge, titled "Palestinian Authority Textbooks: A Review of Research Evidence," defines itself as an independent and comprehensive systematic review of available research evidence on Palestinian curricula and textbooks. Its primary goal is to provide the international donor community and policymakers with a reliable and non-politicized scientific basis to support the education sector, by answering key questions related to the nature of educational content in textbooks, the scientific accuracy of claims raised about incitement, antisemitism, and non-compliance with UNESCO 2023 standards. The report also seeks to identify methodological gaps in previous reports and research.The report did not rely on a comprehensive and direct analytical review of the learning content in Palestinian textbooks as primary material evidence. Instead, its focus was on examining data from a review of 20 research studies and international and political reports published between 2016 and 2024. Its engagement with textbook texts was limited to inspecting and verifying samples upon which claims were built and cited in those studies.The academic neutrality adopted by the report as an interpretive framework for terminology was reflected in its approach; it defined the Palestinian situation as a polarized and complex political conflict, ignoring the structural and real description of colonialism represented by prolonged occupation. It interpreted the mention of Palestinian struggle and resistance and the invocation of images of martyrs as emotionally charged content that needs rationalization according to peace standards, without differentiating between the violence, terrorism, and violations of the aggressor (the occupation) and the act of steadfastness and legitimate resistance of the Palestinian. It also considered the absence of Israel as a peace partner on maps as an educational problem, assuming a natural context for coexistence and ignoring the real situation which reveals that the occupation has never adhered to peace agreements, even though they were mentioned in the context of Palestinian history in social studies discussions.The main conclusions of the report found that Zionist incitement reports were flimsy and lacked academic and scientific credibility because they relied on selectivity and out-of-context excerpts of concepts described as incitement. At the same time, the findings proved that Palestinian curricula are structurally distinct and have succeeded in differentiating between Judaism as a religion and Zionism as a political movement, emphasizing the Palestinian curricula's commitment to UNESCO standards on gender issues, women's rights, inclusion, and values of citizenship and global citizenship. This led the report to its final recommendation on the necessity of continued international financial support for the Palestinian education sector, focusing on professional development for teachers, and the urgent need for intervention to support education in the Gaza Strip, in order to confront the educational genocide.First: Methodological ReadingA careful methodological reading of the Cambridge University report, and an examination of the selected sample and the analytical tool upon which the conclusions were built, reveals that the report fell into the trap of double filtering of evidence; the researchers did not deal comprehensively and directly with the full content of curriculum documents or Palestinian textbooks, but relied on texts previously filtered through the thought and perspective of researchers in those previous studies and reports. It is clear that this sample selection was not based on an educational vision seeking an objective evaluation of the overall cognitive structure of Palestinian curricula with their documents, vision, and philosophy in the fields of science, mathematics, technology, and arts. It may have been inadvertently biased and directed in one way or another by political pressures and conditions from funding bodies or other affiliations to pursue hot topics in social and humanities studies textbooks.However, the validity of the results remains dependent on the extent to which the excerpted texts represent the structure of the Palestinian curriculum; these fragmented texts have become misleading claims and tools of incitement against Palestinian curricula, which made the report's ability to provide a fair, comprehensive, and equitable educational assessment weak. As for the analytical tool and its indicators, the report derived them from UNESCO recommendations for education for international understanding, cooperation, and peace. These indicators were formulated with normative standards that assume the existence of sovereign, stable, and safe educational environments without addressing the contexts under a prolonged settler occupation, which is one of the most heinous and violent models of the deadliest colonialism.Although this tool enjoys high reliability in the West and in stable countries and societies, it lacks conceptual validity and is alienated from the context; applying these rigid indicators to Palestinian curricula is a methodological flaw, as it judges the victim using politicized tools to besiege Palestinian consciousness, memory, and history to conform to donor conditions, bypassing the needs and priorities of Palestinian society for liberation and development.Second: Conceptual ReadingThe main epistemological dilemma in such international reports lies in the preconceived definitions of concepts upon which measurement tools in educational, philosophical, and intellectual dimensions are based; the report adopts a view of peace as the absence of armed conflicts and a superficial, false coexistence, which necessitates disciplined educational discourse to avoid tension and for the victim to cease expressing the oppression, subjugation, massacres, and seizure of land and resources of the Palestinian people. The report overlooks that true peace in the Palestinian context is an inevitable result of achieving justice and the Palestinian people obtaining their inalienable rights, including the right to self-determination and the rights of refugees to return according to international legitimacy resolutions, particularly Resolution 194.This conceptual flaw extends to the definition of human rights, as the report focuses on the civil and daily rights of the child as an individual and turns a blind eye to the fundamental collective rights of peoples living under occupation. The report approached the concept of tolerance from a rigid normative perspective that lacks the necessary epistemological caution to grasp the complexities of the historical and political context, appearing detached from human ethics and the conditions of justice, freedom, and recognition of rights; despite the report's success in monitoring the positive educational dimension of Palestinian curricula, it threatens to dilute the concept, forcibly transforming it into an acceptance of the status quo and settler colonialism. This is clearly evident in its approach to citizenship, where it assumes an unreal and imagined context of a stable, sovereign Palestinian state with recognized, drawn borders, ignoring that citizenship in the Palestinian context is linked to steadfastness and cultural resistance to protect existence from erasure.The greatest epistemological flaw appears in the treatment of the duality of resistance and violence; while the report defines violence as the material use of force or incitement to it, it falls into the trap of educational and moral equivalence between the systematic violence of the aggressor, represented by the occupation and settlements, and the legitimate act of resistance and the reaction of the victim defending themselves as a right guaranteed by international laws and charters. The report is credited with relying on UNESCO documents that legitimize the critical teaching of colonialism to students, but its definition of resistance remained conditional on the limits of acceptability that do not desire the struggle of colonized peoples, making the report's conceptual structure selective, reproducing concepts to suit the requirements of adaptation and conflict management, not the requirements of emancipation, liberation, and independence.Third: Analysis of the Absent Context and its Impact on RecommendationsA precise methodological paradox appears in the report; the report showed balance and strategic maturity in its final recommendations and conclusions, overcoming the attempt to maintain negative neutrality that led it in conceptual analysis to a cold reading that does not reflect the pulse of the real and field reality of the Palestinian child who witnesses with their own eyes the walls that disfigure the Palestinian landscape, and the checkpoints and settlements that devour their daily surroundings; the report acknowledged that the presence of these terms in some places is a realistic documentation, not a luxurious intellectual choice.Nevertheless, this neutrality did not prevent the presentation of practical conclusions and recommendations characterized by balance and fairness for the Palestinian educational system; it formed a barrier against attempts to politically erase the Palestinian national curriculum through its clear refutation of Israeli incitement reports and its explicit and unequivocal recognition of Palestinian curricula's commitment to UNESCO humanitarian standards. The strategic value of the report is evident in its recommendations directed to the international donor community, which emphasize the educational validity and eligibility of Palestinian curricula, and explicitly call for the necessity of continued and flowing financial and political support for the education sector as a fundamental right that cannot be compromised or held hostage to political conditions, and its call for urgent and pressing humanitarian and educational intervention to rebuild and rehabilitate what the occupation destroyed in terms of educational genocide in the Gaza Strip. Thus, the report succeeded in presenting a balanced set of recommendations that safeguard Palestinian educational sovereignty internationally and provide a strong academic safety net for continued support and funding.Fourth: Procedural Recommendations and Practical StepsBased on the integrated reading of the Cambridge University report, a set of recommendations is necessary to contribute to the protection and development of educational sovereignty:1. Adopting the report as an international reference document: Work to disseminate the report and officially translate it, and publish it widely among diplomatic missions, UN organizations, and donor communities, to use it as a tool to dismantle attempts to link educational funding to political conditions.2. Forming a unified national team to protect funding: Invest the report's weighty recommendation regarding the flow of financial support to build a strong alliance with international partners and donors who believe in the right to education, ensuring the stability of financial resources.3. Launching a national and international campaign for the reconstruction of education in Gaza: Immediately rely on the report's call for urgent intervention in the Gaza Strip, to formulate a comprehensive national action plan in partnership with international bodies to address the effects of destruction and rebuild the education system in Gaza.4. Investing in professional development and empowering teachers: Develop specialized and sustainable professional development programs for educational staff focusing on equipping them with skills in delivering national and liberation content through interactive methods that meet quality standards.5. Institutionalizing national educational review of curricula: Continuously review and develop curricula and textbooks through national efforts to further entrench human rights, inclusion, and citizenship, while preserving the historical and national narrative of Palestinians.6. Re-engineering the education system as a key to radical transformation and change: Form a comprehensive national team representing all Palestinians, to lead a comprehensive structural change process in the philosophy of education and its governance; to transition the system from a closed, knowledge-consuming system to a flexible, open, and renewed system, capable of dismantling dependency, and based on the sustainability of educational sovereignty and national funding as a fundamental condition for emancipation, liberation, and building a knowledge society.

Jerusalem is not a city to be read solely on political maps, nor can it be reduced to the context of rapidly unfolding daily events. It is an entity that transcends geography, settling in consciousness as an open question about justice, identity, and meaning: How do cities transform into memory? And how does memory transform into a battleground? In Jerusalem, events do not occur in isolation or fleetingly; rather, they accumulate as intertwined layers of time and politics, until every detail—from closing a door, to changing a street's path, to a recurring incursion—becomes part of a long narrative rewritten on the ground every day. Here, we are not talking about managing a city, but about an attempt to redefine it: Who is it? To whom does it belong? And who has the right to narrate its story? At the heart of this scene stands the Al-Aqsa Mosque, as more than a religious landmark or historical symbol; it is a space where identity intertwines with memory, the sacred with the political, and daily existence with collective meaning. Therefore, any harm to it is not read as a fleeting event, but as part of a deeper conflict over symbols, narrative, and the right to define the place. However, what is happening in Jerusalem is not limited to the visible confrontation. The more dangerous developments occur in the depths: transforming the exception into a rule, the temporary into the permanent, and power into a system that reconfigures the details of daily life. And when policies extend to urban planning, movement, worship, and education, we are not facing isolated measures, but a process of re-engineering existence itself. What is called reality management in Jerusalem is not only about security measures or political decisions, but about an attempt to redefine the human within the place: who is allowed to belong, whose consciousness is reshaped, whose memory is written, and who is pushed to the margins in a slow but extended and effective silence. Nevertheless, deep-rooted cities are not easily reduced. They are not just stone, but living memory embodied in people, language, and the details of daily life. And every attempt to reshape them collides with something invisible yet extremely solid: the continued awareness of the city as it is in collective memory, and as its people have lived it generation after generation. In this context, Jerusalem does not appear to be merely a political battleground, but transforms into an open philosophical question about justice: Can justice remain justice if it is separated from memory? And can a place be redefined by force without losing its soul in human consciousness? And can a city of such depth be reduced to drawn boundaries or a single narrative? The scene becomes more complex amidst recurring international silence, or a clear inability to turn warnings into action. Between the language of statements and the reality on the ground, the gap widens between what is said and what is imposed, until the world seems to be observing the transformation of meaning without the ability to curb it. But despite all this, Jerusalem does not seem to be a city that can be reduced. It resists in a different way: a resistance of existence and meaning, not a resistance of noise; a resistance to remain a city in consciousness, even when it is desired to be reduced to a file, a procedure, or a reality imposed by force. And here lies the profound paradox: the more the pressure intensifies to reshape it, the more it clings to a deeper image of itself, as if it is not only defending its place, but its right to be understood as it is, not as it is desired to be narrated. In the end, Jerusalem remains between two possibilities that weigh on human consciousness: either it is reduced to a reality imposed by force, or it remains a living idea that resists oblivion and distortion and continues as a meaning that transcends control. Between these two possibilities, the question remains suspended: How can a city be taken away, yet not lose its ability to be dreamed?

Israeli occupation forces intensified their military aggression on wide areas in southern Lebanon, where their warplanes carried out airstrikes targeting the town of Deir Qanoun - Ras al-Ain in the Tyre district, in addition to another raid that hit the town of Majdal Zoun in the Marjayoun district. These attacks come amid a widespread field escalation aimed at exerting military pressure simultaneously with ongoing political movements abroad.

In a significant field development, the occupation army carried out extensive combing operations using heavy machine guns, accompanied by systematic demolition of buildings and intense artillery shelling targeting the town of Debbin and its surroundings. Field sources reported that Israeli forces are attempting to advance terrestrially towards the town of Blat, amidst intense reconnaissance and warplane activity in the region's airspace.

Regarding human casualties, the Lebanese Ministry of Health announced a grim toll resulting from the raids launched from Monday midnight until Tuesday evening, with 5 martyrs and 48 others sustaining various injuries. The list of victims included medical personnel, among them a doctor and health workers at Tibnin Hospital, whose surrounding area was directly targeted.

In a related context, an Israeli drone targeted the Ain neighborhood in the town of Arabsalim, leading to the martyrdom of a paramedic affiliated with the 'Al-Risala' Health Ambulance Association team while performing his humanitarian duty. Israeli targeting of relief and medical teams continues, in a clear violation of international laws that protect health workers during armed conflicts.

Politically, the fourth round of indirect negotiations between Lebanon and Israel, sponsored by the United States, began in the American capital, Washington, with discussions resuming today, Wednesday. This round focuses on attempting to solidify the fragile ceasefire announced on April 17th, which was recently extended until early July.

US Ambassador to Lebanon, Michel Issa, expressed his optimism about the course of these talks in statements he made in front of the US State Department headquarters. Issa affirmed that the atmosphere is positive and that there is a real possibility of reaching a final agreement between the two sides soon, noting that diplomatic efforts are being exerted to their utmost to overcome the remaining obstacles.

Political circles believe that the success of these Lebanese-Israeli negotiations represents a cornerstone for the current US administration, as it paves the way for completing other negotiation tracks in the region, especially with Iran. Informed sources indicated that Washington seeks to calm Israel's northern front to ensure broader regional stability that serves its strategic interests.

For his part, US President Donald Trump hinted at overcoming what he described as the 'small problem' that was hindering progress on the Iranian file, in an implicit reference to the military escalation in Lebanon. It appears that the US administration organically links the region's files, considering that achieving calm in southern Lebanon will facilitate major understandings with other regional parties.

Domestically in Lebanon, division remains the master of the situation regarding these negotiations, as Hezbollah renews its strong opposition to this path, describing it as a kind of 'surrender' to Israeli demands. In contrast, the Lebanese government insists that negotiation is the only available option to stop the bloodshed and protect national sovereignty from the Israeli war machine.

It is worth noting that this negotiation track witnessed three previous rounds in Washington during April and May, where discussions took place under complex field conditions. International parties hope that the current round will lead to the formulation of a permanent framework for ceasing hostile operations, ensuring the return of displaced persons on both sides of the border and ending the continuous state of tension.

The talks are going well and there is great optimism, and an agreement between Lebanon and Israel may be reached soon.

By: Said Arikat

June 2, 2026

News analysis

Washington, D.C-By any reasonable standard, the revelations published by The Guardian regarding congressional travel to Israel should trigger a serious national debate about foreign influence, political accountability, and the growing disconnect between American voters and their elected representatives.

The investigation reveals that since October 7, 2023, dozens of members of Congress and senior congressional staff have participated in lavish, all-expenses-paid trips to Israel funded by the American Israel Education Foundation (AIEF), the charitable affiliate of AIPAC. According to congressional ethics filings examined by the newspaper, the organization spent more than $4.2 million on at least fifteen delegations involving Democratic and Republican lawmakers and their aides.

The timing is impossible to ignore.

These trips occurred not during a period of peace, but while Israel was conducting one of the most controversial military campaigns of the modern era. They continued amid widespread allegations of war crimes, mounting civilian casualties in Gaza, accusations of genocide before the International Court of Justice, and a growing international consensus that Israeli policy has entered a new and increasingly radical phase.

Yet rather than exposing lawmakers to a broad range of perspectives, the itineraries described by The Guardian appear designed to reinforce a singular narrative.

Delegations met Israeli officials, military contractors, settlement advocates, and political figures associated with annexationist policies. Participants toured military facilities, received briefings from officials defending Israeli actions, visited archaeological projects linked to settlement expansion in occupied East Jerusalem, and even attended meetings in illegal settlements in the occupied West Bank.

What is most striking is not that such trips exist. Congressional junkets sponsored by foreign policy advocacy organizations have long been a feature of Washington. What is striking is their persistence at a moment when public opinion in the United States is moving sharply in the opposite direction.

Recent polling indicates that a substantial majority of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents now hold unfavorable views of Israel’s policies. Public sympathy for the Israeli government has declined dramatically, particularly among younger voters, minorities, and progressive constituencies. Images of destruction in Gaza, coupled with increasingly explicit statements by senior Israeli ministers advocating annexation and population displacement, have altered political perceptions in ways that would have seemed unimaginable only a decade ago.

Yet Congress remains remarkably insulated from this shift.

The Guardian’s findings help explain why.

The trips are not merely educational excursions. They are part of a sophisticated political ecosystem that combines campaign financing, lobbying, donor networks, policy advocacy, and political signaling. Participation serves as a public declaration of loyalty to a powerful political infrastructure that has become one of the most formidable forces in American politics.

Harvard professor Stephen Walt correctly described these trips as a “litmus test.” In Washington, attendance signals reliability. It demonstrates to donors, lobbyists, and political gatekeepers that a politician can be trusted to remain aligned with AIPAC’s priorities.

This reality becomes even more significant when viewed alongside AIPAC’s recent electoral interventions.

The organization’s super PAC and affiliated groups have spent tens of millions of dollars in congressional races, helping defeat critics of Israeli policy while elevating candidates viewed as more dependable allies. The victories of Wesley Bell over Cori Bush and George Latimer over Jamaal Bowman stand as some of the clearest examples of this strategy. In both cases, enormous financial resources were deployed to remove incumbents who had become outspoken critics of Israeli actions.

More recently, AIPAC and its allies were widely credited with helping undermine Republican Congressman Thomas Massie after he challenged aspects of U.S. support for Israel. The message sent to elected officials is unmistakable: dissent carries consequences.

What emerges is a system that extends far beyond traditional lobbying.

Unlike many interest groups, AIPAC occupies a unique position within the American political landscape. It combines extraordinary fundraising capacity with extensive relationships across both major parties. Its influence is amplified by a network of donors, advocacy organizations, think tanks, media allies, and affiliated educational initiatives such as AIEF.

The result is an ecosystem capable of rewarding compliance and punishing deviation with remarkable effectiveness.

The legal structure of AIEF adds another layer to the story. Because it is formally organized as a charitable educational foundation rather than a lobbying organization, it can finance congressional travel that direct lobbying entities would be prohibited from funding. Legally, the arrangement satisfies ethics requirements. Politically, however, it raises obvious questions about whether the distinction is meaningful.

If lawmakers are receiving luxury travel, premium accommodations, exclusive access to foreign leaders, and highly curated political briefings from an organization that shares personnel, infrastructure, and strategic objectives with one of Washington’s most influential lobbying groups, the line between education and advocacy becomes increasingly difficult to discern.

Perhaps the most revealing aspect of the Guardian investigation is that these efforts appear to be producing diminishing returns.

The influence machine remains powerful, but public attitudes continue to evolve.

For decades, support for Israel functioned as one of the few genuinely bipartisan pillars of American foreign policy. Today, that consensus is eroding. Younger Americans are increasingly skeptical. Progressive Democrats are openly challenging long-standing assumptions. Even some conservatives have begun questioning the scale and costs of U.S. commitments abroad.

This shift explains why organizations such as AIPAC appear to be investing more heavily than ever in maintaining elite political support. As grassroots opinion changes, the importance of preserving institutional backing within Congress grows correspondingly greater.

The paradox is striking. At the precise moment when Israel’s standing among many Americans is declining, Washington’s political establishment appears more insulated from public sentiment than ever.

The luxury trips documented by The Guardian are therefore about far more than expensive hotels or first-class hospitality. They offer a glimpse into how foreign policy consensus is manufactured, maintained, and defended in the American capital.

Ultimately, the issue is not whether lawmakers should visit Israel. They should. Nor is it whether they should hear Israeli perspectives. Of course they should.

The question is whether American democracy is best served when foreign policy education is effectively outsourced to organizations with a direct political stake in the outcome. As public opinion shifts and the gap between voters and policymakers widens, that question becomes increasingly difficult—and increasingly urgent—to ignore.

Groups of Israeli settlers, on Tuesday, set fire to vast areas of Palestinian agricultural land located west of Hebron city in the southern West Bank. The attack focused on fields planted with wheat crops and olive trees, leading to the destruction of hundreds of dunams amidst an atmosphere of severe tension and field confrontations that erupted in the area.

Local sources reported that the settlers deliberately used tools such as 'blowers' to ensure the flames spread more quickly through the dry crops, making it extremely difficult to control the fire. This assault coincided with a heavy presence of Israeli army forces that provided full protection to the settlers while they carried out the burning operation, preventing farmers from approaching to save their lands.

The area witnessed pushing and sharp verbal altercations between residents and occupation forces, with the latter firing tear gas canisters at citizens who tried to confront the settlers. These confrontations resulted in the arrest of three Palestinian landowners, a move residents considered part of a systematic policy of tightening restrictions to push them to leave their lands.

Affected farmers explained that these attacks are not isolated, but rather come within a series of continuous pressures that have included land and sheep confiscation and daily abuse since October 7, 2023. They pointed out that the Israeli army imposes a security cordon preventing the access of firefighting teams or volunteers, leaving crops vulnerable to complete damage under the eyes of the soldiers.

The residents of the area issued urgent appeals to the international community and human rights organizations for serious intervention to stop these violations and provide protection for Palestinian farmers. The residents affirmed their steadfastness in remaining on their lands despite the policies of burning and bulldozing aimed at expanding the settlement outposts surrounding Hebron city at the expense of their private properties.

This incident comes in the context of a significant escalation in settler attacks in various governorates of the West Bank, where Palestinian food security is targeted through crop burning and the felling of ancient trees. Field reports confirm that these attacks often occur in coordination with army forces, reflecting an official trend to escalate pressure on Palestinian population centers in 'Area C' classified areas.

According to official data, the ongoing Israeli escalation in the West Bank has led to the martyrdom and injury of thousands, in addition to widespread arrest campaigns affecting nearly 23,000 citizens. These measures coincide with forced displacement operations affecting thousands of families, amidst the ongoing war on the Gaza Strip and the expansion of targeting across all occupied Palestinian territories.

Settlers used a blower to increase the spread of fire in wheat fields, while occupation forces prevented us from reaching to extinguish it.

The Israeli government has approved a joint financial and military plan between the Ministries of Defense and Finance, aimed at activating what is known as the 'Elite Law' to prosecute Hamas members who participated in the October 7, 2023 attack. This step comes within the framework of the occupation's efforts to legitimize exceptional judicial procedures targeting Palestinian resistance fighters under local legal cover.

According to the approved details, a massive budget exceeding one billion shekels, equivalent to approximately 270 million US dollars, has been allocated to cover the expenses of these trials during the period between 2026 and 2029. These funds will be directed towards building an integrated infrastructure that includes military court complexes, public prosecution offices, and the necessary computing and communication systems to manage the sessions.

The new law stipulates the establishment of a special military court to try 250 prisoners from the Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades, the military wing of Hamas. Among the most controversial provisions is the inclusion of a substantial reservation that absolutely prevents the inclusion of these prisoners in any future exchange operations, thereby closing the door to their release through negotiated channels.

For his part, Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant stated that these measures represent a firm message to those he described as 'enemies,' emphasizing the continuation of the military judicial process. In the same context, Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich affirmed that the government is committed to providing all necessary financial resources to ensure the unhindered operation of this exceptional judicial system.

The Israeli Knesset witnessed broad agreement between the coalition and the opposition on this legislation, with 93 members voting in favor, reflecting an internal political consensus on adopting retaliatory policies. Observers believe that this approach transforms the judiciary into a tool for political propaganda and psychological warfare, far from internationally recognized standards of justice.

In contrast, Hamas condemned this law, describing it as a racist and void act lacking any legal legitimacy, and considered it a blatant attempt to evade the requirements of exchange deals. The movement affirmed in a statement that bypassing the rules of evidence and usual legal procedures reveals the vengeful nature of the occupation system that seeks to punish prisoners outside the framework of international law.

On the international legal front, the 'Elite Law' faces sharp criticism for its explicit contradiction with the Third Geneva Convention, which guarantees the rights of prisoners of war and protects them from sham trials. Experts also warn that depriving prisoners of the right to a fair trial before ordinary courts may constitute a war crime under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.

This law represents a dangerous escalation and an Israeli attempt to evade any future prisoner exchange deals.

Media sources have revealed a new direction for the administration of US President Donald Trump, aiming to radically restructure consular work in the African continent. The plan includes reducing the number of embassies and consulates authorized to process visa applications from about 50 diplomatic missions to only 20 regional centers, a step that reflects Washington's desire to concentrate its consular operations.

A leaked internal memo from the US State Department showed that the new list of approved centers almost completely excluded Arab countries located in the north and east of the African continent. The exclusion included Egypt, Algeria, Morocco, Tunisia, Libya, Sudan, and Mauritania, placing these countries outside the map of expanded US consular services in the region.

In contrast, Djibouti emerged as the sole exception among African Arab countries, where it was decided to grant it a fully empowered center for processing all types of visa applications. This decision comes within the context of the current US administration's efforts to tighten immigration policies and limit the issuance of visas for both immigrants and non-immigrants.

Under these structural changes, citizens of the excluded Arab countries will face significant logistical and financial challenges when wishing to obtain a US entry visa. They will have to travel to other countries to conduct personal interviews and complete the required procedures, which adds travel and accommodation burdens that did not exist previously.

Although the consular sections in the excluded countries will continue their work, their tasks will be limited to a very narrow scope, including caring for the affairs of American citizens residing there and dealing with emergency cases only. However, the processing of most routine visa applications will be entirely transferred to the regional centers identified by the new plan in other African countries.

The list of selected regional centers includes cities in countries such as Ghana, Ethiopia, Senegal, Kenya, Nigeria, Tanzania, Rwanda, Uganda, Angola, and South Africa. These choices reflect Washington's desire to distribute its consular centers based on regional and security considerations that align with the new US administration's vision for managing immigration and border issues.

Although no official announcement has been issued by the US State Department regarding the exact date of implementation, reports indicate that the decision may come into effect within the next few weeks. Diplomatic circles are monitoring potential reactions from the Arab countries affected by this decision, which may impact the pace of cultural and economic exchange with Washington.

The new plan will impose additional financial and logistical burdens on applicants from the excluded African Arab countries, as they will have to travel to other countries to complete their procedures.

The Israeli military establishment has launched an extensive investigation into the growing technical capabilities of Hezbollah's drones, following a series of precise nocturnal attacks targeting troop concentrations in southern Lebanon. Hebrew reports indicated that this move came after the killing of three soldiers in an attack last Saturday, raising serious questions about the accuracy of previous intelligence assessments that ruled out the group's possession of night surveillance technologies in its suicide drones.

Sources quoted soldiers from the "Givati" Brigade expressing surprise at the drones' highly accurate targeting of objectives in the darkness of night, a combat pattern not previously encountered by field units. The fighters pointed out that the prevailing assumption was that these drones operated only in daylight due to their lack of thermal sensing systems, but recent field realities have imposed a completely different situation.

Concerns among the occupation army's leadership focus on Hezbollah's success in integrating advanced thermal cameras into the structures of small drones, despite the technical challenges posed by these additions. Sources explain that equipping drones with night vision equipment increases their overall weight, which could theoretically affect their maneuverability and flight duration, but the group appears to have overcome these technical obstacles.

In adapting to this new threat, the Israeli field command has taken precautionary measures, including reducing reliance on heavy vehicles and bulldozers in exposed areas during night hours. These vehicles are considered easy targets for drones due to their high thermal signature, prompting the army to seek alternative strategies to reduce its human and material losses in confronting the group's air force.

For his part, an American security expert specializing in drone technologies confirmed that Hezbollah has indeed begun operating swarms of small drones capable of performing dual missions including reconnaissance and nocturnal attack. The expert explained that these drones rely on tracking the thermal signatures of equipment and personnel, giving them a decisive advantage in accurately identifying targets even in conditions of zero visibility, which represents a significant challenge to traditional defense systems.

Observers believe that this technical development reflects Hezbollah's ability to rapidly evolve its combat methods to match the Israeli army's tactics, moving from complete reliance on anti-tank missiles to the intensive use of explosive drones. This shift forces the occupation to reformulate its defensive strategies, including strengthening electronic jamming systems and developing additional protection measures for infantry and mobile forces.

Israeli military circles are currently seeking to expand the scope of ground operations in some pockets of southern Lebanon, in an attempt to move these drone launch platforms away from the front lines and border settlements. However, military sources acknowledge the difficulty of fully controlling this threat, especially with the group's possession of technological capabilities that allow it to monitor Israeli military movements around the clock and in various weather conditions.

Injuring forces at night by a drone is something that has not happened before with combat units, and we assumed they lacked thermal detection means.

US Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, emphasized his country's firm stance on the sanctions imposed on Tehran, asserting that reopening the Strait of Hormuz alone would not be sufficient to offer economic concessions. Rubio clarified that freedom of navigation in this strategic waterway is a cornerstone and a top priority in any future negotiation path between Washington and the Iranian regime.

The head of US diplomacy pointed to the necessity of a clear and explicit Iranian declaration guaranteeing the opening of the Strait to global trade traffic without restrictions. He considered this measure the necessary first step to build any broader understandings, noting that the US administration is closely monitoring Iranian behavior in waterways before making any decision regarding sanctions.

Regarding the negotiation process, Rubio revealed tangible progress in some files that had been stalled for many years between the two parties. He explained that the Iranian side showed surprising flexibility in discussing technical points related to its nuclear program, issues that Tehran had previously refused even to put on the table for discussion in previous negotiation rounds.

Despite this progress, the US Secretary warned against Iran's long-term intentions, accusing Tehran of seeking to build what he described as a strategic 'defensive shield.' Rubio believes that this move aims to provide cover to protect the Iranian nuclear program until it reaches the stage of weapons production, citing Iran's continued possession of a huge arsenal of drones.

On the ground, Tehran has taken escalatory steps to regulate navigation, announcing that all vessels crossing the Strait must obtain prior permission. According to the new decisions, oil tankers and commercial vessels must submit applications to the 'Persian Gulf Waterway Management Authority' before commencing the transit process.

The Iranian Revolutionary Guard confirmed in an official statement that this new electronic system aims to regulate traffic in the most important waterway for global energy supplies. The statement obliged ship captains and shipping companies to register on the Authority's digital platform, considering these measures an assertion of the state's sovereignty over its territorial waters.

Transit applications are subject to careful study by the competent authority, as no naval vessel will be allowed to pass without obtaining official and documented approval. This step complements Tehran's decision to establish this authority last month, which was granted broad powers including full oversight of waterways and imposing transit fees on vessels.

These Iranian measures raise international concerns about turning the Strait of Hormuz into a tool for political and economic pressure amid escalating tensions. While Washington talks about the possibility of reaching a comprehensive agreement, observers believe that imposing a prior permit system could complicate the navigation landscape and increase the likelihood of friction in the region.

The first condition in talks with Iran is to allow the opening of the Strait of Hormuz, and Tehran must clearly declare this to global navigation.

A recent scientific paper issued by Al-Zaytouna Centre for Studies and Consultations revealed the strategic future features of the Iranian nuclear program, indicating that Tehran is approaching the acquisition of full nuclear capability without the need for an official announcement of possessing the weapon. The study, prepared by future studies expert Dr. Walid Abdel Hay, explained that the most realistic path in the coming years is to consolidate the status of a 'threshold state,' a condition that grants the Iranian regime broad deterrent influence without engaging in direct confrontation with the international community.

The foresight approach stems from a precise analysis of the global nuclear system, which has maintained its relative stability since 2006, as the list of the nine-member nuclear club has not expanded. However, the study indicates that the expansion of peaceful nuclear technology has become a technical bridge for some countries to shift towards military uses when security necessities arise, which accurately applies to the Iranian case that blends civilian infrastructure with the latent capacity for armament.

The paper reviewed the historical roots of this file, recalling that its beginnings were under direct American patronage during the Shah's era within the 'Atoms for Peace' program. However, the radical transformation brought about by the Islamic Revolution in 1979 turned the project from an ally of the West into a strategic threat, leading to decades of diplomatic conflict and economic sanctions that culminated after the US withdrawal from the nuclear agreement in 2018.

The study criticized what it described as the 'failure of imminent bomb prophecies' promoted by Western and Israeli political and media circles over three decades. It noted that the repeated warnings issued by Benjamin Netanyahu since the 1990s did not materialize, which necessitates distinguishing between sound scientific assessments and propaganda discourse linked to regional conflicts and attempts to mobilize politically against Tehran.

The study presented four scenarios for the program's future until 2030, completely ruling out the scenario of dismantling the nuclear program, giving it a success rate of no more than 10%. This exclusion is due to the enormous investments made by the Iranian state in this sector, and its consideration as a fundamental pillar of national sovereignty and strategic independence that cannot be relinquished under external pressures.

In contrast, the 'nuclear threshold state' scenario received the highest probability, at 60-65%, as the study believes that this status achieves a delicate balance for Iran. This path provides it with 'deterrence by knowledge,' i.e., the ability to produce the weapon in record time if it faces an existential threat, while at the same time avoiding the harsh legal and political consequences that might result from an announced nuclear test.

As for the possibility of actually moving to weapon production and officially announcing it, the study estimated its chances at 35% to 40%. This radical shift is linked to crucial variables, such as Iranian facilities being subjected to a widespread military attack, or a complete collapse of all diplomatic channels, which might push hardline factions and the Revolutionary Guard to make a decisive nuclear decision to ensure the regime's survival.

The paper also touched upon the 'black swan' scenario, a term that refers to sudden and unexpected events that can turn the tables upside down. These events may include unexpected internal political collapses or major changes in the international and regional environment, making predictions about the nuclear program's trajectory always subject to complex geopolitical variables that go beyond purely technical aspects.

The study used American measurement models, such as the 'Geiger Counter for the Iranian Threat,' which shows Tehran reaching critical levels of readiness. Despite the accuracy of these figures, the researcher warns against institutional biases in these models, emphasizing that Iranian behavior is governed by 'strategic ambiguity' calculations aimed at keeping adversaries in a state of permanent uncertainty about actual capabilities.

The paper confirms that the Iranian nuclear decision is not merely technical, but a political decision par excellence, influenced by the nature of American involvement in the region and the positions of major powers such as Russia and China. Iran's continued presence in the gray area poses a significant challenge to regional powers, especially in light of the continuous escalation with the Israeli occupation, which views these capabilities as a direct threat to its military superiority in the Middle East.

Data indicates that Tehran has succeeded in transforming nuclear ambiguity into a powerful diplomatic tool in its negotiations with the West. The higher the uranium enrichment levels, the stronger Iran's cards at the negotiating table, making it difficult to imagine a full return to the restrictions imposed by the 2015 agreement without major concessions from the opposing international powers.

On the regional level, the study believes that Iran's remaining at the nuclear threshold may stimulate an arms race in the region, as other countries seek to acquire similar technology to achieve balance. However, Iran remains the most advanced and complex case due to its possession of a complete nuclear fuel cycle and local human expertise, making it difficult to eliminate the program through traditional military means alone.

The paper concluded that the scene until 2030 will remain governed by a 'brinkmanship' policy, where Iran approaches red lines without crossing them in a way that would necessitate an all-out war. This tactic allows Tehran to enhance its regional influence and protect its national security, while maintaining a delicate balance with the International Atomic Energy Agency and global powers concerned with nuclear non-proliferation.

In conclusion, ambiguity emerges as one of the most important elements of Iranian power in the current decade, transforming from a mere technical state to an integrated deterrence strategy. Accordingly, the world will have to deal with Iran as a nuclear power 'in fact' even if not 'by declaration,' a new reality that reshapes the balance of power in the turbulent Middle East region.

The most likely scenario is Iran's continued position as a 'nuclear threshold state' capable of producing the bomb within a short period if the political decision is made.

Hamas spokesman Hazem Qassem refuted claims promoted by parties in the 'Peace Council' regarding the movement's insistence on holding power in the Gaza Strip and refusing to hand it over. Qassem described these statements as deliberate misinformation aimed at providing the Israeli occupation with the necessary political cover to continue its military operations, especially after the exposure of plans led by Southern Command chief Yaniv Asor to control about 70% of the Strip's territory.

The movement's spokesman stressed that Hamas is fully and absolutely ready to hand over all administrative and governance functions in Gaza, including the sensitive security file, to the National Committee that was previously agreed upon in the Egyptian capital, Cairo. He clarified that the movement does not seek to obstruct any consensual path that serves the Palestinian national interest, but rather pushes for activating the agreed-upon institutions to ensure the stability of field and administrative conditions.

In a related context, the movement directed direct accusations at both the occupation authorities and UN coordinator Mladenov for standing as a stumbling block to the implementation of the handover understandings. Sources indicated that Mladenov deliberately complicated political paths by confining negotiations to one angle, which the movement considered a departure even from the vision put forward by US President Donald Trump regarding peace in the Gaza Strip, leading to the freezing of the National Committee's effectiveness.

Qassem also criticized the state of helplessness suffered by the 'Peace Council' in exerting real pressure on the Israeli side to force it to allow the National Committee to enter Gaza and begin its duties. He affirmed that this failure to provide the necessary capabilities for field work keeps the file of aid management and civil control hostage to ongoing military escalation, exacerbating humanitarian crises within the besieged Strip.

Some parties' talk about our refusal to hand over power is pure misleading lies aimed at providing political cover for the occupation to continue its military aggression.

Israeli occupation forces continued to violate the ceasefire agreement in the Gaza Strip, committing a series of new attacks this Tuesday morning that resulted in the martyrdom of citizens and the injury of others. These aerial and ground attacks focused on the cities of Deir al-Balah and Khan Yunis, escalating the field tension amidst the fragile calm that residents are trying to hold onto.

Regarding the details of the attacks, medical sources at Nasser Medical Complex confirmed the martyrdom of young Ali Yasser al-Adeini after he was directly shot by the occupation army near Hamad Residential City. This area is located northwest of Khan Yunis city and is outside the declared military control, indicating an expansion in direct targeting operations against civilians.

Concurrently, Israeli military vehicles carried out intense gunfire in the eastern areas of Khan Yunis city, accompanied by the continued demolition of homes and civilian structures. Eyewitnesses reported low and intense drone flights in the skies, causing panic among citizens who tried to inspect their properties in those areas.

In the central part of the Strip, a drone targeted a civilian vehicle traveling on the vital Salah al-Din Street near al-Mazra'a School, east of Deir al-Balah. This bombing led to the martyrdom of 32-year-old Ahmed Khaled Abu Maghseeb, in addition to injuring four other citizens with varying degrees of wounds, who were then transferred to hospitals for treatment.

The attacks were not limited to the morning hours; the town of al-Zawaida witnessed the targeting of a group of citizens after midnight, resulting in the martyrdom of Khamis Juwaifel. These developments come after more than 11 field violations committed by the Israeli army in the past twenty-four hours, putting the truce agreement to a real test amidst the continued fall of victims.

The occupation continues to violate the ceasefire agreement in the Gaza Strip through direct targeting of civilians and facilities.

An official report issued by the Jerusalem Governorate revealed a dangerous escalation in systematic Israeli occupation crimes against Jerusalemite residents and institutions during the past May. The report clarified that these measures directly aim to change the geographical and demographic character of the occupied city and expel its original inhabitants through policies of oppression and forced displacement.

Regarding the blessed Al-Aqsa Mosque, sources monitored the intrusion of approximately 9,934 settlers into the mosque's courtyards, including 2,690 who entered under the guise of 'tourism'. These intrusions occurred amidst tight security protection from occupation forces, which provided cover for the intruders to perform provocative rituals and raise Israeli flags inside the Holy Sanctuary.

The past month witnessed a historical precedent, the first of its kind since the occupation of the city in 1967, where settlers' intrusion into Al-Aqsa Mosque on Friday coincided with the so-called biblical 'Feast of Weeks'. The report considered this step to be within the context of the occupation's continuous attempts to impose a new temporal and spatial reality inside the mosque and cross red lines.

Concerning field violations, occupation forces continued their policy of field killings, resulting in the martyrdom of 3 individuals and the injury of 17 others with varying degrees of injuries due to live and rubber bullet firing. Sources also recorded settlers carrying out 45 organized attacks targeting citizens and their properties, in addition to attacks on Bedouin communities and Islamic and Christian holy sites.

In the arrests file, the report documented the detention of 101 Jerusalemite citizens, including 3 women and 9 children, most of whom were subjected to abuse and excessive beating during the arrest process. These campaigns were accompanied by arbitrary judicial procedures, with 15 judicial rulings issued, including 10 administrative detention orders that lack the minimum standards of international justice.

The penalties did not stop at arrest but extended to include the policy of forced deportation and house arrest to undermine popular activism in the city. Occupation courts issued 67 decisions for deportation from Al-Aqsa Mosque for varying periods, in addition to 8 house arrest decisions targeting a number of young men and children to restrict their freedom and prevent them from leading normal lives.

As for the demolition file, occupation mechanisms and its municipality carried out 84 demolition and bulldozing operations targeting homes and commercial and industrial establishments in various neighborhoods of Jerusalem. Among these operations, citizens were forced to carry out 21 self-demolition operations of their homes under the threat of exorbitant fines, while occupation bulldozers carried out 56 other demolition operations that destroyed Palestinian properties.

The report addressed the fierce attack targeting educational, cultural, and media institutions in the city, where journalists were pursued and prevented from coverage through shooting or deportation. These practices come within the framework of the occupation's endeavor to obscure the Palestinian narrative and impose complete control over the public sphere in occupied Jerusalem.

On the settlement front, the report revealed that the occupation pushed forward 15 new colonial plans aimed at expanding settlements and seizing more land. These plans included the approval of building 547 new settlement units, in addition to depositing other plans targeting vast areas of land in the towns of Nabi Samuel and Beit Iksa.

The report concluded by referring to a dangerous decision to convert the former headquarters of 'UNRWA' in Sheikh Jarrah neighborhood into military and security facilities belonging to the occupation. This step coincides with other Judaization projects in the vicinity of Al-Aqsa Mosque and the Al-Buraq Wall area, signaling a new phase of escalation aimed at resolving the issue of Jerusalem demographically and urbanistically.

May recorded a precedent not seen since 1967 with settlers intruding into Al-Aqsa on Friday under tight protection.

The scenes of mass funerals involving members of the same family are no longer fleeting events in Lebanon; rather, they have become a recurring pattern reflecting the brutality of ongoing Israeli raids. Recently, there has been a significant escalation in targeting inhabited homes and civilian vehicles, leading to the erasure of entire families from official records in various parts of the country.

In the latest of these massacres, field sources reported the martyrdom of six members of the Al-Abdullah family, including women and children, due to an airstrike that targeted their home in the town of Marwahin in southern Lebanon. This incident adds the family to a long list of families completely lost under the rubble of their homes in the past few months.

Only a few hours after the Marwahin massacre, another raid targeted a Lebanese doctor and his two sons while they were returning via the Nabatieh-Khardali road, leading to their immediate martyrdom. These incidents confirm that the targeting does not differentiate between medical personnel or civilians; rather, it affects everyone moving in the targeted areas.

Reports from the towns of Deir Qanoun Al-Nahr, Al-Numairiya, and Jabshit indicate similar atrocities, where a large number of members of the Muhammad Najdi family and their relatives were martyred in a single strike. A raid on the town of Al-Numairiya also claimed the lives of six members of one family, a scene that repeats the tragedy of mass loss experienced by the southern villages.

In the town of Shamsatar, one of the harshest attacks was recorded, leading to the martyrdom of a doctor, his wife, and their four children, reflecting the deliberate targeting of families' social fabric. The raids also affected Syrian refugees in the town of Adloun, where nine members of one family were martyred in an airstrike that targeted their residence.

According to data from the Emergency Health Operations Center of the Lebanese Ministry of Public Health, the cumulative toll of the aggression from early March to June 2026 reached 3433 martyrs. More than ten thousand people were also injured to varying degrees, amid immense pressure faced by the already exhausted health sector due to ongoing military operations.

For its part, the United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF) expressed its grave concern over the continued casualties among children in Lebanon. The organization confirmed that military operations continue to claim the lives of children at an accelerating pace, even in periods following announcements of de-escalation or ceasefires, placing civilians in constant danger.

This bloody scene in Lebanon finds an even more tragic echo in the Gaza Strip, where official bodies have documented the complete annihilation of more than 2700 Palestinian families. These families no longer exist in the Palestinian civil registry, after all their members were martyred in intensive airstrikes and artillery shelling targeting residential blocks.

Statistics from Gaza indicate that nearly 6000 other families have lost most of their members, with only one individual surviving to bear the burden of memory and pain. These human stories, over time, turn into mere numbers in the records of victims, despite the tragedies they carry that touch the essence of human existence in the region.

The systematic repetition of these attacks between Gaza and southern Lebanon indicates a military policy that relies on inflicting the greatest possible human losses among civilians. Mass funerals and recurring names in the lists of martyrs remain the greatest witness to the magnitude of the catastrophe left by the war in both arenas.

Between Gaza and southern Lebanon, the scene repeats with different names and locations; entire families are erased in a single attack, their stories turning into numbers in the records of victims.

The Arab intellectual scene is witnessing a state of collective shock as masks fall from intellectual and artistic elites who built their glory on the issues of the people. In recent years, these influencers have transformed into soft tools in political propaganda machines, leading to an accelerating autumn of contemporary Arab consciousness.

The case of Dr. Adnan Ibrahim stands out as a unique tragic model in this context, where observers see it as a case devoid of traditional excuses. While living safely in the Austrian capital, Vienna, he voluntarily chose to engage in political paths that serve counter-revolutionary regimes that stifled the dreams of the Arab Spring.

The transformation in Adnan Ibrahim's discourse was not a coincidence or a fleeting slip of the tongue, but rather a path that was quietly formed and coldly formulated. This path began with refining intellectual propositions to suit the whims of power, and ended with the signing of official contracts to assume the position of advisor in the Emirati capital, Abu Dhabi.

Even the horrific traffic accident he suffered in 2019, which kept him away from the scene for two years, did not intercede for him in the moral readings of his subsequent choices. While the accident broke the bones of the body, his critics believe that his subsequent political choices were tantamount to selling his soul in the market of influence and positions.

This transformation evokes the historical story of 'Balaam son of Beor', where the two personalities meet on the same psychological slope despite the distance in time. Both were endowed with abundant knowledge and captivating eloquence, but at a critical moment, they chose to put this knowledge at the service of tyranny, coveting fleeting worldly gains.

The philosophical dilemma lies in how 'enlightenment' transforms from a tool for liberating minds into a means of justifying regime policies. This is clearly evident in the moral selectivity practiced by some elites, where their eyes open to slogans of tolerance but close to the blood of the oppressed and regional wars.

The linguistic analysis of the name 'Balaam' indicates its association with 'gullet', in a symbolic reference to prioritizing material interests and high positions over principles. It is as if all those resonant speeches that charmed millions were ultimately reduced to serving personal gains and positions of power.

The name 'Adnan Ibrahim' carries a bitter irony; while the first name is derived from adhering to truth and steadfastness, some believe he betrayed this derivation. Moreover, the name 'Ibrahim' is now linked in the current political context to the Abraham Accords engineered by the previous US administration for normalization.

This embrace of capitals promoting normalization comes at a sensitive time for the Palestinian cause, specifically the genocide war facing Gaza. The stark contradiction emerges between an intellectual who justifies official policies and the reality of the tragedy experienced by the Palestinian people under the weight of occupation and betrayal.

The capitals of the region are currently run by a deaf authoritarian machine that adopts a decisive screening equation towards intellectuals and scholars. It rewards and bestows gifts upon anyone who grants it legitimacy, while imprisoning anyone who possesses the courage to refuse and adhere to principled stances.

While the reward system welcomes Adnan Ibrahim in air-conditioned halls, dark cells swallow real scholars and intellectuals who refused to compromise. We find names like the poet Abdul Rahman Youssef and others absent in prisons because they refused to be false witnesses to the issues of their nation.

The burning philosophical paradox is that free people are imprisoned within their homelands for their steadfastness, while the protected in his European exile voluntarily enters the corridors of power. Feeding at tables whose prices were paid with the blood of innocents and the freedom of honorable people represents the peak of the intellectual's moral fall.

The digital platforms that these thinkers once led have become desolate after the shocked masses abandoned them due to the fall of their role models. This fall not only affected the reputation of individuals but also contributed to many questioning the constants and values they advocated.

Despite this gloom, the bet remains on the awareness of peoples who may fall ill but do not die, and the embers hidden under the ashes await the moment of resurgence. History does not forgive those who bought God's verses and principles for a small price, and in the end, it is the truth by which men are known, not the other way around.

Truth is not known by men, but men are known by truth; eloquent faces fade, but principles remain steadfast in the face of storms of change.

In recent years, the Mediterranean Sea has become an arena of political and human rights clashes between international activists seeking to break the siege imposed on the Gaza Strip and Israeli occupation forces who use military force to prevent their access. International press reports have reviewed the history of these confrontations, noting that the waters of the Mediterranean have become a stage to test the international community's commitment to maritime and humanitarian laws in the face of Israeli arrogance.

In a recent incident in international waters, a group of boats sent wireless distress calls after being pursued, but nearby countries did not respond to these calls. Armed forces belonging to the occupation quickly stormed the ships, carrying out widespread arrests of passengers and taking them to detention centers, amid horrific testimonies of severe beatings and deliberate humiliation.

Sources reported that the detained activists faced harsh conditions, including electric shocks, the use of rubber bullets, and stun grenades inside the ships, which were turned into floating prisons. Testimonies from survivors also documented cases of sexual harassment and psychological abuse, in an attempt by the occupation authorities to intimidate international solidarity activists and prevent them from repeating attempts to reach the shores of Gaza.

In these events, the role of Israeli National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir stood out. He appeared in a video clip sarcastically rebuking activists, claiming ownership of the land for the occupation. Occupation forces forced dozens of solidarity activists to prostrate themselves in humiliating positions, which observers considered a reflection of the policy of boasting about violations adopted by the current Israeli government towards anyone who supports Palestinian rights.

By May 22nd, hundreds of detainees had been released, giving shocking testimonies about what happened behind bars, including journalists who documented moments when their colleagues lost consciousness due to torture. Human rights reports included at least fifteen cases of sexual assault, raising the level of crimes committed against civilians in the open sea under Israeli security cover.

Palestinian-American lawyer Huwaida Arraf is one of the most prominent founders of this struggle tactic, which began in 2008. She asserts that the goal is not merely symbolic but a direct challenge to the legitimacy of the siege. Arraf believes that these boats, despite their small size, carry a strong political message that rejects the isolation of Gaza from the world and affirms the right of Palestinians to free maritime communication.

The idea of freedom flotillas was born out of the suffering in the West Bank during the Second Intifada, when activists realized that the absence of international accountability encouraged the occupation to go too far. Arraf founded the International Solidarity Movement with the aim of having international witnesses on the ground, hoping that their presence would help deter Israeli violence against Palestinian civilians.

Historically, solidarity activists have paid heavy prices for their stances, as happened with American volunteer Rachel Corrie, who was killed by an Israeli bulldozer in 2003 while trying to protect a Palestinian home from demolition. These incidents did not stop the movement but pushed activists to seek new means of solidarity, the most prominent of which was turning to the sea after the comprehensive land siege on the Gaza Strip was tightened.

In August 2008, the 'Free Gaza' movement succeeded in delivering two small boats to Gaza port for the first time since 1967, in a historic moment that Palestinians received with great enthusiasm. This success prompted the occupation to change its naval strategy, as it began using lethal force and ramming boats to prevent a repeat of the scene of breaking the siege, which embarrassed the Israeli security system.

The movement later evolved to form larger flotillas, such as the Freedom Flotilla led by the Turkish ship 'Mavi Marmara' in 2010, which was subjected to a bloody attack resulting in martyrs and injuries. Since then, the occupation has followed a consistent pattern of intercepting ships in international waters and kidnapping their passengers before they reach the designated area of the naval blockade.

Reports indicate that the complicity of some Western governments and their passivity towards these violations have contributed to the continuation of Israeli violence against activists. While Italy described the Israeli treatment as unacceptable, the United States continued to adopt the Israeli narrative that labels these humanitarian movements as supporting hostile organizations, giving the occupation a green light to continue.

Analysts compare the journeys of freedom flotillas to those of migrants in the Mediterranean, where both face the risk of death or arrest in order to reach a safe haven or freedom. Engaging in this solidarity work strips activists of the protection of their Western passports, placing them in direct confrontation with the machinery of oppression that does not differentiate between a Palestinian and a foreign solidarity activist.

In light of the recent escalation and the genocide war in Gaza, the flotilla movement has regained vitality despite logistical challenges and political pressures exerted by countries like Greece to prevent ships from sailing. Activists believe that international silence regarding the starvation of the Strip's residents makes maritime action an urgent moral necessity that cannot be compromised, no matter the sacrifices.

In conclusion, the freedom flotillas remain a cry in the face of the world's conscience, as volunteers put their bodies in the path of bullets to break Gaza's isolation. Despite criticisms calling for focusing on preventing arms shipments, sailing towards Gaza remains an affirmation that this shore is an integral part of humanity, and that the siege, however long it lasts, will remain an illegal act that must be confronted.

Our small boats will never carry the amount of aid Palestinians need, but our goal is always to challenge the illegal blockade through direct action.

The US administration's decision to change Tom Barrack's title from Special Envoy to Syria to Special Presidential Envoy for Syria and Iraq has raised widespread questions about the legal and political dimensions of this move. This change comes at a time when relations between Washington and Damascus are undergoing radical transformations, coinciding with Barrack retaining his original position as the US Ambassador to Ankara, the Turkish capital.

Informed sources clarified that this measure primarily aims to overcome legal complexities within the US decision-making circles. Laws governing the work of special envoys require explicit approval from Congress if the official remains in their position for more than one year, which the White House sought to avoid by changing the job title.

Observers believe that the US President preferred to use his direct executive powers to appoint Barrack as a presidential envoy, rather than engaging in lengthy and complex discussions with lawmakers in Congress. This step ensures Barrack's continuity in leading the Syrian file without interruption, while expanding the scope of his duties to include the Iraqi file as well, within a comprehensive regional vision.

In a related context, the US President affirmed that this step aims to enhance strategic cooperation with the governments of Syria and Iraq, praising Barrack's diplomatic performance during the past period. The White House indicated that US relations with both countries are steadily growing, necessitating a high-level diplomatic representation with broad powers.

A notable diplomatic development occurred with a phone call between Syrian President Ahmed Al-Sharaa and his American counterpart, Donald Trump. The call discussed ways to develop bilateral relations and address issues of common interest, reflecting the seriousness of both parties in moving relations to a new phase of direct coordination.

For his part, Farouk Bilal, President of the Syrian-American Council, described the current developments as unprecedented and not witnessed in the region for six decades. He explained that the past year saw diligent efforts from Damascus and Washington to connect government institutions with each other, going beyond traditional diplomatic channels to direct technical coordination.

Bilal pointed out that communication channels are now open between the US State Department and its Syrian counterpart, in addition to similar coordination between the US Treasury Department and the Syrian Ministry of Finance. This level of institutional communication reduced the need for a traditional special envoy position, and necessitated elevating the status to a presidential envoy who oversees these ties.

In a different interpretation, Hisham Nashawati, founder of the 'Syria Road to Freedom' organization, considered the new position a political promotion for Barrack, reflecting the administration's absolute confidence in his abilities. He affirmed that the abolition of the special envoy position and its replacement with a presidential envoy means that Barrack has become the de facto guardian of implementing Trump's vision in the Fertile Crescent region.

Nashawati noted that congressional procedures limit the term of envoys to six months, renewable once, which made the change an administrative necessity to ensure Barrack's continued presence. Instead of appointing a new official, the administration chose to promote the current official to ensure stability in foreign policy towards the Syrian and Iraqi files.

Reports indicate that this change may be related to the end of the 'crisis' status that had accompanied the Syrian file in American circles for many years. The current trend leans towards normalizing institutional relations and dealing with the Syrian state as a strategic partner in the region, away from the previous language of escalation.

In a parliamentary move supporting this trend, Congressman Joe Wilson called for the immediate abolition of Syria's designation as a state sponsor of terrorism. Wilson considered that recent positive developments, especially Barrack's appointment as a presidential envoy, necessitate updating US laws to keep pace with the new political reality.

Analysts believe that merging the Syrian and Iraqi files under the supervision of a single envoy reflects Washington's desire to create a balanced regional bloc that cooperates on security and energy issues. Tom Barrack, described as the architect of modern relations between Washington and Damascus, appears to be the most qualified person to manage this complex balance.

The shift from 'crisis management' to 'partnership building' is clearly evident in the nature of the tasks entrusted to Barrack in his new position, where he will work to strengthen economic and security ties. Sources confirm that the coming period will witness more reciprocal visits and agreements that enshrine this new diplomatic approach of the US administration.

In conclusion, Tom Barrack remains the central link in Trump's policy towards the Middle East, combining fieldwork in Ankara with strategic planning in Damascus and Baghdad. This complex role grants him broad influence to shape the features of the next phase in Arab-American relations in a way that serves the common interests of both parties.

Trump's trust in Tom Barrack qualified him to be the guardian of the US administration's vision for the region and the implementer of its strategy in Syria and Iraq.

National and sports figures in Gaza City announced the launch of a symbolic initiative mimicking the 2026 FIFA World Cup, scheduled to be held in the United States, Mexico, and Canada. This step aims to draw the world's attention to the massive destruction inflicted by the Israeli aggression on sports infrastructure, and to commemorate the martyrs among players and coaches who fell during the ongoing war on the Strip.

Gaza Mayor, Dr. Yahya Al-Sarraj, affirmed during a press conference that Gaza rejects marginalization and insists on conveying its voice to the world through all available platforms. Al-Sarraj pointed out that holding events mimicking the World Cup within the besieged Strip comes as a message of defiance, despite vital facilities being out of service, foremost among them the historic Yarmouk Stadium, which suffered extensive damage, transforming it from a field of football creativity into a witness to the occupation's crimes.

For his part, Ahed Farawneh, Secretary of the Journalists' Syndicate in Gaza, explained that Palestinian sports and media personnel face significant obstacles that prevent them from being present at upcoming international forums. Farawneh compared the strong Palestinian presence in the 2022 Qatar World Cup with the current situation, where the aggression and US restrictions on granting visas have isolated Palestinian athletes from this major global event.

The initiative includes field activities and massive artistic murals of international sports figures who have declared their solidarity with the Palestinian cause, most notably Barcelona talent Lamine Yamal and coach Pep Guardiola. These activities seek to enhance global awareness of Palestinian rights and emphasize that sports in Gaza remain a tool for cultural resistance and asserting existence despite attempts at extermination and displacement.

In a related context, sports sources revealed shocking statistics regarding the targeting of the sports sector, where the Israeli war machine destroyed more than 270 facilities, including clubs, stadiums, and indoor halls. The targeting was not limited to inanimate objects but also affected people, with about a thousand sports personnel, including players, coaches, and administrators, martyred, leading to a complete paralysis of the sports system, whose remaining stadiums have been turned into shelters for thousands of displaced people.

This initiative comes at a time when the residents of the Gaza Strip suffer from a lack of basic necessities of life, yet the insistence on reviving symbolic sports activity reflects the will to survive. The organizers of the event hope that their message will reach the International Federation of Association Football (FIFA) and the international community, to pressure for the protection of Palestinian athletes and to hold the occupation accountable for its systematic targeting of sports institutions.

Gaza refuses to be forgotten, and we insist that it always remains present in all fields despite the siege, pain, and destruction.

The Middle East is witnessing profound geopolitical transformations that have put traditional political theories to complex tests, especially with the ongoing tensions resulting from the war in Gaza and direct confrontations between Israel and Iran. Amidst this ambiguity, a surprising diplomatic initiative by US President Donald Trump has emerged, seeking to integrate two contradictory paths into one major deal.

Trump's new vision relies on linking the conclusion of a final agreement to end the conflict with Tehran to a mandatory condition that influential regional countries join the 'Abraham Accords'. This proposed list includes Saudi Arabia and Qatar, in addition to Egypt, Jordan, Turkey, and Pakistan, in an attempt to formulate a regional architecture that guarantees Washington's interests.

Observers believe that this proposal reflects the American administration's desire to achieve a historic accomplishment that ends the drain on resources in Middle Eastern conflicts. The new approach also reveals an American conviction that any security agreement with Iran will not succeed without a broad regional umbrella that ensures its sustainability and involves major powers as guarantors.

Trump affirmed via his 'Truth Social' platform that negotiations with the Iranian side are proceeding in a positive direction, but he did not hesitate to hint at harsh options if the diplomatic path fails. This duality aims to pressure all parties to accept the proposed trade-off between military de-escalation and political gains represented by normalization.

On the ground, recent months have proven that the cost of direct confrontation is very high for the global economy, especially with the paralysis that has affected navigation in the Strait of Hormuz and the Red Sea. This reality has made diplomacy the only available way out for Washington to avoid sliding into a comprehensive war with no decisive victory in sight.

Despite American pressure, Gulf-Iranian relations have shown resilience in the face of escalation storms, with a mutual understanding that the security of both sides of the Gulf is structurally intertwined. This inevitability is based on common economic interests, especially with the region's countries adopting ambitious development visions that require comprehensive security stability.

Saudi Arabia considers regional stability to be the cornerstone for the success of 'Vision 2030' and attracting foreign investments, which requires a zero-problem environment. In contrast, Iran finds opening up to its neighbors a lifeline to break international isolation and alleviate the burden of economic sanctions that have exhausted the state for many years.

However, the Palestinian issue remains the most prominent structural obstacle to Trump's ambitions, as Riyadh refuses to grant the normalization card without a real political price. The Saudi leadership insists on the necessity of a permanent and irreversible path to establish an independent Palestinian state, considering it an essential condition that cannot be bypassed under any circumstances.

Analysts believe that any attempt to bypass Palestinian rights in light of the bloody scenes in Gaza will face widespread popular rejection in the Arab and Islamic worlds. The political stability and popular legitimacy of ruling regimes are closely linked to justice in resolving the Palestinian issue, making jumping over this file an uncalculated gamble.

In addition to the Saudi position, the American initiative faces a wall of rejection from countries such as Egypt, Jordan, and Turkey, which have previous relations with Israel. These countries are currently seeking to de-escalate situations and resolve crises from their roots, rather than engaging in new security alliances that might increase polarization in the Arab street.

The image of the current Israeli leadership has been severely damaged in the collective Arab consciousness as a result of military practices in the Gaza Strip and international legal pursuits. This reality has made the idea of building new strategic partnerships with the current Israeli government extremely difficult, given the high political and ethical sensitivity.

The Middle East is moving towards the necessity of establishing a local collective security system that stems from the region's own needs, away from external dictates. The success of any comprehensive settlement requires direct and sustained dialogue among the four major regional powers: Riyadh, Tehran, Cairo, and Ankara, to share security and economic responsibilities.

Past experiences have proven that relying on external promises that change with changing administrations in the White House does not provide long-term stability. Therefore, moving towards a sustainable regional system passes through the gateway of internal understandings and the recognition that security is a shared local project that cannot be imported as a ready-made commodity.

In conclusion, Trump's demand to expand the Abraham Accords as a condition for an agreement with Iran remains a strategy that suffers from a flaw in understanding the new balances. The key to stability in the region is no longer solely in Washington's hands, but lies in peaceful coexistence between Arabs and Iran and a just solution to the Palestinian issue as a mandatory prerequisite for any true peace.

Security for Riyadh and Tehran has become a single existential bloc that cannot be divided, and any attempt to re-engineer the region by force will only produce more forced interconnectedness.

US President Donald Trump finds himself today at a dead end in the most prominent foreign policy issues he promised to resolve quickly. After entering the White House, he discovered that the diplomatic and military victories he heralded in Ukraine, Gaza, and Iran clashed with a geopolitical reality more complex than he had imagined during his election campaign.

Trump is known for his preference for decisive and swift results, keeping models of 'B-2' bombers that participated in military operations against Iranian facilities on his desk. The US President had repeatedly cited Venezuela as a perfect success model for removing adversaries, but this approach has not proven effective in the current international crises that have entered a stalemate.

In the Iranian file, the war reached a stage of stagnation despite Trump's announcement of a ceasefire last April. The President had conditioned the truce on the full and safe opening of the Strait of Hormuz, which has not been achieved as desired, as trade understandings are still under negotiation without fundamental change in Tehran's nuclear and missile programs.

Sources in the US administration describe the ongoing negotiations with Tehran as 'very limited' and potentially long-term. It appears that the Iranian side is betting on a strategy of prolonging negotiations, benefiting from Washington's hesitation to return to a comprehensive military confrontation that does not enjoy widespread domestic support in the United States.

As for the Ukrainian front, Trump's promises to end the conflict within 24 hours of taking office evaporated. More than a year into his presidency, cannons still roar in Eastern Europe, while the President has begun to avoid discussing this issue, which has become an increasing diplomatic burden on his administration.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio expressed his frustration with the pace of talks that are not achieving tangible progress on the ground. Rubio indicated that Washington might not mind relinquishing its mediating role to another party, a clear sign of despair over the possibility of imposing a quick settlement between Moscow and Kyiv.

Informed sources indicate that the Russian side views diplomatic moves led by presidential envoys such as Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner with coolness. The Kremlin prefers a more stable diplomatic path through official channels and regular working groups, especially given the prolonged vacancy of the US Ambassador to Moscow.

In the Gaza Strip, American celebrations of hostage releases faded in the face of ongoing destruction and the failure of reconstruction plans. Despite Trump's promotion of a plan to transform the Strip into a tourist area with towers and resorts, the reality on the ground indicates that Palestinian factions have not been disarmed and humanitarian suffering continues.

Further complicating the scene in Gaza was the announcement by the Prime Minister of the occupation, Benjamin Netanyahu, of expanding military control over additional areas in the Strip. This approach contradicts American perceptions of a political solution and puts the Trump administration in an awkward position regarding its promises to achieve stability and economic prosperity in the region.

Analysts believe that the gap between Trump's ambitions and the realities on the ground stems from his overconfidence in the ability of military force to impose lasting political outcomes. While Washington is adept at delivering precise strikes against facilities, it lacks the ability to control subsequent political trajectories in sovereign states like Russia and Iran.

Security experts emphasize that foreign policy is a continuous daily management process, not just dramatic announcements or exciting initiatives. Careful follow-up of issues is what makes the difference, which Trump's record seems to lack, as his interest in issues wanes once they enter the complex labyrinths of negotiation.

Specifically on the Ukrainian issue, Trump admitted in private occasions that he underestimated the complexities preventing an agreement. Meanwhile, Ukraine has developed offensive capabilities enabling it to strike deep into Russia, adding new layers of difficulty to any American mediation attempt.

Regarding Iran, the White House's rhetoric shifted from demanding 'unconditional surrender' to seeking formulas that combine pressure and incentives. This shift reflects an implicit acknowledgment of the failure of military strikes to achieve the major political goals set by the administration at the beginning of the escalation.

Observers conclude that the real challenge for Trump is not in winning military battles, but in managing the complex political repercussions that follow. While Gaza remains mired in rubble and Ukraine in the throes of war, the US President faces the reality that 'big deals' are not always made by the language of force alone.

Foreign policy is usually a long and complex process, and what makes the difference is the continuous management of issues, not grand announcements.