US authorities have reactivated the deportation process for Palestinian student Mohsen Al-Mahdawi, who is considered a prominent figure in the student movement supporting Palestine within American universities. This step comes within the context of a strict campaign led by President Donald Trump's administration against activists and defenders of Palestinian rights in the United States.

Recent judicial documents revealed that the Board of Immigration Appeals decided to resume legal proceedings against Al-Mahdawi, a student at the prestigious Columbia University. This decision represents a dramatic turn in the case, which has witnessed intense legal and political tug-of-war in recent months.

Immigration Judge Nina Fros had issued a ruling last February rejecting the US administration's attempts to deport the Palestinian student. Her decision at the time came after Al-Mahdawi's arrest last year following his involvement in demonstrations condemning the Israeli war on the Gaza Strip on campus.

However, recent developments saw Judge Fros removed from her position last month, paving the way for the Board of Immigration Appeals to overturn her previous ruling. This board is affiliated with the Executive Office for Immigration Review within the Department of Justice, which gave the green light to continue prosecuting Al-Mahdawi legally.

The Trump administration justifies these harsh measures by describing activists like Al-Mahdawi as 'anti-Semitic' and promoters of 'extremism.' Official circles in Washington consider these protest movements a direct threat to American interests and foreign policy in the Middle East.

In contrast, human rights organizations, including progressive Jewish groups, reject this governmental description and consider it a deliberate conflation. These entities believe that the authorities are seeking to criminalize criticism of Israeli policies and the occupation of Palestinian territories by labeling it as anti-Semitism to intimidate sympathizers.

Mohsen Al-Mahdawi, who was born and raised in a refugee camp in the West Bank, expressed his condemnation of these measures in an official statement. Al-Mahdawi affirmed that the American government is using immigration laws as a political tool to suppress freedom of expression and silence any voice that opposes its pro-occupation stances.

The roots of the crisis date back to April 2025, when Al-Mahdawi was arrested while on his way to a routine interview related to his application for US citizenship. Despite his subsequent release by court order and without criminal charges, his prosecution through immigration laws has continued.

The American Civil Liberties Union is undertaking the legal defense of the Palestinian student, asserting that the deportation process cannot currently be carried out. The Union bases its defense on pending legal challenges before federal courts concerning the legality and legitimacy of the original arrest.

Al-Mahdawi's case falls within a broader strategy pursued by the current administration to undermine student movements supporting Palestine. This strategy includes threatening to cut federal funding to universities that allow protests, as well as imposing strict censorship on the digital activities of immigrants and foreign students.

It is worth noting that American universities have witnessed an unprecedented student uprising since late 2023 in rejection of the war of extermination in Gaza. Despite the decline in the momentum of these protests on the ground, their legal and political repercussions continue to pursue activists, amid international concerns about a decline in academic freedoms in the United States.

The government continues to use immigration laws as a weapon to silence dissenting voices.

Attention is focused on the Turkish capital, which is hosting a fateful meeting bringing together representatives of the Hamas leadership council with mediators from the Arab Republic of Egypt and the State of Qatar. This intensive diplomatic meeting aims to propose new formulas for implementing the second phase of the ceasefire agreement in the Gaza Strip, amidst a phase described by observers as the most complex since the start of negotiations due to fundamental differences over the mechanisms for transitioning to sustainable security and political arrangements.

Sources reported that Cairo has presented initiatives aimed at rebuilding trust between the parties, including the necessity of committing to the daily entry of 600 humanitarian aid trucks into all areas of the Strip, along with a comprehensive cessation of military operations and assassinations. The sources clarified that the terms of the second phase are based on the complete withdrawal of occupation forces from Gaza, but Tel Aviv's condition of 'disarmament' before implementation has hindered efforts, especially after the occupation rejected three previous proposals submitted to facilitate the transition between the phases of the agreement.

A high-level delegation from the Hamas leadership council, including Mohammed Darwish, Khalil al-Hayya, Zaher Jabarin, Khaled Meshaal, and Hussam Awadallah, is participating in the Turkey consultations. Mediators link the possibility of achieving a real breakthrough in the crisis to the extent of progress in understandings between Washington and Tehran, as the US administration is expected to give a strong boost to the negotiations if outstanding regional issues are resolved, which could put decisive pressure on the occupation government to adhere to the terms of the first phase and effectively transition to the second phase to prevent the region from sliding into an all-out war.

The second phase stipulates the complete withdrawal of the occupation army from the Strip and the development of a plan to deal with security issues, but the occupation's intransigence is impeding implementation.

In Berlin, which I have been visiting for several days with a media and human rights delegation, the visitor to this sprawling city on the fringes of history sees the remnants of the past, etched in a memory burdened by the genocide perpetrated against the Jews by the Nazis during World War II. Buildings, streets, and walls still bear witness to an era of history, an era in which the plates of geography and demography shifted, and on its fringes, laws were sewn to criminalize anyone who criticizes Israel, even as it violates, confiscates, arrests, tortures, kills, and exterminates tens of thousands of Palestinians—victims of victims.

Despite the high quality of German manufacturing—where the German nail emerges with grace and ends with elegance—German politics bears no resemblance to its industry. It has chosen to remain in the gray area, incapable of upholding the values of the Republic, foremost among them the application of international law at all times and in all places without double standards, so as not to allow the recurrence of crimes against humanity.

There is a gap between the German government and the German people, whose opinion polls indicate their rejection of the government's policies that tolerate Israel's crimes against the Palestinian people. Efforts are underway in the Bundestag to pressure the government to recognize the State of Palestine and to terminate the trade partnership agreement that obligates Israel to adhere to democratic principles and human rights. These polls are not mere numbers; they reflect a movement stirring within the halls of parliament.

The river of freedom will not run dry, and international efforts to alleviate the suffering and wounds of the victims will not cease. A glimmer of light shines through the fire and smoke, for the status quo is unsustainable. 

In Berlin, which I have been visiting for days with a media and human rights delegation, the visitor to the sprawling city on the edge of history sees the protrusions of the past, etched into a memory burdened by the impact of the extermination of Jews by Nazism during World War II, and in buildings, streets, and walls that still bear witness to an era of history, where the plates of geography and demography shifted, and on its sides, laws were sewn to criminalize anyone who criticizes Israel, even if it violated, confiscated, arrested, tortured, killed, and exterminated tens of thousands of Palestinians; victims of victims. 

Despite the high quality of German industry, as the German screw slips gracefully and ends elegantly, German politics does not resemble its industry, as it chose to remain in the gray area, unable to uphold the values of the Republic, foremost among them the application of international laws at all times and in all places without double standards, so that the crimes committed against humanity are not repeated.

There is a gap between the German government and its people, as opinion polls indicate their rejection of their government's policies that tolerate the crimes committed by Israel against the Palestinian people. 

There are efforts being made in the "Bundestag" aimed at compelling the government to recognize the Palestinian state and to dissolve the trade partnership agreement that obliges Israel to adhere to the rules of democracy and human rights. Polls are not just numbers, but a movement that infiltrates the corridors of parliament.The river of freedom will not dry up, and international efforts to rescue victims from their pain and bleeding wounds will not cease, for there is a light flickering from among the pillars of fire and smoke, for the status quo is impossible.

The international arena witnessed a dramatic shift following US President Donald Trump's announcement to freeze 'Operation Freedom,' which aimed to forcibly break Iran's blockade of the Strait of Hormuz. This decision was made via the 'Truth Social' platform, where Trump indicated his desire to give diplomatic solutions a chance, reflecting a clear retreat from the threatening rhetoric that prevailed in recent weeks.

Informed sources reported extensive behind-the-scenes contacts between American and Iranian officials to reach a comprehensive 'agreement of principles.' This proposed agreement aims to address the causes and consequences of the conflict, ensuring an end to hostilities and the restoration of stability in vital international shipping lanes.

Global markets reacted immediately to this news, with oil prices recording a sharp drop exceeding 10% within a few hours. Observers considered this decline to reflect market optimism about the disappearance of the specter of a full-scale military confrontation that threatened global energy supplies.

For its part, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard announced that safe and stable passage through the Strait of Hormuz would become possible under the new measures and the disappearance of threats from external powers. These statements confirm the existence of a climate of mutual de-escalation that paves the way for negotiation away from the language of warships.

The official tone in Washington has changed significantly, with Secretary of State Marco Rubio stating that what he described as a war of 'epic rage' has ended after achieving its strategic objectives. Rubio affirmed that US forces in the Gulf region have now shifted to a 'defensive posture,' which represents a departure from the pre-emptive strike strategy.

For his part, President Trump softened his rhetoric, avoiding the use of terms like 'total war' and replacing them with expressions such as 'small war' or 'limited conflict.' Trump expressed unprecedented optimism about the possibility of reaching a historic settlement with the Iranian leadership that would end the nuclear crisis and ensure freedom of navigation.

In a related context, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth affirmed that the US administration is not seeking to fight at present, emphasizing that the military phase has exhausted its purposes. These statements reflect a consensus within the administration on the need to find a political solution that preserves the prestige of the United States.

Analyses show that internal pressures in the United States played a crucial role in this shift, especially with the approaching congressional midterm elections. The Republican Party faces significant challenges amid declining presidential popularity and voter discontent over rising living costs and fuel prices resulting from military tensions.

Opinion polls indicate that the majority of the American public, including a wide segment of Republicans, oppose being drawn into long-term wars of attrition. Trump fears that continued fighting could lead to an 'electoral suicide' that would cost his party control of both the Senate and the House of Representatives next November.

Legal complexities also emerged regarding the necessity of obtaining parliamentary approval to continue military operations that have exceeded 60 days. This legal constraint raises concerns in White House circles, pushing for a diplomatic resolution of the issue to avoid a confrontation with Congress.

On the ground, experience has shown that US military power, despite its immense destructive capability, has not succeeded in imposing political change in Tehran. Analysts believe that economic sanctions and financial incentives may be more effective than aerial bombardment in extracting genuine concessions from the Iranian side.

The leaked 'agreement of principles' document includes fundamental clauses, including Iran's commitment not to seek nuclear weapons in exchange for a full lifting of economic sanctions. The agreement also includes the unfreezing of Iranian assets in international banks, a key demand for Tehran to accept de-escalation.

In contrast, Tel Aviv is monitoring these developments with great concern, as Israeli military circles prefer the continuation of military pressure to further weaken Iran. A clear divergence of interests is apparent, as Washington seeks an exit from the war while Israel sees its continuation as a strategic opportunity.

In conclusion, it appears that the final decision rests with the White House, which seeks to turn the page on confrontation before Trump's anticipated visit to Beijing. Israel finds itself compelled to follow the new American path, despite its desire to escalate operations, confirming that Washington holds the initiative at this stage.

The equation has changed from war until submission, to negotiations until an agreement is reached that saves face for both parties.

Washington Message

Washington – Said Arikat - 7/5/2026

In a scene reflecting the accelerating decline of freedom of expression within American universities, "Rutgers University" in New Jersey succumbed to pressure from pro-Israel groups and decided to withdraw its invitation to Palestinian-American businessman Rami Ghandour to deliver the commencement speech at the College of Engineering, despite the widespread support he enjoys within the campus.

Ghandour, the CEO of the biotechnology company Arcellx and one of the university's most prominent alumni, was invited to deliver the commencement address on May 15, before the dean of the college, Alberto Coetinho, suddenly withdrew the invitation, under the pretext of a very limited number of students objecting to Ghandour's critical stances on Israel.

According to information circulating within the university, the number of objectors did not exceed four students, in contrast to widespread support from thousands of students and alumni who saw Ghandour's selection as an inspiring model for a successful graduate who combined professional excellence with involvement in human justice issues. However, the university administration chose, as its critics say, to respond to the voice of the politically and media-backed influential minority, ignoring the general mood within the campus.

A university spokesperson confirmed that the decision came after concerns about some students boycotting the ceremony due to Ghandour's posts related to Israel. But the university avoided disclosing the nature of those posts, which mostly included photos and reports about the war in Gaza, along with comments accusing Israel of committing war crimes and implementing an apartheid system against Palestinians.

Ghandour is known for his public human rights activism, and the university itself had previously celebrated his role as executive producer of the documentary "The Voice of Hind Rajab," which documents the story of the Palestinian child Hind Rajab, who was killed during Israeli military operations in Gaza. However, this celebration quickly faded when his political stance became subject to attack by pro-Israel pressure groups.

In an angry response, Ghandour described the university's decision as "painful and shameful," considering that the academic institution, which had previously used his human rights activism to improve its public image, abandoned its principles at the first real political test. He said: “They celebrated my social justice when it was convenient for them, then they backed down when it became costly.”

This development comes at a time when American universities are witnessing an unprecedented campaign of pressure targeting voices supportive of Palestinians, whether students, professors, or guest speakers. Since the outbreak of the war on Gaza, universities have become an open political arena, where administrations face repeated threats from Republican politicians and influential donors demanding the suppression of any discourse critical of Israel.

In a similar incident, the University of Michigan this week was forced to disavow a speech given by history professor Derek Peterson during a commencement ceremony, after he praised students in solidarity with Palestine. The speech sparked threats to cut funding to the university, which prompted the administration to publicly apologize, a move that angered academic freedom advocacy groups.

Observers believe that what happened at Rutgers clearly reveals the limits of "freedom of expression" within American academic institutions when it comes to Israel. While universities boast slogans of diversity and intellectual openness, they often back down in the face of any political or financial pressure related to pro-Israel lobbies, even if the objection comes from a very small number of individuals.

The case of Rami Ghandour reveals the moral decline that has afflicted a number of major American universities, which have come to treat freedom of expression as a selective privilege rather than a fixed academic right. Rutgers University did not cancel the invitation because of hate speech or incitement, but because of political criticism of Israel based on documented facts and international human rights reports. More dangerously, the university succumbed to pressure from only four students, ignoring thousands of students who supported Ghandour's participation. This reflects the extent of the influence that pro-Israel pressure groups now exert within American educational institutions, even at the expense of universities' independence and academic credibility.

What happened at Rutgers raises a fundamental question about the nature of American democracy and its actual limits. When universities, which are supposed to be spaces for free discussion, become unable to host a speaker who criticizes a war that has killed tens of thousands of civilians in Gaza, then talk of "intellectual pluralism" becomes an empty slogan. The war on Gaza has shown that there is a strict political ceiling within the United States that prevents real criticism of Israel without facing punishment or exclusion. Thus, academic institutions are gradually turning into tools subject to political intimidation and financial blackmail rather than independent arenas for thought and knowledge.

The striking paradox is that the increasing repression campaigns against voices in solidarity with Palestinians have begun to produce a counter-effect within American society, especially among youth and students. The more the pro-Palestine discourse is suppressed, the more widespread the conviction that there is an organized attempt to silence a humanitarian narrative related to rights and justice. Moreover, the repeated bowing of universities to pressure from pro-Israel lobbies harms the image of these institutions more than it protects them, as it reveals the fragility of their claim to independence. For many American students, universities today seem less willing to defend the principles they have long boasted about to the world.

Washington Message

Washington – Said Arikat – 7/5/2026

US House Representative Rashida Tlaib led a pressing political movement within Congress, through an official letter addressed to Secretary of State Marco Rubio on Wednesday, in which she called for urgent action in response to the Israeli forces' interception of the "Global Steadfastness" fleet in international waters, and the detention of dozens of activists and journalists.

According to the letter, Israeli forces intercepted nearly twenty civilian ships that were headed to the Gaza Strip, and detained at least 175 people, including American citizens, during a humanitarian mission aimed at breaking the siege imposed on the Strip and delivering food and medical aid. Tlaib described this action as a “blatant violation of international law,” demanding that the US administration intervene to protect its citizens and ensure the flow of humanitarian aid.

Tlaib strongly criticized the US State Department's stance, considering that its condemnation of the fleet participants instead of defending them represents a "dereliction of duty," and described the official discourse as a "distortion of facts," where – according to her – delivering food to those in need is portrayed as a hostile act, while the policies of siege and starvation are ignored.

Despite the release of most of the detainees, the representative expressed her concern about reports of some of them being subjected to ill-treatment during detention, and a number of American citizens being injured and transferred to hospitals after their release. She also pointed out the continued detention of two individuals, demanding immediate pressure for their release and ensuring their safety.

Tlaib also called on the US administration to retract any threats directed against the fleet participants or the countries that allow it to dock in their ports, and urged addressing the "roots of the crisis," represented by the Israeli siege imposed on Gaza, which she considered a direct cause of the worsening humanitarian crisis.

The letter affirmed that the continued restriction of aid entry contradicts the decisions of the International Court of Justice, and also relied on reports from the Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Palestinian Territories, which concluded that Israeli policies in Gaza may amount to grave crimes, including creating living conditions that threaten the survival of the population.

In conclusion of her letter, Tlaib stressed the need for the United States to use its political influence to end the siege and ensure the arrival of aid, warning that the continuation of the current situation undermines Washington's legal and moral obligations, at a time when other ships of the fleet continue their mission despite the risks.

Tlaib's message reflects the escalating tension within the American political establishment regarding policy towards Israel, where unconditional support is no longer a consensus as it once was. The presence of voices within Congress openly criticizing the behavior of a strategic ally indicates a gradual shift in political discourse, driven by public opinion pressure and growing human rights reports. However, these voices remain limited in influence given traditional balances, which makes their actions closer to an attempt to break the prevailing narrative than being able to bring about immediate policy changes.

The incident also highlights a complex legal issue related to freedom of navigation in international waters and the limits of the use of force. The interception of civilian ships hundreds of miles from the coast raises questions about the extent of Israel's adherence to international maritime law, and places the United States in a critical position between protecting its citizens and maintaining its close alliance. This contradiction reveals a gap between the declared principles of American policy—such as protecting civilians—and actual practices on the ground.

This incident also reveals the humanitarian dimension of the crisis in Gaza, where official efforts are no longer sufficient to address the catastrophe, which drives international civil initiatives to try to break the siege. However, targeting these initiatives sends a strong deterrent message, meaning that any action outside traditional political channels may be met with force. In contrast, the continuation of these initiatives despite the risks reflects a growing global solidarity, but it raises a fundamental question about the effectiveness of symbolic actions in the absence of a genuine international will to impose actual change.

A recent investigative report by the British magazine "Declassified" revealed intriguing details from the diaries of the former Israeli Ambassador to London, Tzipi Hotovely, showing a complex network of relationships with British security officials and pro-occupation pressure groups. The investigation clarified that the Israeli Embassy transformed into an operations center for coordinating with prominent businessmen and donors to the British Labour Party, coinciding with the ongoing war of genocide in the Gaza Strip.

The leaked documents indicate that Hotovely, known for her inflammatory statements against Palestinians, exploited her position to entrench the occupation's narrative within UK decision-making circles. The ambassador had publicly suggested considering civilian facilities in Gaza, including schools and mosques, as legitimate military targets, which observers deemed direct incitement to commit war crimes.

The diaries showed a close and continuous working relationship between Israeli pressure groups in Britain and the embassy in London, despite claims by groups such as "Friends of Israel" in both the Conservative and Labour parties of not receiving direct funding from Tel Aviv. Records revealed at least four meetings with Stuart Polak, the honorary director of the Conservative Friends of Israel group, who describes himself as a fierce defender of Israeli interests in the House of Lords.

The meetings were not limited to British figures but also included high-ranking Israeli diplomats such as Yossi Amrani, head of the diplomatic division at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and Merav Eilon Shahar, deputy director of strategic affairs. These meetings, which took place in the second half of 2024, reflect a high level of diplomatic coordination to ensure continued British support for Israeli policies in the region.

In a related context, the names of John Pearce, head of Labour Friends of Israel, and Lord Jonathan Mendelson emerged as regular visitors to the ambassador's residence. The organization justified these meetings as aiming to discuss humanitarian issues and the release of detainees, but the timing and nature of these meetings raised questions about the extent of the embassy's influence on the positions of the ruling Labour Party leaders.

The diaries also included meetings with Luke Akehurst, Labour MP and former director of the "We Believe in Israel" lobbying group. These meetings took place on the sidelines of major party conferences, indicating the penetration of the pro-occupation lobby into the organizational structures of major British parties and its ability to directly access decision-makers.

The investigation raised serious concerns about the proximity of Labour Party funders to the Israeli government, as Hotovely met with Stuart Roden, who donated over half a million pounds to the party before the 2024 elections. Roden, who heads an Israeli venture capital firm, is a prominent defender of Israeli military operations, describing them as part of a "clash of civilizations."

According to press sources, Roden conducts informal dialogues with the Labour Party leadership to express his views on issues concerning the occupation. His appearance in the ambassador's diaries coincided with the Kier Starmer government taking power, reinforcing assumptions about the existence of back channels to influence British foreign policy towards the Palestinian issue.

The ambassador's activities extended to the business and real estate sectors, where she met with Jonathan Goldstein, a businessman who supported election campaigns for Labour Party leaders. Goldstein, who previously chaired the Jewish Leadership Council, participated in pro-occupation rallies and coordinated directly with Israeli ministers to enhance joint cooperation at the height of the aggression on Gaza.

In a sensitive economic aspect, the investigation revealed a secret meeting between Hotovely and Michael Denison, head of international consulting at the giant British oil company BP. This meeting took place in November 2023, coinciding with the Israeli Ministry of Energy's announcement of new licenses for gas exploration in the Mediterranean Sea, one of which was won by a consortium including BP.

UN Special Rapporteur Francesca Albanese criticized the involvement of private companies like BP in what she described as the "genocide economy." Albanese pointed out that the company's expansion into exploring Palestinian maritime areas illegally exploited by the occupation represents a contribution to entrenching the occupation and ongoing violations against the Palestinian people.

Military industries were not absent from the ambassador's agenda, as she met with representatives of the state-owned Israeli company "Rafael," responsible for manufacturing missiles used to destroy residential areas in Gaza. This coordination aims to ensure the flow of military supplies and maintain technical partnerships with the British defense sector.

The list of visitors included prominent members of the House of Lords, such as Lord Browne, former CEO of BP, and Lord Feldman, former chairman of the Conservative Party. These meetings, which included working breakfasts and lunches, show the intimacy of the relationship between the British political elite and the diplomatic representation of the occupation.

The investigation concluded that these coordinated moves aim to build a political and economic protective wall for Israel in Britain to counter increasing international pressure. The documents confirm that the Israeli lobby is working diligently behind the scenes to ensure no fundamental shift in the British stance towards the genocidal crimes committed in the Gaza Strip.

Every school, every mosque, and every second home in Gaza has access to underground tunnels, and is therefore a legitimate target for Israel.

The special health condition of the child Mahdi Abu Talib, who suffers from Down syndrome, did not prevent the occupation soldiers from practicing their sadism during their recent raid on Shuafat refugee camp, northeast of occupied Jerusalem. Local sources reported that the soldiers exploited the child's health condition and used him as a human shield during their military movements inside the camp's alleys, in a blatant violation of all international and humanitarian conventions.

Mohammed Abu Talib, the child's brother, recounts the harsh moments, noting that the assault left a deep psychological impact on Mahdi, who now fears leaving home or going to school. The family added that the child is currently suffering from severe sleep disturbances and involuntary urination, catastrophic symptoms that were not present before he was subjected to abuse by the invading force.

The incident began when Mohammed went out to meet his brother returning from school, only to be surprised by a military raid during which the soldiers chased the child Mahdi despite his brother's repeated shouts that he was a 'special case'. The soldiers completely ignored these calls, and one of them even hit Mohammed with the butt of his weapon on his head, causing a deep cut and severe bleeding, before kidnapping the child Mahdi again and dragging him on the ground.

Videos circulated documented the moment Mohammed hugged his brother in an attempt to protect him, but the occupation soldiers forcibly snatched the child and placed him inside a military vehicle for several minutes. The soldiers did not release Mahdi until the responsible officer claimed he was unaware of his mental condition, a justification rejected by the family, who confirmed that the child's features and movements were sufficient to realize his special situation.

Mahdi today lives in a state of insecurity, as he misses the hours he used to spend wandering with his brother, who always accompanied him to protect him from the dangers of the road. Mohammed says that the echo of his brother's screams calling 'Come... Come' to save him still wrenches his heart, especially since he was unable to move due to being surrounded by seven heavily armed soldiers pointing their rifles at him.

Shuafat refugee camp, where this crime occurred, is under continuous siege, separated by the apartheid wall and military checkpoint from the heart of Jerusalem, despite its residents holding Jerusalemite identity cards. Approximately 130,000 people live in the camp and its five neighborhoods, suffering from daily restrictions and sudden raids aimed at breaking the will of the residents and turning their lives into a continuous hell under the weight of security measures.

The area surrounding the camp and the neighboring town of Anata witnesses frequent closures, the latest of which was the installation of an iron gate in June of last year to control the movement of citizens. Movement in these areas is subject to the whims of the occupation soldiers stationed at checkpoints, which increases the suffering of thousands of Palestinians who are forced to cross these military points daily to reach their workplaces and educational centers.

Mahdi was calling out to me, 'Come... Come,' but I was surrounded by seven soldiers pointing their weapons at me, and I was bleeding from my head.

The town of Silwan in occupied Jerusalem is facing one of the harshest systematic displacement campaigns, with demolition orders threatening about 150 Palestinian homes in the area. These measures come in the context of a frantic settlement expansion policy that enjoys direct government support, aiming to change the demographic character of the town, which is home to about 60,000 people.\n\nThe occupation authorities seek through these operations to clear the land for archaeological and settlement projects, foremost among them the expansion of what is called 'City of David'. Residents daily watch the occupation bulldozers devouring homes they spent decades building, only for the Israeli flag to be raised over their ruins, announcing the replacement of the original landowners with settlers.\n\nThese transformations are based on a legal system drafted by the occupation to facilitate control over properties, where Jews are allowed to claim properties they allege ownership of before 1948. In contrast, Palestinians find themselves unable to obtain legal building permits, making their homes 'illegal' in the eyes of Israeli law.\n\nAmin Jalajel, a 62-year-old Palestinian elder, embodies the tragedy of the town, having received an order to demolish the home where he was born and raised. Jalajel bitterly questions the logic of the occupation, which claims he lacks a building permit, while his presence in this house predates the laws that prosecute him today.\n\nThe Jalajel family, which once owned six homes in the neighborhood, now has only one roof left, sheltering 96 individuals from different generations. This suffocating overcrowding is a direct result of repeated demolition operations that affected the family's other properties, leaving them living in constant anticipation of what remains of their shelter.\n\nThe occupation places residents before two bitter choices: either self-demolition with their own hands, or waiting for army bulldozers and paying exorbitant demolition costs. These costs sometimes reach 100,000 shekels, an amount most residents cannot afford, forcing them to carry out the demolition themselves in a tragic human scene.\n\nAhmed, one of the Jalajel family's sons, recounts how the occupation financially drained him through exorbitant fines for alleged unlicensed construction before his home was eventually demolished. He asserts that the pressures do not stop at demolition but include continuous threats and attempts at financial inducement by settlement organizations to buy what remains of the land.\n\nIn another corner of Silwan, young Wassim Siyam (37 years old) was forced to turn his home into a pile of rubble with his own hands in compliance with an official order. Wassim lived in that house with his wife, five children, and his mother, who suffers from difficult health conditions, only to suddenly find themselves homeless.\n\nSiyam says that the occupation authorities do not adhere to any humanitarian standards, as they do not consider the need of children or the sick for housing. He believes that the sole purpose of these policies is to provide comfort and luxury for settlers at the expense of the hell of Palestinian families who are forcibly expelled from their homes.\n\nField reports indicate that the pace of these violations has significantly accelerated since 2022 with the far-right government taking power. The number of settlers in the West Bank and Jerusalem has risen to about half a million, amid official blessing for building more settlement units despite international condemnation.\n\nThe suffering is not limited to the loss of walls but extends to include control over natural resources and historical sites in the town, such as water springs that have become exclusive to settlers. Residents describe what is happening as a 'silent erasure' of Palestinian identity, where legal, economic, and psychological pressures are used to push them towards voluntary departure.\n\n"Either we demolish our house ourselves, or we pay 100,000 shekels for the army to demolish it"; a choice that encapsulates the extent of the coercion we live under.

Released prisoners revealed shocking and horrific details regarding the detention conditions of Dr. Hussam Abu Safiya, director of Kamal Adwan Hospital, who is facing a journey of 'slow execution' inside the occupation prisons. Sources from inside the prisons reported that the pale appearance of the prominent doctor reflects the extent of the severe violations he has been subjected to since his arrest on December 27, 2024.

Released prisoner Ahmed Qaddas recounts that Dr. Abu Safiya's features have changed dramatically, as he transformed from a leading figure with a strong presence to an exhausted person spending his hours in silence and bewilderment. Qaddas affirmed that the systematic torture not only broke the doctor's body but also targeted his identity and human dignity in an attempt to break his steadfast will for which he was known.

Testimonies indicate that the occupation cells were filled with the doctor's screams under severe beatings, while other prisoners were prevented from offering him any help. Prisoners stated that the prison administration used gas bombs and collective punitive measures to intimidate anyone who tried to approach Abu Safiya's cell or inquire about his deteriorating health.

For his part, released prisoner Hamza Abu Amira confirmed that the doctor received special retaliatory treatment that included an 'overdose' of humiliation and verbal and physical torture by specialized suppression teams. He explained that the jailers forced the doctor, under severe pain, to repeat phrases that demeaned him, in a sadistic act aimed at destroying the morale of a Palestinian medical symbol.

Dr. Abu Safiya endured harsh periods of continuous restraint, remaining handcuffed from behind and shackled for seven consecutive days without interruption. This abuse coincided with a sharp deterioration in his digestive system, as he constantly vomited due to being given contaminated and unfit-for-human-consumption food, amid a complete deprivation of any specialized medical care.

In another painful testimony, Rami Abu Amira conveyed his observations of Dr. Hussam's return from interrogation rounds, bleeding and almost unconscious. He explained that interrogators stripped the doctor completely naked and unleashed police dogs on him to tear at his emaciated body, resulting in deep injuries and wounds all over his body.

The forms of torture were not limited to the physical aspect but also extended to nightly psychological intimidation through raiding cells and throwing sound bombs and tear gas near the doctor's head. These practices, according to observers, aim to prevent the prisoner from sleeping and keep him in a state of constant panic and nervous disorder to extract confessions or break his steadfastness.

Dr. Hussam Abu Safiya is currently classified as an 'unlawful combatant,' a designation used by the occupation authorities to extend the detention of Palestinian medical personnel without fair trials. This arrest comes despite him being a medical figure protected under international laws, and despite the personal tragedy that befell him with the martyrdom of his son Ibrahim by occupation bullets prior to his arrest.

Abu Safiya joins a long list of about 737 Palestinian medical personnel who have been disappeared by occupation prisons since the start of the widespread aggression on the Gaza Strip. These personnel face inhumane detention conditions, where the prison administration deliberately targets doctors and paramedics specifically as part of a plan to destroy the Palestinian health system.

Human rights and international appeals are escalating for urgent intervention to save the life of 'the father of the sick,' as his comrades call him, before it is too late, amid news of his health reaching a critical stage. The doctor's admirers in Gaza hope that international pressure will succeed in snatching him from the clutches of death, so he can return to his humanitarian role in healing the wounds of his afflicted people.

The doctor, known worldwide for his overwhelming presence, has become a shadow of a human being whose body was broken by torture and whose voice was silenced in the occupation cells.

US foreign policy has witnessed a remarkable shift regarding the security of waterways, as informed sources reported Washington's retreat from proceeding with what is known as 'Operation Freedom,' which was scheduled to be implemented in the Strait of Hormuz region. This decision comes at a sensitive time when the region is undergoing a rearrangement of political and military cards, raising questions about the nature of new understandings.

Reports indicated that this retreat is not merely a technical change, but rather a reflection of broader trends aimed at ending the state of armed conflict. Observers believe that reducing direct military commitments in maritime contact points may be a prelude to announcing comprehensive de-escalation agreements, especially with increasing talk in diplomatic circles about the imminent end of the war that has exhausted regional and international powers.

In the same context, sources clarified that the US administration has begun to adopt an approach based on preventive diplomacy instead of direct military buildups. This step is believed to aim at removing pretexts from rival parties and reducing opportunities for military friction in the Strait of Hormuz, which reinforces the hypothesis of a serious negotiation path whose results may be announced soon to permanently end combat operations.

The retreat from military plans in vital waterways reflects a desire to reduce regional escalation.

Diplomatic efforts are accelerating between Washington and Tehran to reach final understandings based on a concise one-page memo, primarily aimed at ending the escalating military and political tensions between the two sides. These moves come amidst a round of negotiations described as complex, through which the American administration seeks to draw a clear framework for future negotiations related to the Iranian nuclear file.

Informed sources reported that the proposed memo by the American side focuses on freezing uranium enrichment activities in Iran for a specified period, in exchange for economic incentives including the gradual lifting of sanctions imposed on Tehran. The proposal also includes the release of billions of dollars of frozen Iranian assets abroad, representing a gesture of goodwill to enhance the chances of success for the diplomatic path.

Securing navigation in the Strait of Hormuz stands out as one of the fundamental pillars in the draft agreement, given the strategic importance of this waterway through which about 20% of global oil supplies flow. Washington demands an end to all Iranian threats to commercial vessels, especially after reports indicated that Iranian forces recently planted naval mines in the international passage.

In the context of field pressures, American military reports revealed the monitoring of naval mine-laying operations by the Iranian navy last April, which Washington considered a breach of initial understandings. These tensions have led to severe disruptions in global energy markets, with fuel prices in the United States reaching record levels not seen since 2022.

For his part, US President Donald Trump announced the suspension of a military operation aimed at securing ports, a move known as 'Operation Freedom'. Trump clarified that this decision came in response to international mediations, including from Pakistan, and to give a real opportunity for negotiators to reach a final formula that prevents the region from sliding into a comprehensive confrontation.

Leaks indicate that the current dispute centers on the duration of the uranium enrichment freeze, with Washington proposing a period ranging from 12 to 15 years to ensure Tehran's inability to develop a nuclear weapon. In return, Tehran is considering these timeframes in exchange for guarantees that would allow it to resume low-level enrichment for civilian purposes after the agreed period ends.

International reports indicate that Iran currently possesses a stockpile of uranium enriched to up to 60%, a percentage very close to the military manufacturing levels that require 90%. The new agreement aims to significantly reduce these percentages and return Iran's nuclear program to within 3.67%, which is the internationally recognized percentage for peaceful and research purposes.

In a press conference from the White House, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio affirmed that his country does not oppose Iran having a purely civilian nuclear program, but it will under no circumstances accept its transformation into a military path. Rubio stressed that recent Iranian actions are concerning and require a clear diplomatic solution that defines the concessions required from Tehran from the outset.

The memo also includes strict American conditions regarding international inspections, requiring Iran to agree to unconditional access for UN inspectors to its nuclear facilities. Washington considers close monitoring to be the only guarantee to ensure Tehran's adherence to the terms of the agreement and to prevent any secret activities that could undermine regional stability.

Despite the negotiating atmosphere, the American stance was not devoid of threatening language, as President Trump warned officials in Tehran of the consequences of rejecting the current proposals. Trump clearly indicated that the failure of the diplomatic path would mean a return to the option of military force with an intensity exceeding previous operations, putting the Iranian leadership before difficult choices.

The American negotiating team is led by prominent figures including envoy Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner, who are working on drafting the precise technical details of the agreement. This team seeks to build international consensus supporting the memo, especially with allied countries directly affected by the security of navigation in the Arabian Gulf and the stability of energy prices.

Diplomatic sources indicate that the next few days will be crucial in determining the fate of this paper, as the American side awaits an official response from Tehran regarding the proposed timelines. This memo is considered a 'test of intentions' for both parties, either moving towards a comprehensive agreement or returning to the square of direct military escalation.

Should these understandings succeed, the region is expected to witness a significant economic breakthrough, especially with the lifting of restrictions on Iranian oil exports and the flow of frozen funds into the local economy. Observers believe that this agreement could pave the way for broader settlements involving other regional issues related to Iranian influence in the Middle East.

In conclusion, the biggest challenge remains the extent to which both parties can overcome the accumulated distrust over decades of conflict. While Washington insists on strict security guarantees, Tehran demands a complete and comprehensive lifting of sanctions, making the 'one-page paper' an ambitious attempt to condense a highly complex international crisis into specific and direct terms.

Iran can have a civilian nuclear program if it wishes, but its pursuit of a military program is unacceptable.

The Lebanese arena witnessed a dangerous military escalation on Wednesday evening, as the Lebanese Ministry of Health announced an increase in the death toll from the Israeli aggression on the town of Seksakiyeh in the south of the country. Medical sources confirmed the martyrdom of 4 citizens and the injury of 33 others with varying degrees of wounds, noting that among the injured were 6 children and 4 women, a toll that reflects the extent of targeting of populated areas.

In a remarkable field development, occupation aircraft carried out an airstrike targeting the Haret Hreik area in Beirut's southern suburb, the first time the capital has been targeted since the ceasefire agreement came into effect last month. Field sources reported that the missiles hit the upper floors of a seven-story residential building, causing widespread destruction that affected neighboring buildings and the entire street.

For his part, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, in a joint statement with his defense minister Yoav Gallant, announced that the army targeted the commander of the 'Radwan Force', Hezbollah's elite unit, during the raid on Beirut. Despite this announcement, a state of ambiguity prevailed regarding the fate of the target, as Israeli army radio stated that the deputy commander was not at the site and was unharmed.

In the same context, Hebrew media quoted security sources as saying that the success of the assassination attempt targeting Malik Balout, whom Israel describes as the commander of the Radwan Force, has not yet been confirmed. Hezbollah has not issued any official statement confirming or denying the martyrdom of the targeted leader, content with the silence it usually adopts in such complex operations until the field facts become clear.

On the ground, Hezbollah responded with a series of military operations targeting the movements of the occupation army at the southern border, where the party announced targeting a gathering of soldiers in the town of Ayta al-Shaab. The party clarified in a statement that the attack was carried out by an attack drone that accurately hit its target, confirming direct casualties among the forces stationed there.

Hezbollah's operations also included targeting heavy military vehicles, where a 'Namer' type vehicle belonging to the occupation army was destroyed at Khallat al-Raj in the town of Deir Sirian using an attack drone. These operations come within the framework of confronting continuous Israeli infiltration attempts and movements in the border villages, which are witnessing escalating tensions despite fragile truce agreements.

In the town of Houla, the party announced targeting a 'D9' military bulldozer that was carrying out construction and sabotage work, where it was directly hit by an attack drone. The targeting also affected another bulldozer belonging to the occupation army in the vicinity of Khiam detention center in southern Lebanon, reflecting the continuation of direct confrontations at vital contact points.

Sources in Beirut reported that the raid on Haret Hreik targeted a very densely populated area, which includes sites frequented by Hezbollah officials according to Israeli claims. The sources confirmed the fall of a number of martyrs and wounded among civilians as a result of the collapse of parts of the targeted building, while ambulance and civil defense teams continue search operations under the rubble.

This raid raises serious questions about the future of the understandings that began on April 17, which were supposed to last for a full month. Observers believe that targeting the southern suburb represents a major violation of the rules of engagement that prevailed in recent weeks, which may push the region towards a new round of widespread escalation.

Israel continues its daily violations of the truce through artillery and aerial bombardment targeting southern villages and the Beqaa, in addition to systematic house demolitions in border villages. These developments come at a time when Lebanese hoped for an extension of the period of calm, but the recent raid on Beirut has brought the specter of an all-out war back to the forefront.

Finally, anticipation remains the master of the situation in Lebanese circles, awaiting Hezbollah's reaction to the targeting of the southern suburb, and whether the response will be limited to border operations or will extend deep into the occupation. Data confirms that the continuation of Israeli violations puts the ceasefire agreement at stake, amid international silence regarding the massacres committed against civilians in the south.

We have not yet been able to confirm the success of the assassination attempt on the commander of the Radwan Force in Beirut.

The global Spanish actor Javier Bardem reiterated that his supportive stance on the Palestinian cause stems from a deeply rooted moral principle aimed at confronting injustice wherever it exists. Bardem explained in a recent interview with 'Variety' magazine, which specializes in cinema affairs, that expressing an opinion on humanitarian issues is an inherent right that cannot be relinquished under any pressure.

The Spanish star recalled the moment he chanted 'No to war, and Free Palestine' while on stage at the last Academy Awards ceremony. He noted that this cry was a spontaneous and sincere expression of his rejection of the ongoing massacres, emphasizing that he always feels the responsibility of his words before the microphones that follow him in international forums.

Regarding reports of his inclusion on a 'blacklist' within the American film industry, Bardem confirmed that he had received information indicating the possibility of his exclusion from some major projects. However, the Oscar-winning actor expressed indifference to these threats, pointing out that his career is not limited to Hollywood studios alone.

Bardem stressed that he prefers to live and work in his home country, Spain, considering that there are broad alternatives for artistic work away from the political pressures that some major production companies might exert. He added that humanitarian principles must take precedence over material interests or narrow professional ambitions in the entertainment world.

The Spanish artist noted a gradual shift in the cinematic landscape, where some producers have begun to communicate with actors who have openly declared their solidarity with the Palestinian people. Bardem believes that this trend reflects the desire of a segment of filmmakers to present content that aligns with human realities, away from traditional censorship.

Returning to the backstage of the Oscar ceremony in Los Angeles, Bardem explained that his words were met with remarkable interaction and warm applause from the audience, reflecting a hidden solidarity within the artistic community. Bardem had gone on stage to present an international award but chose to use the platform to highlight the human suffering in Gaza and the occupied territories.

The global actor linked the current events to what happened in 2003 during the invasion of Iraq, describing both wars as illegal and based on falsifying facts. He noted that he wears a protest symbol he used two decades ago to emphasize that history repeats itself through policies that lead to more extremism and destruction.

Bardem concluded his remarks by sharply criticizing political leaders who fuel conflicts, accusing Benjamin Netanyahu and Donald Trump of promoting lies aimed at justifying wars. He affirmed that these horrific actions do not achieve security but rather contribute to the radicalization of regimes and deepen the human tragedy of affected peoples.

It is my right to condemn what I see as wrong, and my support for Palestine stems from my drive to speak out against injustice.

In a quiet house located on the eastern side of the Al-Maghazi camp in the central Gaza Strip, the clock hands were racing against time towards the awaited moment of joy. Young Hala Salem Darwish, a twenty-one-year-old, was only a few days away from wearing her white wedding dress and starting a new life with her partner, amidst an atmosphere of joy that filled her family.

But a treacherous Israeli bullet pierced through the walls of the house and its tranquility, shattering in an instant all those dreams and small arrangements that Hala had diligently prepared. The young woman was not in a confrontation zone or a clash area; rather, she was living her normal life inside her safe room after finishing preparing a meal for her family.

Her father, Salem Darwish, recounts the details of that harsh moment with a voice filled with heartbreak, explaining that the house is about 200 meters from the separation line. While Hala was carrying a tray of food and sitting next to him, a bullet penetrated the window and lodged directly in her head, causing her to fall drenched in the blood of her dreams before her stunned father's eyes.

The house, which was preparing to receive well-wishers and ululations, turned into a scene of anxiety and gloom, as Hala was rushed to the hospital. The injury, described as severe, resulted in a skull fracture and significant damage to brain tissue, leading doctors to place her under close observation in the intensive care unit.

Her fiancé, Mohammed Al-Sharihi, who was counting the remaining days until May 1st, found himself standing helplessly at the doors of the intensive care unit instead of standing beside his bride. Mohammed bitterly says that Hala was full of life and preparing every detail of their marital home, but the occupation's bullets were faster than the wedding date.

Medical sources following her case, including Dr. Hala Jihad Darwish, confirm that Hala's health condition is extremely critical and deteriorating over time. The sources explained that the medical capabilities available within the besieged Gaza Strip are insufficient to deal with such complex head and skull injuries.

In light of this tragic situation, the Darwish family and her fiancé launched an urgent appeal to the World Health Organization and international human rights organizations. The family demands immediate coordination to transfer their daughter abroad for treatment, emphasizing that every minute of delay brings her closer to the risk of death.

While Hala lies today between life and death, her wedding dress hanging in her closet remains a silent witness to the crime of assassinating Palestinian joy. It is a story that summarizes a bitter reality experienced by the residents of the Strip, where a single bullet can end an entire future and change the course of life from celebration to open mourning.

We call on the World Health Organization and international bodies to intervene quickly to save her life, so that we can complete our dream that the occupation has broken.

An Israeli occupation army soldier insulted a statue of the Virgin Mary in the town of Debel in southern Lebanon by placing a cigarette in the statue's mouth and posting the image on social media platforms. This act sparked a massive wave of anger and indignation among residents and religious circles, who considered it a blatant provocation of religious sentiments in the region.

This incident is the second of its kind in Debel in less than a month, as another Israeli soldier previously destroyed a statue of Jesus Christ with a pickaxe on April 19. The Christian-majority town is located in the Bint Jbeil district and is characterized by its close proximity to the border, where about 1,700 of its residents insist on staying in their homes despite escalating attacks.

For its part, media sources reported that the Israeli army began examining the documentation that was circulated during the past twenty-four hours, suggesting that the photos were taken by soldiers and deliberately published. These investigations come amid international pressure and widespread criticism of the field behavior of Israeli soldiers in Lebanese villages and towns that have recently witnessed incursions.

Hebrew reports indicated that this series of violations included the demolition of infrastructure and civilian buildings in Christian villages without clear military justifications. As a result of increasing global criticism, the Israeli authorities decided to appoint a special ambassador to the Christian world in an attempt to restore its diplomatic image, which has been damaged by these repeated practices.

In a related context, the incident of destroying the statue of Christ in April prompted the army to take disciplinary measures against two soldiers, including removal from combat duties and detention for 30 days. However, observers believe that keeping these soldiers in military service reflects leniency that encourages the repetition of such attacks against religious symbols.

The damage was not limited to statues and symbols, but military operations also affected a number of historical churches in southern Lebanon, leading to severe material losses. Church circles were also shocked by the killing of the priest of Mar Georges Church, Father Pierre Al-Rahi, who fell victim to the continuous Israeli attacks on border villages.

These developments come at a time when Christian holy sites in occupied Jerusalem are suffering from similar harassment, as Israeli police prevented the Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem from reaching the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. These restrictions coincided with Christian holidays in April, which deprived thousands of worshipers from performing their religious rituals freely and safely.

Human rights sources also documented an increase in incidents of spitting on Christian clerics by extremist settlers in the Old City of Jerusalem. These violations coincide with international reports of systematic destruction of a number of churches and their facilities in the Gaza Strip since the outbreak of the war in October 2023.

Analysts believe that targeting Christian symbols in Lebanon and Palestine reflects an extremist approach that goes beyond the declared military objectives of Israeli operations. Religious and political bodies in Lebanon demand the necessity of providing international protection for holy sites and putting an end to provocative actions that threaten civil peace and religious coexistence in the region.

The Israeli army is examining documentation showing a soldier smoking a cigarette and placing another in a statue of the Virgin Mary in the town of Debel.

US President Donald Trump expressed remarkable optimism about the possibility of reaching an imminent agreement with Iran that would end the conflict in the Middle East. Trump confirmed in statements from the Oval Office that the past hours witnessed very positive discussions, indicating that the opportunity to end the confrontation has become very possible after a series of intensive contacts.

Despite the optimistic tone, the US President's speech was not devoid of explicit threats, as he gave the Iranian leadership the choice between accepting the proposed agreement or facing an unprecedented military escalation. Trump stressed that rejecting the current draft would mean the start of bombing operations that would be much more intense and powerful than what the region witnessed in previous periods.

In a post on the 'Truth Social' platform, Trump explained that the diplomatic process would reach its end if Tehran agreed to the agreed-upon terms, which he described as a big assumption. He warned that if the political path faltered, US forces would launch relentless attacks, confirming that the military option is ready for immediate implementation.

For its part, the Iranian tone seemed more cautious and skeptical, as Iranian Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf stated that the United States is exerting maximum pressure to force his country to surrender. Ghalibaf indicated that the naval blockade, economic pressures, and media manipulation are tools within an American plan to undermine internal cohesion in Iran.

On the diplomatic front, the Iranian Foreign Ministry confirmed that the American proposal is still under careful review by the competent authorities in Tehran. Ministry spokesman Ismail Baqaei explained that the final position will be communicated to Pakistan, which plays the main mediating role in this crisis, once the final Iranian vision is crystallized.

In a move considered a gesture of goodwill, Trump announced the suspension of 'Operation Freedom Project,' which aimed to escort ships through the Strait of Hormuz, indicating significant progress towards a final agreement. This decision came in response to a request from the Pakistani government, which is leading mediation efforts to bridge the gap between Washington and Tehran.

International press reports revealed the features of a brief one-page 'memorandum of understanding' aimed at setting a timeline for ending the war and starting comprehensive nuclear negotiations. Political circles in Washington expect the Iranian response to this memorandum to arrive within the next 48 hours, amidst international hopes of defusing the explosion.

The terms of the American proposal include a complete freeze on uranium enrichment operations by Iran, in exchange for a gradual lifting of suffocating economic sanctions. The agreement also includes the release of huge sums of frozen Iranian funds abroad, in addition to easing restrictions on navigation in the strategic Strait of Hormuz.

In the context of international reactions, China, through its Foreign Minister Wang Yi, called for a complete and immediate ceasefire in the region. The Chinese minister stressed during his meeting with his Iranian counterpart the need to reopen the Strait of Hormuz to global trade as soon as possible to avoid a global economic catastrophe.

On the ground, tension remains high, as the US military announced the disabling of an Iranian oil tanker that attempted to break the naval blockade imposed on ports. The Central Command explained that an 'F/A-18' fighter jet fired at the ship's rudder after it ignored repeated warnings, causing it to stop moving.

This naval blockade, imposed by the United States since mid-April, serves as a key pressure tool to push Tehran to the negotiating table. World capitals are closely monitoring the outcomes of this round of talks, which could represent a historical turning point in the strained relations between the two countries for decades.

Observers believe that the coming hours will be crucial in determining the fate of the region, either moving towards a comprehensive political settlement that ends the state of war, or sliding towards a direct military confrontation. The anticipated Iranian response remains the key that will determine whether the Middle East will breathe a sigh of relief or face a new wave of destruction.

We had very good talks over the past twenty-four hours, and it is very possible that we will reach an agreement that ends this war.

Israeli occupation authorities today, Wednesday, issued urgent notices to demolish about 50 commercial shops and Palestinian structures in the town of Al-Eizariya, located southeast of occupied Jerusalem. These measures come as part of accelerated steps to pave the way for the implementation of a large-scale settlement plan in the vital area connecting Jerusalem to its surroundings.

Official sources in Jerusalem Governorate reported that occupation teams verbally informed about 50 citizens of the need to evacuate their structures in the nursery area at the main entrance to the town. The authorities set next Sunday morning as the final deadline for evacuation, threatening to forcibly carry out demolition operations, including the contents and goods within the structures.

These new notices are based on previous demolition orders issued in August 2025, as the occupation seeks to impose a new reality before legal issues are decided. The Governorate clarified that the owners of the structures had submitted legal petitions to Israeli courts, and a decision on them is expected in mid-May.

For its part, Al-Eizariya Municipality warned that these targeting fall within the settlement plan known as 'E1', which is considered one of the most dangerous expansion projects in the region. This project aims to connect the 'Ma'ale Adumim' settlement with occupied Jerusalem, which will effectively isolate the northern West Bank from its south completely.

The plan includes the so-called 'Fabric of Life' project, a system of roads and infrastructure designed for racial segregation between the movement of Palestinians and settlers. Under this plan, tunnels and secondary roads will be allocated for Palestinians, while surface and main roads will be designated to serve settlers and facilitate their movement towards Jerusalem.

In a related context, human rights reports indicated that last April witnessed a significant escalation in demolition operations, with occupation forces carrying out 37 demolition operations in various areas of the West Bank. These operations affected 78 structures, including 37 inhabited homes, leading to the displacement of dozens of Palestinian families.

Settlement affairs experts confirm that the 'E1' project aims to confiscate thousands of dunams of Palestinian land and prevent any future urban expansion for Palestinians in the vicinity of Jerusalem. This project has faced widespread international rejection over the years, but the occupation authorities continue their attempts to implement it gradually through a policy of demolishing structures.

Local authorities in Jerusalem warned that the implementation of this project would lead to the complete isolation of Palestinian Bedouin communities, such as Jabal al-Baba and Wadi al-Jamal. These communities face the risk of forced displacement and removal to provide connected geographical areas for major Israeli settlements in the eastern part of the city.

Historical data indicate that the structural plan for this project bears the number 4/420 and was approved in 1999 over an area estimated at 12,000 dunams. Most of these lands were declared 'state lands' by the occupation to facilitate their subsequent transfer of ownership for the benefit of settlement expansion in the 'Ma'ale Adumim' settlement.

A state of tension and anxiety prevails among shop owners in Al-Eizariya as the deadline approaches, amidst calls for international intervention to stop the demolition operations. These structures are the sole source of livelihood for dozens of families, and their demolition represents a severe economic blow to the town, which already suffers from the siege of the wall and settlement.

This step comes despite the submission of petitions to an Israeli court against the demolition decisions, which are scheduled to be decided in mid-May.

A state of extreme tension hangs over the political and military scene in the Gaza Strip, as questions increase about the resilience of the recently concluded ceasefire agreement. While the corridors of the 'Peace Council' promote positive results, field movements and statements issued by the Israeli Prime Minister's office indicate the possibility of the situation exploding at any moment.

Mohannad Mustafa, an expert in Israeli affairs, believes that the positive atmosphere that the Executive Director of the Peace Council, Nikolay Mladenov, is trying to market does not find a real echo with Benjamin Netanyahu. Mustafa explained that the absence of any official Israeli position confirming commitment to calm is an implicit rejection of demands to introduce aid and cease hostilities.

In contrast, the Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas) insists on the necessity of completing all requirements of the first phase of the agreement before moving on to any subsequent understandings. The movement has called on the United Nations and international mediators to exert real pressure on Tel Aviv to prevent it from reneging on its security and humanitarian obligations towards the residents of the Strip.

Analytical readings indicate that Netanyahu is effectively seeking to return to 'square one' and resume widespread military operations, exploiting the sensitive political timing. The Israeli Prime Minister aims to convince the administration of US President Donald Trump that diplomatic paths to disarm the resistance have reached a dead end.

On the ground, the behavior of the occupation army in the areas it controls, estimated at about 60% of the Strip's area, reflects long-term intentions for permanent presence. The construction of military bases and the systematic demolition of residential blocks confirm that the occupation adopts an ideological vision that rejects the idea of complete withdrawal in the foreseeable future.

For his part, political analyst Iyad Al-Qara affirmed that Palestinian factions have fulfilled their obligations regarding the prisoner file, while Israel has not taken any concrete steps in return. On the contrary, the occupation authorities have resorted to inventing what he described as 'orange lines' to continue systematic assassinations and killings under the guise of calm.

Al-Qara described the living reality inside Gaza as having reached a stage of 'nothingness,' as the limited aid entering the Strip has failed to meet the minimum needs of citizens. He pointed out that the resistance categorically rejects fragmenting the agreement or moving to the disarmament file before implementing all provisions of the first phase.

As for the American approach, it revolves around President Trump's desire to achieve a 'grand deal' that guarantees the disarmament of factions and the formation of a technocratic government to administer the Strip. Former White House officials believe that Washington understands the complexities of the reality, but it is betting on mutual pressure to prevent the complete collapse of the peace project.

Observers warned that the failure of mediators to compel Israel to fulfill the requirements of calm means remaining in a cycle of successive crises. The current bet remains on the ability of Cairo and international mediators to curb the escalatory tendencies of the extremist Israeli right, represented by Netanyahu and his ministers.

The option of resuming war remains a looming political tool used by Netanyahu to strengthen his position domestically in Israel, despite a potential American 'veto.' The field in Gaza is currently experiencing a continuous 'semi-war,' as Israeli violations continue to target civilians and infrastructure daily.

It is worth noting that this political deadlock comes after a genocidal war launched by Israel since October 2023, which resulted in hundreds of thousands of martyrs and injured. The war caused the destruction of 90% of vital facilities in Gaza, amid UN estimates that reconstruction requires a massive budget exceeding 70 billion dollars.

The behavior of the occupation army in the areas it controls, from building military bases to systematic demolition, reflects an ideological intention to remain, not to withdraw.

By Said Arikat

May 7, 2026

News Analysis

Washington, D.C- A political earthquake is quietly reshaping Washington, and few in the American establishment seem fully prepared for its consequences. According to a major report published by The Washington Post on Wednesday, May 6, 2026, the decades-old bipartisan consensus surrounding Israel is rapidly disintegrating across both the Democratic and Republican parties.

This is not a temporary disagreement over tactics or personalities. It is the gradual collapse of one of the most protected pillars of American foreign policy: the notion that unwavering support for Israel is politically untouchable, morally unquestionable, and strategically indispensable.

For generations, American politicians operated within carefully enforced boundaries when discussing Israel. Democrats and Republicans alike competed to demonstrate loyalty to the “special relationship,” while meaningful criticism of Israeli policy was treated almost as political heresy. Careers were threatened, donors mobilized, and accusations weaponized against those who dared challenge the status quo.

That era is ending.

The reason is painfully obvious. The genocide and destruction of Gaza, broadcast daily across phones and computer screens around the world, has shattered decades of carefully constructed political narratives. Americans — especially younger Americans — are no longer seeing Israel exclusively through the traditional lens of democracy, victimhood, and strategic partnership. They are witnessing overwhelming military force deployed against a trapped civilian population, entire neighborhoods reduced to rubble, mass displacement, starvation, and the killing of thousands of children.

Washington’s political class continues speaking the language of “security” and “self-defense,” but much of the American public increasingly sees something far darker: collective punishment carried out with American weapons and financed by American taxpayers., and protected by American political and diplomatic stature on the world stage.

The numbers cited by The Washington Post are extraordinary. Nearly half of Republicans and almost three-quarters of Democrats now say support for Israel has become a divisive issue inside their own parties. Almost half of Americans believe the United States is too supportive of Israel — more than double the figure recorded a decade ago.

That transformation is not merely statistical. It reflects a moral and political rebellion against a foreign policy establishment that has spent decades demanding silence, conformity, and unconditional loyalty whenever Israel is involved.

The Democratic Party, in particular, is experiencing an open revolt from its base. Progressive candidates are no longer cautiously distancing themselves from Israeli policy; many are openly accusing Israel of genocide and apartheid. Senate candidates, congressional hopefuls, and local activists are increasingly framing support for Palestinian rights not as a fringe issue, but as a test of political integrity.

Their argument is devastatingly simple: if politicians cannot speak honestly about the mass killing of civilians and the destruction of an entire society, then what moral credibility do they possess on any other issue?

This explains why younger Democratic voters increasingly see the Palestinian struggle as connected to broader questions of racial justice, colonialism, militarism, and state violence. For them, Gaza is not a distant geopolitical abstraction. It is a mirror reflecting the hypocrisy of a political system that speaks endlessly about human rights while financing devastation abroad.

What makes this moment even more remarkable is that discontent is also growing on the American right.

The Republican fracture over Israel is driven less by humanitarian outrage and more by exhaustion with foreign entanglements and endless wars. The “America First” wing increasingly views Israel through a transactional lens, asking why American taxpayers should subsidize a wealthy nuclear-armed state while domestic crises deepen at home.

The widening war with Iran has intensified those frustrations. Many conservative voters now openly suspect that the United States is repeatedly being dragged into Middle Eastern conflicts not because of core American interests, but because of pressure from pro-Israel lobbying networks and ideological alliances inside Washington.

Figures such as Tucker Carlson and Marjorie Taylor Greene have capitalized on that anger, openly challenging the once-sacred political taboos surrounding Israel. While some rhetoric emerging from the far right maybe suspect, the broader political reality remains undeniable: unquestioning support for Israel is no longer automatic even within conservative circles.

This represents a historic failure for the American political establishment and for organizations such as AIPAC that long operated as some of the most feared forces in Washington. For decades, pro-Israel lobbying groups maintained influence through campaign financing, political intimidation, and bipartisan discipline. Politicians understood the risks of crossing certain lines.

But even these organizations now appear increasingly defensive. As The Washington Post report notes, pro-Israel political groups are often avoiding direct discussion of Israel itself in campaign advertisements, choosing instead to attack opponents on unrelated domestic issues. That strategic retreat reveals a growing awareness that public opinion is shifting in ways they can no longer fully control.

The generational divide is especially significant. Older Americans, shaped by Cold War alliances, evangelical politics, and memories of the Holocaust, often continue viewing Israel through the traditional framework of moral obligation and strategic partnership. Younger Americans do not. They see a heavily armed regional power enforcing occupation, expanding settlements, and waging wars with devastating civilian consequences.

No amount of official messaging can fully erase the images that now circulate daily across social media platforms outside the control of traditional media gatekeepers.

The political implications are enormous. Future administrations — whether Democratic or Republican — may find it increasingly difficult to sustain the blank-check relationship that has defined U.S.-Israel ties for decades. Military aid, diplomatic protection, and unconditional political cover are no longer guaranteed to remain immune from public scrutiny.

This does not mean the alliance will suddenly disappear. The institutional ties between Washington and Israel remain deep, powerful, and entrenched. But the moral consensus that once protected those ties has been profoundly damaged.

And perhaps that is the most important development of all.

For the first time in modern American political history, criticizing Israel is no longer automatically politically fatal. In many constituencies, especially among younger voters, silence in the face of Gaza may now carry greater political risk than criticism itself.

The old order is cracking. Washington can continue pretending otherwise for a while longer. But the American political landscape surrounding Israel has already changed — and it may never return to what it once was.

The economic confrontation between Beijing and Washington has entered a new phase of escalation, as Chinese authorities have publicly challenged US sanctions imposed on Iran's oil sector. This move comes at a highly sensitive time, preceding US President Donald Trump's scheduled visit to the Chinese capital next week, reflecting Beijing's desire to demonstrate resistance and unwillingness to succumb to economic pressures.

In a notable development, China's Ministry of Commerce issued explicit directives to local companies not to comply with US measures that have blacklisted a number of Chinese refineries. The ministry based its decision on the 'Blocking Statute' issued in 2021, a legal tool specifically designed by Beijing to counter foreign laws it deems to violate international norms or unlawfully restrict global trade.

Economic reports indicate that private Chinese refineries, known in oil circles as 'teapots,' have become almost the sole and primary buyer of every barrel of oil Iran exports abroad. Although Beijing previously exercised a degree of caution to avoid appearing to openly violate sanctions, the recent directives represent a radical shift towards open confrontation with the US administration.

For his part, Dylan Loh, a professor at Nanyang Technological University, believes that this move sends a broad political message that goes beyond the oil issue, implying that China has the ability and will to confront what it describes as unilateral sanctions. He explained that Beijing is no longer content with diplomatic protests but has begun to activate its legal arsenal to protect its commercial interests and national companies from external targeting.

Washington had intensified its pressure in recent weeks, imposing severe sanctions last April on a unit of 'Hengli Petrochemical,' one of China's largest industrial companies. The US administration accused the company of purchasing massive quantities of Iranian oil, estimated at billions of dollars, warning global financial institutions against facilitating any transactions related to these refineries.

The Chinese response is not limited to the energy sector but has extended to the technology sector and foreign investment, a clear indication of Beijing's use of policy tools to counter US 'economic weapons.' This was evident in Beijing's decision last week to cancel a massive acquisition deal by 'Meta Platforms' for a China-linked startup, citing national security requirements.

Damien Ma, director of the 'Carnegie China' research center, comments on these developments by saying that China has begun to reveal its own set of economic coercion tools, in response to the tools that the United States has long used. He added that the current scene shows a new balance of economic power, with each side seeking to possess effective leverage before sitting down at the negotiating table.

Political analysts believe that Beijing aims through this escalation to prevent Washington from 'manufacturing free negotiating chips' before the anticipated summit between leaders Xi Jinping and Donald Trump. Experts confirm that the current Chinese approach is based on the principle of reciprocity, seeking to impose a comprehensive reset of bilateral negotiations and ensure that no concessions are made under the weight of economic threats.

In conclusion, international circles are awaiting the results of Trump's anticipated visit to Beijing, amidst this atmosphere charged with trade and legal tensions. While Chinese refineries continue to receive Iranian oil under the protection of new local laws, the question remains about the extent to which the two parties can reach understandings that prevent the relationship from sliding into an all-out economic war.

China is ready and able to resist what it considers unilateral and unfair sanctions that harm its national interests.

Despite the ceasefire agreement signed last October, the Gaza Strip is witnessing a silent escalation in the form of daily violations and an unprecedented field expansion by Israeli occupation forces. Security assessments suggest that these movements may be a prelude to the resumption of the genocide war, as Tel Aviv seeks to impose a new geographical reality that changes the features of the Strip.

Recently, the term 'Yellow Line' emerged, which the agreement defined as a temporary separator between army deployment areas and areas where displaced persons are allowed to return. However, field reports confirmed that occupation mechanisms are carrying out extensive bulldozing and excavation operations to gradually move this line westward, reducing the areas available to Palestinians.

International journalistic sources revealed new maps issued by the occupation that confine thousands of displaced persons within a restricted area known as the 'Orange Line'. This newly created area devours about 11% of the lands from which the army was supposed to withdraw under recent understandings, deepening the humanitarian crisis for the displaced.

Hebrew media sources confirmed that the occupation army did not adhere to the agreed-upon lines, but rather systematically penetrated deep into the Strip. The sources explained that the field expansion operations led to Israel's effective control over about 60% of the total area of the Gaza Strip, which represents a blatant violation of the agreements.

The Israeli security establishment aims, through these field maneuvers, to create an 'operational reality' that facilitates the intervention of forces to confront what it calls renewed threats. Tel Aviv also seeks, by controlling these areas, to prevent resistance factions from repositioning themselves or restoring their organizational capabilities in areas from which the army previously withdrew.

In contrast, Palestinian and international parties warned that what is happening is a systematic attempt to redraw the entire geographical map of the Gaza Strip. These parties considered that the imposition of new field realities aims to undermine any opportunities for the return of the political and security arrangements that existed before the start of the genocide war.

For its part, the European Union expressed its strong condemnation of the occupation's attempts to illegally expand its control within the Strip. In a statement, the Union called for Tel Aviv to adhere to the terms of the truce and ensure the unhindered entry of humanitarian aid, emphasizing the importance of preserving the unity and integrity of the Palestinian territories.

On the political front, security sources quoted Israeli Channel 12 as saying that the US administration under Donald Trump may give the green light for the resumption of military operations soon. This leak comes at a sensitive time witnessing intensive consultations between Washington and Tel Aviv on the future of the security situation in Gaza.

Recent days witnessed a high-level meeting between Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and the Executive Director of the Gaza Peace Council, Nikolay Mladenov. The discussion during the meeting focused on the next steps and potential scenarios for dealing with the Strip in light of the current stalemate in the political process.

Israel justifies the resumption of its aggression by Hamas's rejection of disarmament, which Tel Aviv considers a 'fundamental breach' of the ceasefire. Israeli sources indicated that the continuation of this stance may push towards a return to the military option in the very near future, if American support is obtained.

Despite these threats, some security circles in Tel Aviv rule out a widespread and immediate attack, given the army's engagement on other fronts in Lebanon and Iran. Nevertheless, plans to expand the 'Yellow Line' remain in place and ready for implementation once the final political decision is issued by the Israeli government.

In a related context, military analysts in Haaretz warned that the Israeli government may push for a new escalation to achieve internal political gains. Analyst Amos Harel indicated that the approaching general elections may be a motive for Netanyahu to launch a new attack that covers up accumulated political and security failures.

Washington informed Tel Aviv that Hamas rejected the issue of its disarmament, which Israel considered a breach of the ceasefire that could pave the way for the resumption of military operations.

US President Donald Trump issued a stern warning to the Iranian leadership, asserting that Tehran would face military strikes exceeding in intensity and scale anything it had witnessed in its previous confrontations with the United States and Israel. This threat came in the event of a failure to reach a final agreement that would put an end to the ongoing military tensions in the region.

Trump clarified via his 'Truth Social' platform that the conclusion of the military operation, dubbed 'Epic of Wrath,' is contingent upon Iran's full commitment to what will be agreed upon. He indicated that the effective blockade currently in place might be lifted to allow the Strait of Hormuz to open for international navigation, including Iranian vessels, should this commitment be met.

In a related context, press sources quoted Trump as saying that discussions about direct negotiations with Tehran are still premature at this time. These statements coincide with reports revealing that both parties are close to drafting a concise memorandum of understanding aimed at establishing a framework for ending the raging state of war.

For its part, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Navy announced that ensuring safe passage through the Strait of Hormuz is directly linked to halting American threats and implementing new regulatory measures. Tehran expressed its appreciation for the crews of ships that adhered to Iranian regulations during the period of tension, in its first comment on Washington's suspension of assistance operations for stranded vessels.

Political observers believe that the current scene reflects a dual dynamic relying on both the negotiation track and military pressure simultaneously. While diplomatic channels continue to exchange proposals, field movements are being used as a tool to improve negotiation terms and compel the other party to make substantial concessions.

Leaked information indicates that Iran has presented a comprehensive 14-point offer, including a freeze on uranium enrichment for up to 15 years. The offer also included proposals to address the 60% enriched uranium stockpile, either by reducing enrichment levels or transferring it out of the country in exchange for lifting the economic blockade.

Despite Trump's rejection of some of these points via social media, the US administration has not yet issued an official rejection. This silence suggests that negotiation channels remain open, and discussions are ongoing behind the scenes regarding the complex contentious points preventing a final formula from being reached.

Washington recognizes that resolving the Strait of Hormuz issue militarily faces significant geographical and technical complexities due to Iranian tactics relying on mines and fast boats. Therefore, the American 'Freedom Project' appears to aim at exerting negotiating pressure to create safe passages rather than attempting to completely break Iranian control.

Recent hours have seen signs of a 'breakthrough' in some pending issues, leading to a temporary suspension of some military operations to allow diplomacy a chance. This development reflects a rearrangement of the tools used, where military pressure is balanced with international political moves led by mediating parties.

China emerges as a pivotal player in these mediations, especially after Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi's recent visit to Beijing. It is believed that these diplomatic moves have contributed to narrowing viewpoints and carried reassuring messages that could lead to a breakthrough in the current stalemate between Washington and Tehran.

The United States holds onto the economic blockade as a primary pressure tool, given its profound impact on the Iranian economy, which suffers from severe inflation and currency collapse. Washington wants to start with an agreement on the nuclear file first, while Tehran insists on a gradual approach beginning with lifting the blockade and opening the strait.

Ultimately, both parties realize that the cost of a comprehensive military confrontation would be prohibitive and undesirable, making the negotiation option the only available path. However, this process remains vulnerable to collapse at any moment, especially since the governing principle of negotiations is 'agree on everything or nothing.'

If Iran does not agree, the bombing will begin, and it will be at a much higher level and intensity than before.

The Ministry of Health in the Gaza Strip announced today, Wednesday, the martyrdom of three Palestinians and the recovery of a fourth body during the past twenty-four hours, due to ongoing Israeli aggressions. Medical sources clarified that hospitals also received 16 injured with varying degrees of wounds, amidst escalating daily violations of the fragile ceasefire agreement that came into effect in October of last year.

In field details, eyewitnesses confirmed that a Palestinian woman was injured by live bullets fired directly by occupation soldiers towards the displacement tents in the town of Beit Lahia, north of the Strip. This incident is part of a series of direct targeting of civilians in areas supposedly safe, raising the level of tension and anxiety among displaced families suffering from harsh humanitarian conditions.

Regarding military operations, the occupation army carried out widespread demolition operations of residential buildings located within what is known as the 'Yellow Line' in the eastern part of Gaza City. This line is an imaginary geographical strip imposed by the occupation to isolate areas it militarily controls from Palestinian communities, where this space consumes about 59% of the total area of the Strip.

In the central part of the Strip, Israeli artillery did not stop targeting residential neighborhoods, as local sources reported artillery shells falling in the eastern areas of Al-Bureij refugee camp. These attacks coincide with the movement of occupation vehicles along the border, hindering the access of ambulance and civil defense teams to some targeted areas to recover victims or provide assistance to the injured.

Official statistical data issued by the Ministry revealed that the total number of martyrs since the start of the genocide war in October 2023 has risen to 72,619 martyrs, while the number of injured has reached 172,484. The Ministry indicated that these figures include victims officially registered in hospitals, while thousands of bodies are still missing under the rubble.

Speaking of the repercussions of the violations since the October 10, 2025 agreement, medical sources recorded the martyrdom of 837 people and the injury of 2,381 others, in addition to the recovery of 769 bodies that were stuck under the rubble or in the streets. These figures reflect the extent of the ongoing violations of international agreements and the occupation's insistence on continuing military pressure despite widespread international condemnations.

On the humanitarian and structural level, UN reports indicate that the ongoing aggression has caused 90% of the civilian infrastructure in the Gaza Strip to be completely or partially destroyed. International bodies estimate the cost of reconstruction at about 70 billion dollars, amidst a tragic reality where residents lack the most basic necessities of life, such as water, electricity, and health services.

The toll of victims from Israeli violations of the agreement since its inception has risen to 837 martyrs and 2,381 injured, in addition to the recovery of hundreds of bodies from under the rubble.

Hebrew media reports have revealed a growing state of frustration within Israeli security circles due to the continued restrictions imposed by the US administration on military operations in Lebanon. National security experts explained that the current policy hinders the army's ability to deliver decisive blows to Hezbollah's strongholds, placing field forces in a difficult defensive position.

Security expert Kobi Marom indicated that President Donald Trump decided to implement a ceasefire on the northern front in response to Iranian pressure as part of negotiations. Marom considered this American approach to have given Tehran and Hezbollah an opportunity to catch their breath, at a time when Israel was seeking to expand its aerial operations to cover all Lebanese territory.

According to Hebrew analyses, Washington has almost completely restricted the Israeli army's freedom of action in strategic areas such as Beirut and the Beqaa Valley, limiting interventions to 'surgical operations' to counter only imminent threats. This restriction has confined Israeli military activity to the area around the Litani River and to a limited depth within southern Lebanon.

The Israeli government faces a real dilemma due to its complete reliance on American support, forcing it to comply with Trump's vision aimed at achieving a temporary calm that serves negotiations with Iran. Observers believe that this calm may come at the expense of the military objectives announced by Tel Aviv at the beginning of the confrontation, especially regarding the dismantling of Hezbollah's infrastructure.

Marom criticized the absence of a clear memorandum of understanding regulating the current ceasefire, noting that previous agreements included explicit American guarantees for Israeli freedom of movement in the event of violations. The current situation, however, is characterized by ambiguity and a lack of coordination between the Lebanese government and field forces, which opens the door to continued military friction.

Sources reported that Hezbollah continues to carry out attacks against Israeli forces stationed in the security zone, considering the destruction of infrastructure in the south as a continuation of the war. These attacks put the Israeli army in an embarrassing position, as it finds itself forced to respond within very narrow limits that are not commensurate with the magnitude of the threats its soldiers face.

Israeli estimates indicate that Hezbollah uses drones to disrupt life in border settlements, a threat that current measures have not fully neutralized. Experts believe that the continued casualties among soldiers and settlers represent a heavy price that Israel cannot bear for long under the weight of political restrictions.

The roots of the American decision to limit strong attacks lie in the desire to preserve the legitimacy of the Lebanese government and push it towards direct negotiations with Israel. Washington fears that violent strikes in Beirut could undermine these diplomatic efforts, which are being coordinated with regional powers such as Saudi Arabia.

Given these facts, the risk of an internal conflict in Lebanon emerges, as Hezbollah views the ongoing negotiations as a threat to its existence and its military and political standing. This struggle for survival pushes Hezbollah to escalate its field operations to prove its ability to resist and prevent any agreement that might lead to its disarmament in the future.

Israeli forces deployed 8 to 10 kilometers inside Lebanese territory are engaged in destroying tunnels and military installations, a task that the Lebanese army was supposed to undertake. Marom believes there is a huge gap between political promises to eliminate Hezbollah and the reality on the ground, where Hezbollah appears capable of initiating attacks.

Experts describe the current situation as a 'strategic trap,' where Israel has become hostage to Trump's policies that seek a comprehensive regional settlement that may not ultimately guarantee the security of the northern border. They emphasize that the strategic reality today is more complex and difficult than it was when confrontations erupted last February.

Security circles criticized the Israeli government's hesitation to make courageous decisions that combine military action with complementary political engagement with the Lebanese state. Instead of cornering Hezbollah through a well-considered security settlement, Israel found itself forced to follow American dictates that may not meet its security aspirations.

The biggest challenge for the Israeli leadership remains how to balance maintaining the strategic relationship with Trump and the necessity of responding forcefully to Hezbollah's continuous attacks. Without dismantling Hezbollah's military capabilities, any agreement signed remains mere ink on paper that does not provide real security for the residents of the north.

The analysis concluded that the Israeli army needs to regain full freedom of action and strike Hezbollah's main strongholds to end the current attrition. However, the path towards this goal still seems blocked by international political considerations that prioritize negotiations with Tehran over direct military decisive action.

The attempt to separate the arenas has become an illusion and a scattering of sand in the eyes of the public, and Trump's move has given a boost to Iran's continued commitment to assisting Hezbollah.

Recent US intelligence reports indicate that the ongoing military conflict between the United States and Israel on one side, and Iran on the other, may be the primary driver behind the assassination attempt on former President Donald Trump. According to an initial assessment issued by the Department of Homeland Security, the accused, Cole Allen, based his actions on a series of political stances opposing the military directions of the current and former US administrations.

The report, issued by the Office of Intelligence and Analysis on April 27th, was widely circulated to include local and federal law enforcement agencies. The assessment clarified that Allen harbored 'multiple social and political grievances,' which were clearly evident in his digital activity and posts that severely criticized American involvement in Middle Eastern conflicts.

Official documents indicate that the war on Iran was not merely a political backdrop, but a pressure factor that directly contributed to the decision to carry out the attack during the White House Correspondents' Dinner. This event, which was supposed to include an elite group of senior officials and media figures, turned into a scene of a complex security operation that ended with the thwarting of the plot on April 25th.

In a related context, the US Department of Justice expanded the indictment against Cole Allen to include a charge of assaulting a federal employee. This charge comes after it was proven that he fired at a Secret Service agent assigned to protect a security checkpoint, reflecting the accused's insistence on using armed violence to achieve his political goals.

The list of criminal charges also includes attempted assassination, use of a firearm during a crime of violence, in addition to illegally transporting weapons and ammunition across state lines. Despite the weight of these charges, the accused has not yet appeared to give his official statement before the court, amidst widespread legal and media anticipation for the results of the final investigations.

Informed sources confirmed that investigators found an email sent by Allen to his family members hours before the attack, in which he expressed deep resentment towards the political elite. In his message, he described one of the figures who was scheduled to give a speech at the dinner as a 'traitor,' which analysts considered an implicit and direct reference to Donald Trump.

The Federal Bureau of Investigation is currently analyzing the accused's digital footprint, especially his account on the 'Bluesky' platform, which saw intense activity in the weeks leading up to the incident. The posts included scathing criticisms of immigration policies, intervention in Ukraine, in addition to a personal attack on businessman Elon Musk and his economic and political orientations.

Among the most prominent findings by investigators was the accused's reposting of calls for Trump's impeachment and trial, especially after the latter's statements in early April threatening to 'wipe out Iranian civilization.' These statements appear to have been a turning point in Allen's thinking, who saw these threats as a departure from the ethical values that the US government should uphold.

The investigations also included posts dating back to last year, in which Allen used religious quotes to describe Trump in harsh terms, in response to social media posts by members of the former president's family. This overlap between the religious and political dimensions complicates the investigators' task in understanding the psychological makeup of the accused and the true motives that led him to the assassination attempt.

Finally, security officials are striving, by scrutinizing Allen's electronic activity, to preempt conspiracy theories that have begun to spread about the motives of the attack. This intelligence effort aims to provide a coherent narrative based on digital facts and field testimonies, to ensure the transparency of investigations in a case that directly affects US national security.

The war on Iran may have contributed to Cole Allen's decision to carry out the attack, based on multiple social and political grievances.

The memory of the Palestinian Nakba remains a witness to a crime whose chapters have not ceased since 1948, when David Ben-Gurion declared the establishment of his entity on the ruins of displaced cities and villages. This declaration came in a meeting in the occupied city of Jaffa, attended by representatives of the Zionist bodies that managed the armed robbery of Palestinian land and history.

The declaration of the alleged 'state' was based on what Ben-Gurion described as a natural and historical right, exploiting the UN partition resolution to legitimize the existence of a replacement entity. The discourse at the time outlined the mechanisms for the transfer of power from the 'People's Council' to a provisional government, a step that laid the foundations for the first Zionist institutions.

It is noteworthy that this entity has not issued an official constitution since its supposed date in October 1948 until today, which raises deep legal and political questions. Researchers believe that this absence is not a coincidence, but rather a strategic decision that serves the nature of the expansionist Zionist project.

Analysts attribute the lack of a constitution to the internal conflict between secular and religious forces, as the latter fear laws that might limit the extremist Jewish character. The absence of a constitution also gives the occupation flexibility to change its borders and laws to suit the pace of continuous settlement.

The entity's continued existence without a constitution means that the 'Zionist project' has not yet ended, and that it is in a constant state of movement to gather world Jewry and deny Palestinians. This situation allows Zionist institutions to operate outside the traditional civil state frameworks that might impose rights for non-Jews.

The dynamic relationship in Israel between politics and law is manifested as a conflict between the 'chaos of power' and the institutionalization of the state, where the ethnic current refuses to submit to a civil state. This refusal primarily aims to ensure that decision-making remains in the hands of Jewish national institutions that have excluded the original landowners.

In the context of legitimizing theft, the occupation authorities issued the 'Abandoned Areas' decree in June 1948 to gain absolute control over the properties of expelled Palestinians. The decree defined these areas as any place occupied by armed forces or whose inhabitants had fled under the pressure of military operations.

Zionist intelligence reports from that era revealed that the emptying of Palestinian villages was not voluntary, but resulted from direct hostile acts and systematic psychological warfare. These documents admitted that fear of retaliation and forced evacuation orders were the primary drivers of the first waves of refugees.

By the end of 1948, 'Emergency Regulations concerning Absentee Property' were imposed to tighten control over the properties of Palestinians who were prevented from returning. These regulations did not differentiate between those who left the country and those who were internally displaced, considering everyone 'absentee' with no right to reclaim their rights.

In 1950, the occupation moved to the 'codification' stage by issuing the Absentee Property Law, which replaced the previous emergency regulations. This law was designed to be a legal tool for the automatic transfer of Arab real estate and land to what is called the 'Custodian of Absentee Property'.

The law granted broad powers to the custodian to sell these properties to the 'Development Authority', a quasi-governmental body that acts as a front for property transfer. This complex legal process was essentially aimed at erasing the legal trace of Palestinian owners and establishing a new settlement reality.

This system was integrated with the issuance of the 'Development Authority Law' which allowed the sale of land to the Jewish National Fund (Keren Kayemeth). Thus, the conversion of Palestinian land into 'Jewish national property' was ensured, which cannot be disposed of or returned to its rightful owners under any circumstances.

Reading the course of the Nakba from the first Zionist Congress in 1897 until today reveals a continuous plan that enjoys international support and blatant complicity. The occupation's atrocities did not stop at physical displacement, but extended to include the falsification of laws to serve the colonial replacement project.

After eight decades of tragedy, the question remains about the utility of dealing with an entity that recognizes only the policy of fait accompli and military force. History proves that the Zionist system was designed to be in a state of permanent war with the Palestinian presence, which necessitates a language of confrontation befitting the magnitude of the sacrifices.

The project of establishing the Zionist state is an ongoing project, as the 'revolution' refuses to hand over its papers to the civil state to ensure the continued denial and marginalization of Palestinians.

Concern is growing in academic and political circles within the United States due to a noticeable decline in global influence, as Washington has become overly reliant on its military arsenal and economic pressure. This shift comes at the expense of diplomatic and cultural tools that for decades represented the primary pillar of American influence on the international stage.

In this context, 'Foreign Policy' magazine published an extensive analysis by Stephen Walt, a lecturer at Harvard University, in which he affirmed that the erosion of soft power is no longer merely a theoretical discussion but has become an accelerating trend. Walt believes that the United States, despite its material superiority, is suffering from a real crisis in its ability to attract others and persuade them of its political and value model.

The analysis is based on the concept of 'soft power' coined by the late Joseph Nye, which is based on the idea of voluntary attraction rather than coercion. A state that possesses this type of power makes others want to emulate it and associate with its model, achieving more sustainable and profound results than direct military pressure.

Walt points out that this balance, which characterized American superiority after the Cold War, has begun to fade, especially with the emergence of the current administration's approach, which places hard power as a first and permanent option. This trend is evident in the imposition of unilateral tariffs and the use of economic threats as a means to force allies and partners to make concessions.

The article also drew attention to the expanded use of military force in unconventional arenas, such as operations targeting drug traffickers in the Caribbean and Pacific regions. These actions were often carried out without sufficient legal evidence, and with an implicit acknowledgment that they would not radically end the drug trade.

The analysis touched upon the aggressive language that has come to characterize American political discourse towards world leaders, including allies such as the Ukrainian president. International relations are dealt with in terms of direct deals, with a clear absence of the moral or legal justifications that Washington previously used to frame its actions.

The author believes that the current administration seems willing to display power nakedly and without equivocation, which represents a departure from the historical pattern that was keen on conferring international legitimacy. This behavior has undermined the mental image of the United States as a country that respects international laws and institutions that it itself helped build.

The decline was not limited to political discourse but extended to include the dismantling of institutions that represent the arms of soft power, foremost among them the United States Agency for International Development. Policies also included reducing the budgets of media and diplomatic institutions that formed cultural bridges with the peoples of the world.

The American withdrawal from international organizations and reduced participation in multilateral issues has led to a significant strategic vacuum. This vacuum has been exploited by rival powers, led by China, which has begun to improve its external image and present itself as a more stable alternative in the fields of cultural diplomacy.

Walt warns that dividing the world into 'winners' and 'losers' weakens Washington's ability to win the support of peoples in the long run. Focusing on immediate results and fleeting deals destroys the cumulative trust built over decades, and makes allies feel insecure about future American intentions.

The article cited successful historical examples such as the 'Marshall Plan' and the establishment of NATO, where military power was supported by a comprehensive political and economic vision. These successes would not have been achieved without the delicate balance between the ability to deter and the ability to inspire and attract culturally and in terms of values.

In contrast, the author links major failures in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan to an over-reliance on the military machine as the sole tool for decisive action. The absence of a soft power strategy in those conflicts made it impossible to achieve political stability or win the loyalty of local communities despite field superiority.

Viewing diplomatic settlements as a sign of weakness represents a fundamental problem in Washington's current political thought. History proves that America's greatest victories, including ending the Cold War, were the result of complex negotiations and a mix of pressures and incentives, not just a display of force.

Walt concluded his warning by emphasizing that the continuation of this approach will make it difficult in the future to separate 'America the model' from the actions of its volatile policies. If the United States loses its attractiveness as an idea, its military superiority alone will not be enough to maintain its position in an increasingly complex and competitive international system.

What distinguishes the current American approach is not only the nature of the goals but also the tools that are increasingly relied upon, foremost among them hard power.

More than 440 former European officials and diplomats, including ministers, ambassadors, and prominent figures such as Josep Borrell, led a widespread diplomatic movement through an open letter addressed to the leaders of the European Union. The letter calls for immediate and deterrent steps to confront the accelerating settlement plans in the occupied West Bank, warning of the repercussions of continued international silence regarding Israeli expansion.

The European warnings focused on the seriousness of the (East 1 - E1) project, which received approval from the occupation authorities last August. This plan aims to construct about 3,400 settlement housing units on an area estimated at 12 square kilometers east of occupied Jerusalem, which will effectively isolate the northern West Bank from its south and undermine any possibility of a geographically contiguous Palestinian state.

The letter called on the European Union institutions, ahead of the Foreign Affairs Council meeting scheduled for May 11, to move beyond verbal condemnation and transition to actual sanctions. Proposals included imposing a ban on entry visas for those involved in settlement expansion, and preventing any commercial activities within EU countries for individuals and institutions promoting the (E1) project, coinciding with the occupation's intention to issue implementation tenders early next June.

These pressures come amid an unprecedented escalation in the pace of settlement, with reports indicating the approval of 54 new settlements last year, and the allocation of huge budgets exceeding one billion shekels for paving new settlement roads, at a time when the number of settlers in the West Bank and East Jerusalem has reached nearly 750,000 settlers.

The (E1) project aims to divide the West Bank into two isolated sections, completely eliminating any chance for geographical contiguity of a future Palestinian state.