A state of ambiguity is escalating in Washington's political circles as a result of the successive statements made by US President Donald Trump via his 'Truth Social' platform and his phone interviews. These statements, characterized by sudden changes and a contradictory tone, have further complicated the understanding of the true American strategy towards Iran under the current circumstances.

Tuesday witnessed a clear embodiment of this confusion, as Trump began his day with a statement to 'CNBC' in which he affirmed his intention not to extend the ceasefire announced last April. However, only a few hours later, he announced via his private platform that the truce would remain in effect until further notice, in a sudden reversal of his morning stance.

In a related context, the US President indicated that he is awaiting a 'proposal' from Tehran for a solution, despite having previously stated that there were no fundamental points of disagreement with the Iranian authorities. This divergence in positions leaves observers and analysts perplexed about the ultimate goals of the American administration.

Sources reported that the White House was forced to intervene on two occasions in recent days to correct information Trump had given to the press. Officials denied the accuracy of the President's statement regarding the exclusion of his deputy, J.D. Vance, from leading the US negotiating delegation in Pakistan, confirming the continuation of previous arrangements.

The corrections did not stop there, but also included the timing of diplomatic delegations' departure, as Trump claimed that negotiators were on their way to Islamabad on Monday. However, reality revealed that the Vice President and other envoys had not left US territory until late Tuesday, reflecting a gap in coordination.

Experts in political communication believe that Trump's practices contradict traditional norms that require securing the President's communications and ensuring the accuracy of information issued by him. They point out that the President's resort to direct and rapid responses to journalists' calls via his mobile phone diminishes the prestige of the presidential office.

Unlike his predecessors who tried to unite ranks in times of crisis, Trump tends to politicize foreign affairs sharply. He launched a scathing attack on his Democratic opponents, calling them 'traitors' who seek to obstruct sensitive military and political operations led by his administration.

Press reports revealed that Trump unilaterally drafts and publishes his messages on social media without consulting his political or security advisors. These messages are characterized by an spontaneous style that mixes existential threats with direct demands, confusing allies and adversaries alike.

Media sources reported that the President's inner circle tried to partially distance him from the details of a recent rescue operation of an American pilot in Iran. This measure was taken out of fear that Trump's impulsiveness and ill-considered statements could endanger the pilot's life or the success of the military operation.

Trump's statements went beyond the Iranian file to include criticisms of military norms, which caused resentment in some circles. The President appeared wearing a promotional hat from his business organization while receiving the remains of military personnel, which some considered an exploitation of sad national occasions for commercial purposes.

In a historical recollection, Trump claimed that he could have achieved a quick victory in the Vietnam War if he had been leading the country at that time. These statements come despite the current President having been exempted from military service in that war for medical reasons related to foot problems.

Trump's major political files are intertwined with his personal interests in real estate and construction, as he inserts the White House renovation project into discussions about war. The President insists on showcasing his construction skills, emphasizing that he is completing the new ballroom at a cost lower than the allocated budget.

Press statistics indicate that Trump mentions the new White House ballroom construction project approximately once every three days. This repetition reflects the President's priorities, where sovereign duties intersect with his old passion as one of the leading real estate developers in the United States.

In conclusion, the American political scene towards Iran remains hostage to these mood swings and rapid statements. While official institutions try to set the pace, Trump continues to manage international affairs in his own style, which relies on surprise and direct media pressure.

I build at a lower cost than the budget and at a faster pace than scheduled.

American media reports have revealed signs of a crisis in political circles in Washington, following leaks about the United Arab Emirates' request for precautionary financial support from the United States. This request comes amid fears that the Emirati economy will be affected by the ongoing repercussions of the American-Israeli war against Iran, which has cast a shadow over regional stability.

In this context, Steve Bannon, former advisor and close associate of President Donald Trump, launched a scathing and vulgar attack on the UAE via his program 'War Room'. Bannon described the Gulf state as 'scum', criticizing the idea of providing American financial aid to a country that boasts of ostentatious wealth and influencers, while the ordinary American worker bears the costs of this protection and support.

For his part, National Economic Council Director Kevin Hassett affirmed that the US administration might be forced to provide financial assistance to Abu Dhabi if necessary. Hassett explained in press statements that the UAE is a highly valuable strategic partner, noting that the Treasury Department will spare no effort in supporting allies to confront economic pressures resulting from the military conflict.

The 'Wall Street Journal' had revealed that the Governor of the UAE Central Bank, Khaled Mohamed Balama, had discussed the idea of establishing a currency swap line with US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent. This measure aims to enable the UAE to obtain dollar liquidity at favorable rates if its financial system comes under pressure due to the war.

Despite Hassett's assurances that this option may not be necessary at present, the mere proposal of the idea surprised economic analysts. A country that manages sovereign assets approaching a trillion dollars through the Abu Dhabi Investment Authority does not appear to be in a position that requires short-term loans from the US Federal Reserve.

Economist Brad Setser believes that the Emirati request seems 'strange' and inconsistent with the 'America First' principle advocated by Trump. Setser considered that providing a financial lifeline to one of the richest countries in the world, merely to avoid selling its assets or borrowing from markets, represents a challenge to economic and political logic in Washington.

Sources indicate that the UAE may be trying to distribute the financial costs of the military campaign against Iran, rather than bearing them alone. There appears to be unexpressed resentment in some Emirati circles over the exorbitant cost to the state's economy as a result of its involvement in this broad regional conflict.

The attractiveness of Dubai as a global tourist destination has been significantly affected after the country was exposed to thousands of ballistic missiles and Iranian drones. Oil exports have also seen a significant slowdown, placing unprecedented pressure on the state's public budget, which relies primarily on the stability of waterways.

Amid these pressures, Emirati hints have emerged about the possibility of diversifying oil pricing currencies, including the use of the Chinese Yuan. This step is a direct threat to the 'petrodollar' system, which gives the American currency its global dominance, as oil revenues are usually reinvested in US Treasury bonds.

Washington is cautiously monitoring these moves, as the shift of Gulf countries towards alternative currencies could weaken the dollar's position as a global reserve currency. However, experts believe that the dollar will remain dominant in the foreseeable future, given the fixed exchange rates linking Gulf currencies to it and the difficulty of a complete shift towards the Yuan.

The United States typically uses currency swap lines as a tool to support friendly central banks during major crises, as happened in 2008 and the coronavirus crisis. But including the UAE in this program raises political debate, especially with Bannon's accusations that Washington is funding the luxury of Gulf elites at the expense of the American taxpayer.

On the political front, the UAE adopts a hardline stance calling for the continuation of military operations against Iran, unlike some of its neighbors who prefer dialogue. Observers attribute this position to Abu Dhabi's desire to curb Iranian influence, which it sees as an existential threat to its economic and geopolitical interests in the Gulf.

While President Trump describes talks to end the war as progressing 'positively', the economic front remains ablaze with disagreements over who pays the war bill. Bannon's statements reveal a current within the American right that refuses to make any financial concessions to wealthy allies, even if they are partners in the military field.

The coming days will clarify whether Washington will respond to the Emirati 'precautionary' request, or whether internal political pressures will prevent the Trump administration from providing this support. In either case, the relationship between the two parties is undergoing a real test that mixes complex military interests and financial calculations.

You're just a regular worker there to defend these scum... Why should Americans pay for that?

The least that can be said

She appeared asleep in her final slumber, while her little ones gathered around the body shrouded in white, in a universal moment of farewell to the pregnant mother in her seventh month, Rasha Abu Jazar. She was on a mission inside her small kitchen in the dilapidated tent, preparing lunch for her children, before she was struck by a stray bullet from a stray soldier in a “stray state”; as described by the late revolutionary poet Dr. Abd al-Latif Aql, and his phrase, uttered more than two decades ago, remains relevant.

Gaza, forgotten behind the clamor of destroyers in seas and oceans, and intercontinental missiles, endures daily pain; its children, young and old, are killed in homes and tents, in soup kitchen queues and in front of water tanks. There is no time for Gazans for a nap under a sycamore or a sad orange tree, or a night of socializing on a hill overlooking the sea; they have nothing but tears and longing to return to their ordinary lives; they eat, drink, and hold feasts and graduation parties in schools and universities that have become shelters.

Even writing is no longer appropriate today, for it is soaked in sorrow and steeped in tears; tears that barely dry before they return, and they are the only ones that possess the “right of return” to tired eyelids without restrictions. The responsibility of the international community, whose “patience has run out” with “Jewish ISIS-ism” – the latest of which was the destruction of the statue of Jesus Christ in southern Lebanon, in an incident that exposed the rogue state naked even of its fabricated narratives – lies in transforming these tears into hope, and preventing the repetition of the tragedy of the “martyred mother” who perished with her fetus in the tent kitchen.

Dr. Fadi Jumaa: The escalation of famine and the spread of diseases and epidemics in the Strip in a managed way have made society fragile, and the humanitarian crisis itself has become a tool of political pressure.

Talal Awkal: Confronting this reality requires ending the Palestinian division, considering it a fundamental condition for activating real pressure on Washington to compel Israel to implement the Trump plan.

Nu'man Tawfiq Al-Abed: The technocrat committee has become one of the problems instead of being an entry point for a solution because its tasks and the nature of its political and administrative authority are unclear.

Dr. Jamal Harfoush: Addressing the crisis requires a comprehensive approach that combines political, legal, and humanitarian aspects; otherwise, it will remain merely a temporary management of the crisis, not a real solution.

Samer Anabtawi: Israel uses the resistance's weapons file as a pretext to obstruct the implementation of other commitments and impose a security reality, and a return to all-out war is closer.

Adnan Al-Sabah: The continuation of the technocrat committee in its current form grants Israel, the United States, and mediators "legal and formal cover" suggesting that implementation steps have begun.

Ramallah - Exclusive to "Al-Quds" -

The situation in the Gaza Strip is deepening towards a more complex stage, with the accelerating humanitarian collapse intertwined with the faltering political and administrative paths proposed for managing the Strip, at a time when the scope of famine and diseases is expanding, amid the continued siege and the absence of any clear horizon for containing the escalating crisis.

In separate interviews with "Al-Quds", writers, political analysts, specialists, and university professors confirm that the proposals that accompanied the formation of the National Committee for the Administration of the Gaza Strip "Technocrat Committee" suffer from the absence of a unified political authority and continued military threats, which has made any partial solutions seem incapable of addressing the roots of the crisis.

Writers, specialists, and university professors warn that the continuation of this reality may push Gaza into further fragility, with the population remaining between escalating humanitarian pressure and a state of open instability, while opportunities for reaching a comprehensive solution that reconnects the humanitarian dimension with the required political solution are diminishing.

A Deeper Structural Political Crisis

Dr. Fadi Jumaa, Professor of Political Science at the Arab American University, confirms that what Gaza is witnessing in the current stage cannot be reduced to an administrative crisis that can be addressed through the formation of a technocrat committee or a temporary administrative body. Rather, it reflects a deeper structural political crisis linked to the nature of the Palestinian political system and the complexities of the field and humanitarian reality that the Strip has been experiencing for many months.

Jumaa explains that the proposal to form a technocrat committee to manage the Strip appears, on the surface, to be an attempt to present a rational formula to neutralize the internal political division by removing factional forces from daily affairs. However, this proposal clashes with a completely different reality: Gaza is not experiencing normal administrative conditions, but rather a state of open conflict where issues of authority intertwine with sovereignty, administration with survival, and politics with security, which makes any administrative formula separate from the general political context prone to failure.

Absence of a Comprehensive Political Framework

Jumaa points out that the core of the crisis lies not only in administrative disputes but also in the absence of a comprehensive political framework that gives any executive or administrative formula real meaning and sustainability. He explains that any committee, no matter how professionally competent, will not be able to achieve tangible results in the absence of a unified political authority, a clear national decision, and a relatively stable environment that allows for the implementation of its tasks.

Regarding the humanitarian situation, Jumaa believes that the escalation of famine and the spread of diseases and epidemics in the Strip reflects the transition of the crisis from its political dimension to a catastrophic, managed humanitarian level. He clarifies that what is happening is not merely a side effect of the war, but rather the result of continuous policies of siege and attrition that have left society in a state of continuous fragility, such that the humanitarian crisis itself has become part of the tools of political pressure.

Between Temporary Calm and Potential Explosion

Jumaa believes that repeated Israeli threats to return to war deepen the state of instability and keep Gaza in a state of "permanent suspension" between a temporary calm and a potential explosion at any moment. This empties any administrative or relief effort of its content, as stability is a fundamental condition for any management or reconstruction process.

Jumaa indicates that the next stage is likely to see more instability, with the continuation of the "no peace, no war" pattern, where calm remains fragile and susceptible to collapse under the pressure of Israeli calculations or as a result of an internal humanitarian explosion. He notes that this reality does not produce solutions as much as it postpones an explosion.

Jumaa stresses that what is required is not limited to partial or temporary solutions, but rather begins with reintegrating the political dimension into crisis management, in addition to rebuilding a unified Palestinian authority through activating the role of the Palestine Liberation Organization, with the necessity of separating humanitarian needs from political tug-of-war, and mobilizing a more serious regional and international effort to impose a minimum level of stability. He affirms that any treatment limited to the administrative dimension alone will only lead to postponing a crisis that is likely to escalate more violently.

Israeli War Has Not Actually Stopped

Writer and political analyst Talal Awkal confirms that the US President Donald Trump's plan for the Gaza Strip, since its implementation last October, has not been reflected in the reality on the ground in the Strip. He points out that the Israeli war has not actually stopped, but rather continued with the same previous tools, but at a less intense pace and with remarkable international silence.

Awkal explains that the Gaza Strip is still facing policies of starvation, siege, assassinations, and bombing, in addition to the destruction of basic necessities of life and the rationing of humanitarian aid, at a time when markets are witnessing an unprecedented rise in prices, with the absence of many basic materials. He considers that the only difference in the current stage is that these measures are being practiced away from any real pressure from the international community, mediators, or even the silence of the "Peace Council."

Clear Collusion with Israel

Awkal points out that there is clear collusion regarding Israel's failure to adhere to what it was supposed to implement during the first phase of the agreement. He explains that the Israeli government is seeking to move beyond this phase to the second phase, linking this to Hamas surrendering its weapons, which reflects an Israeli desire to impose new political conditions that disrupt the existing path.

Awkal notes that Israel is also working to prevent the start of the reconstruction process and obstruct any effective role for the technocrat committee, pointing out that it has not yet allowed committee members to return to the Gaza Strip, while the US administration aligns itself with this Israeli behavior instead of pressuring for the implementation of the plan's provisions.

Awkal believes that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu wants to keep Gaza an open front that can be militarily revisited whenever other fronts calm down, considering that the war on Iran has provided political and media cover for what is happening inside the Strip.

Correcting the Internal Palestinian Path

Awkal stresses that confronting this reality requires correcting the internal Palestinian path and ending the state of division, considering this a fundamental condition for activating real Arab, Islamic, and international pressure on Washington, forcing it to compel Israel to implement the Trump plan. He affirms that its chances of success will remain limited in light of American complicity and the weak role of mediators.

The Agreement, from its inception, carries political and legal landmines

Writer, political researcher, and international relations specialist Nu'man Tawfiq Al-Abed believes that the warnings issued since the announcement of the understandings related to the Sharm El Sheikh summit and US President Donald Trump's plan for the Gaza Strip have begun to materialize on the ground. He points out that the agreement, from its inception, carried "political and legal landmines" due to its reliance on general headings without clear details regulating implementation mechanisms or defining the required references and obligations from the different parties.

Al-Abed explains that the issues addressed by the American plan relate to "strategic and sensitive" files, including the administration of the Gaza Strip and the future of governance within it. These files have not received internal Palestinian consensus, nor Palestinian-Israeli understanding, nor even a clearly defined American vision, which has made them susceptible to explosion at any moment. Al-Abed emphasizes that each party views these files as linked to its political and security calculations, which has made any concession in them viewed as a strategic loss.

The Technocrat Committee's Transformation into Part of the Problem

Regarding the Palestinian technocrat committee, Al-Abed believes that it has become one of the problems instead of being an entry point for a solution. He explains that its birth was difficult internally and externally, and that discussions about it took place without clear definition of its tasks, work schedule, entry dates into the Strip, funding sources, or the nature of its political and administrative authority, in addition to the lack of clarity regarding its relationship with Palestinian factions and the Palestinian Authority.

Al-Abed considers that the absence of these determinants made the committee an incomplete framework, especially in light of the continued Israeli presence within the Strip.

Al-Abed points out that the Palestinian people remain the biggest sufferers from the faltering implementation of the agreement, as they continue to face ongoing bombing and siege, deteriorating humanitarian and living conditions, with the absence of basic necessities of life in the Gaza Strip, continued casualties, and the spread of diseases due to lack of medicine and the disruption of municipal and health services.

Al-Abed notes that the reduction of available areas for residents within the Strip, with their confinement to narrow areas, portends serious social repercussions that may appear more widely in the future.

Chances for a Solution Remain Limited

At the political level, Al-Abed believes that the chances for a solution remain limited in the absence of real pressure on Israel to implement its commitments, pointing to an American alignment with the Israeli position, in contrast to European moves that he described as still below the level of actual influence.

Al-Abed considers that the Palestinian leaderships, both official and factional, have not yet risen to the level of seriousness of what is happening on Palestinian land, and the division remains stagnant, indeed, it has deepened.

Al-Abed stresses that the fundamental entry point for any solution begins with reorganizing the internal Palestinian house and formulating a leadership that rises to the size of the existing challenges, then re-presenting the Gaza file and the Palestinian issue within a new vision not built on the titles imposed by Israel. He warns that the continued implementation of the agreement in its current form may ultimately lead to the entrenchment of a political reality that threatens to liquidate the Palestinian cause instead of ending the occupation and establishing a Palestinian state.

Technocrat Committee Collides with the Core of the Crisis

Dr. Jamal Harfoush, Professor of Scientific Research Methods and Political Studies at the Academic Research Center University in Brazil, warns that the Gaza Strip is experiencing one of its most complex stages in years, amidst the intertwining of the political crisis with legal collapse and humanitarian deterioration. He considers the current scene to reflect a "comprehensive structural crisis" that transcends the limits of urgent relief to a deep flaw in the structure of governance and administration within the Strip.

Harfoush explains that the proposal to form a technocrat committee to manage the Gaza Strip was primarily an administrative solution to overcome the internal Palestinian division. However, this proposal quickly collided with the core of the crisis, which is the absence of Palestinian consensus on a unified political authority, in addition to the lack of international will capable of ensuring the success of any new formula, as well as the continued Israeli restrictions imposed on crossings and the field. These factors made the committee "born in an environment lacking the minimum opportunities for success."

Administration Without Sovereignty

Harfoush points out that the current reality in Gaza can be politically and legally described as a state of "administration without sovereignty," where no entity is capable of fully exercising its public powers, whether in managing resources, maintaining security, or ensuring the continuity of basic services. He explains that this institutional vacuum is not confined to the administrative aspect only, but gradually transforms into a fertile environment for chaos and social and economic deterioration.

The Situation in the Strip Has Reached a Very Critical Stage

On the humanitarian level, Harfoush confirms that the situation in the Strip has reached a very critical stage, pointing out that famine is no longer just UN warnings, but has become a direct threat to wide segments of the population, especially children, at a time when diseases are escalating due to the destruction of health infrastructure, declining water services, and poor sanitation networks, with continued Israeli threats to return to military operations, which makes any humanitarian improvement fragile and susceptible to collapse at any moment.

Three Possible Scenarios

Harfoush believes that the next stage may head towards three main scenarios: first, the continuation of fragile calm with further humanitarian deterioration and institutional incapacity, which is the most likely scenario; second, a return to military escalation with its multiplied catastrophe; and the third and least likely scenario is the achievement of political progress that allows for the establishment of a ceasefire, the opening of crossings, and the empowerment of a civilian entity to manage daily affairs.

The Need for a Comprehensive Approach

Harfoush stresses that addressing the crisis cannot be achieved through partial or technical solutions alone, but requires a comprehensive approach that begins with a sustainable ceasefire, effective opening of crossings, and clear Palestinian consensus on the administration of the Strip, in addition to rebuilding the administrative and security system, and launching a reconstruction process linked to the needs of the population. He affirms that any approach that does not combine political, legal, and humanitarian dimensions will remain merely a temporary management of the crisis, not a real solution.

Technocrats... An Entity Without Real Powers

Writer and political analyst Samer Anabtawi confirms that the technocrat committee, proposed as part of the American vision for the post-ceasefire phase in the Gaza Strip, was supposed to form a transitional framework for managing civil and humanitarian affairs in the Strip. However, Israel's failure to adhere to the agreement's provisions transformed it into an entity without real powers, leaving the Strip under the weight of siege, humanitarian collapse, and the constant threat of a return to all-out war.

Anabtawi explains that the formation of the committee came in the context of the understandings that accompanied what is called the "Peace Council," with the participation and oversight of eight Arab and Islamic mediating countries, with the aim of stopping the Israeli war, stopping the bloodshed, and creating conditions for restoring a minimum level of life in Gaza, after the widespread destruction that affected hospitals, schools, and residential buildings, and the subsequent displacement of hundreds of thousands to tents, and the collapse of water, health, education, and basic services sectors.

Anabtawi points out that the committee was formed as an independent committee of professionals to manage a transitional phase, which was supposed to reorganize daily life and address the accumulated crises in food, water, healthcare, and education. However, Israel did not implement the commitments of the first phase of the agreement, nor did it allow the transition to the second phase during which the committee was supposed to assume its tasks inside the Strip. Instead, it prevented its members from returning to Gaza, which deprived it of any real ability to operate.

Anabtawi confirms that the committee remained in existence only formally, without any actual role on the ground, while Israel continued to impose its control over more than half of the Strip's area, with continued killing, targeting, and bulldozing operations, in addition to establishing a security reality that makes Gaza an uninhabitable area, pushing its residents towards further displacement and suffering.

Mediators and Leaving Gaza to Face its Fate

Anabtawi believes that the international guarantors and mediators who sponsored the agreement left Gaza to face its fate alone, at a time when Israel benefited from the world's preoccupation with the war in the region to neutralize what is happening inside the Strip from the circle of media and political attention. This allowed for the continued entry of limited quantities of aid, the obstruction of patient movement, and the strict restrictions on the Strip's crossings.

The Weapons File as a Pretext to Obstruct the Implementation of Other Commitments

Anabtawi confirms that Israel uses the resistance's weapons file as a pretext to obstruct the implementation of other commitments and impose a permanent security reality within the Strip, warning that the possibility of a return to all-out war is closer to reality in light of the existing international silence.

Anabtawi stresses that confronting this path requires a unified Palestinian stance, in addition to more effective Arab and Islamic action, especially from the sponsoring countries of the agreement, in order to compel Israel to implement the transitional phases, assume its legal and political responsibilities, and work urgently to stop the accelerating humanitarian deterioration in the Gaza Strip and support the steadfastness of its people.

Political Deception

Writer and political analyst Adnan Al-Sabah considers that the plan proposed by US President Donald Trump regarding the Gaza Strip was, from its inception, nothing but a "political deception" formulated to achieve specific goals related to extracting the prisoners' file and stopping direct confrontation, without including a real commitment to implement any of the provisions that pledged to improve the humanitarian and political reality for Palestinians in the Strip.

According to Al-Sabah, what actually happened was the transition of the war from its direct form to another pattern of aggression, based on remote bombing by planes and artillery, with the continuation of the siege and starvation policy and keeping the population under constant pressure. He explains that the Palestinians agreed to a ceasefire and the handover of prisoners based on promises that included a ceasefire, opening of crossings, flow of aid, and a political path related to the Palestinian national cause, but none of that was achieved; rather, the reality moved towards further deterioration.

Al-Sabah explains that the plan later transformed into a series of successive stages, during which the transition to what was called the "second phase" took place, the main title of which became the surrender of weapons, while the basic issues related to relief, water, food, shelter, and medicine receded to the margins, even though the occupation continued its military operations, kept the crossings closed, and continued to impose a siege on the Strip.

Technocrat Committee and Withdrawal of Legitimacy

Al-Sabah believes that the formation of the Palestinian technocrat committee came suddenly and without real Palestinian participation or a clear announcement from the Palestinians themselves. He considers that the continuation of this committee in its current form grants Israel, the United States, and mediators "legal and formal cover," suggesting that implementation steps have begun, while the Palestinians are being blamed for its obstruction.

Al-Sabah points out that the solution lies in the committee's resignation and the withdrawal of the legitimacy granted to it, and its replacement with another committee agreed upon from within the Gaza Strip, in order to re-assign international parties and mediators their responsibilities towards implementing what was pledged, instead of keeping the Palestinians in the position of being accused of obstruction.

Al-Sabah warns that the continuation of the committee in this form may practically entrench the separation of Gaza from the West Bank, and turn the Strip's file into an issue separate from the Palestinian national framework.

Al-Sabah believes that the world's preoccupation with other regional and international crises, from Iran and Lebanon to Ukraine and energy markets, has led to a decline in the Palestinian issue on the international agenda, which, according to him, allowed Israel to continue its operations away from the international pressure that existed in previous stages.

Necessity of Forming a Unified National Body

Al-Sabah stresses that ending this reality requires ending the internal Palestinian division and forming a unified national body capable of addressing the world with one political voice, warning that the continuation of the current state of fragmentation will keep the Palestinians in continuous confrontation with the repercussions of the crisis, instead of reaching solutions that end its origin.

- We continue to support the Authority and follow with concern the deteriorating situation in the West Bank, and we reject any Israeli steps leading to annexation.

- The status quo in the holy sites in Jerusalem must be preserved, and freedom of access to them must be guaranteed.

- The death penalty is inhumane and brutal everywhere, and the legislation passed by the Knesset raises our serious concern.

- UNRWA must remain able to operate because its role in providing relief to refugees is indispensable.

Mohannad Yassin

In a special interview with "Al-Quds," the Head of the German Representative Office to the Palestinian Authority, Envoy Anke Schlimm, outlines her country's approach to the Palestinian issue in a complex regional moment where the war on Gaza intersects with a political deadlock, escalating tensions, and deteriorating conditions in the West Bank, including Jerusalem. She emphasizes Germany's commitment to the two-state solution, its efforts to alleviate humanitarian consequences, and its contribution to "day after" arrangements to improve the lives of residents and prevent the political or administrative entrenchment of the separation of the Strip.

The interview reveals increasing German involvement in relief and early recovery efforts, with Berlin providing extensive support through the United Nations and international organizations. It also affirms Germany's rejection of any models that politicize humanitarian work or link it to security control. Furthermore, it stresses Germany's continuous support for the Palestinian Authority in facing its suffocating financial crisis, alongside close monitoring of political and administrative reform programs. At the same time, Germany continues to criticize settlements and settler violence, and rejects any Israeli steps leading to the de facto annexation of Palestinian territories, warning of the implications for the future of the two-state solution and the unity of Palestinian territories.

Conversely, Schlimm's answers reflect a delicate balance in the German position, between commitment to international law and human rights, and internal historical and political considerations. This is evident in dealing with sensitive issues, from recognizing the State of Palestine to the law on the execution of prisoners, support for UNRWA, and the stance on international legal actions. The interview also highlights the ongoing debate within Germany about the limits of support for Israel, amid escalating European and international criticism, while Berlin emphasizes the priority of the diplomatic path in addressing regional crises, and striving to consolidate a ceasefire and prevent the expansion of the confrontation, leading to more sustainable understandings in the region.

Below is the text of the interview:

Political Presence*How do you explain the German Chancellor Friedrich Merz's failure to visit Palestine so far, despite Berlin's affirmation of its desire to play an active political role in the region? And how do you view the importance of such a visit in the current political context?

The German government supports the resumption of a political process that leads to a peaceful resolution of the conflict in the Middle East, resulting in the establishment of two sovereign and mutually recognized states, Israel and Palestine. The current focus is particularly on the military conflict with Iran and its repercussions. Nevertheless, Germany remains focused on its goal; we want to contribute to improving the humanitarian situation for the population in the Gaza Strip, and we also want to participate in shaping post-war arrangements there, ensuring a sustainable improvement in people's lives in Gaza.

At the same time, we are concerned about the deteriorating situation in the West Bank, amidst the massive escalation of settler violence, almost daily attacks on Palestinians, the continuous increase in settlement construction, and the advancement of steps leading to the de facto Israeli annexation of territories. Under these difficult circumstances, we continue to support the Palestinian Authority as our economic and political partner, and Palestinians appreciate this multifaceted German support. Both German Foreign Minister Johann Wadephul and Development Minister Reem Alabali-Radovan visited Ramallah at the end of last year. I hope that German Chancellor Friedrich Merz will visit the Palestinian territories in the future.

Reconstruction of Gaza under Stability Conditions

* Amidst the ongoing war in Gaza and the stalled political tracks, how does Germany view its role in early recovery and reconstruction?

German Chancellor Friedrich Merz stated last year that Germany is ready to contribute to supporting the reconstruction of Gaza. Germany is already the largest donor of humanitarian aid and the largest bilateral donor in development cooperation. As we speak, we are actively providing support for early recovery measures in the Gaza Strip, including temporary housing, rehabilitation of basic services such as water and medical care, and more. We implement these measures through the United Nations and its various organizations, and local and international non-governmental partner organizations.

However, we believe that long-term reconstruction requires stronger and more stable framework conditions for its implementation and sustainability. This includes the full and secure implementation of the twenty-point plan, as well as UN Security Council Resolution 2803, particularly the measures stipulated therein to stabilize the security situation, as well as the establishment of functional transitional structures. In our commitment to Gaza, we are guided by clear principles: the "One Palestine Approach" and a reconstruction process led by Palestinians themselves. The "Arab Plan" and the Palestinian Authority's plans provide a good basis for this path.

Gaza without Political Separation

* How does Berlin view cooperation with the National Committee for the Administration of Gaza?

The ongoing humanitarian crisis in Gaza, and the killing of more than 750 Palestinians since the ceasefire in October 2025, demonstrate an urgent need for concrete action. Hamas must be disarmed, and it must not be allowed to continue consolidating its authority unchecked. Sustainable solutions for Gaza must also be based on clear political and institutional legitimacy. The 20-point plan by US President Donald Trump and Security Council Resolution 2803 laid the groundwork for this.

We are ready to cooperate with the National Transitional Committee for Gaza (NCAG) as a transitional structure aimed at rapidly improving the conditions of the population in Gaza and paving the way for a sustainable political solution. At the same time, we believe that any political or administrative separation of Gaza contradicts the political goals of the German government. Therefore, the transitional structures of the National Committee for the Administration of Gaza should work intensively, in close coordination, and at all levels, with the Palestinian Authority. Furthermore, the current de facto division of Gaza into a part controlled by the Israeli army and a part increasingly controlled by Hamas contradicts the "One Gaza" approach.

Supporting the Steadfastness of the Authority

* Germany affirms its continuous support for the Palestinian Authority, but the Authority's suffocating financial crisis is worsening with Israel's continued withholding of clearance revenues. Under these circumstances, is there any German or European action to address the structural causes of this crisis?

Israel's illegal withholding of customs and tax revenues poses serious financial challenges to the Palestinian Authority. This affects the entire society, as public sector employees have not received full salaries for months. We believe that responsibility in this regard clearly lies with the Israeli government. However, we also want to provide concrete assistance. Therefore, the German government decided last autumn to provide direct financial assistance to the Palestinian Authority's budget amounting to 30 million euros. These funds have already been transferred to the Palestinian Authority in 2025 through the EU's "PEGASE" mechanism. By doing so, we sent a clear message that no government in the world can provide basic services to its people in the long run without receiving its tax revenues. Therefore, we support our Palestinian partners with this exceptional step.

Our long-term development program for the Palestinian people, currently valued at approximately one billion euros, covering areas of economic development, job creation, water and environmental infrastructure, as well as peace and social cohesion, is also an essential part of Germany's commitment. As the largest bilateral donor in development cooperation, we are proud of our extensive and close cooperation network with our Palestinian partners.

Required Reforms and Sustained Momentum

* How does Berlin view the political reform files in the Palestinian Authority? And do you believe these reforms are achievable under the conditions of occupation, division, and financial crisis?

We very much welcome the implementation of an ambitious reform program by the Palestinian technocratic government led by Prime Minister Dr. Mohammad Mustafa, which also enjoys the support of President Mahmoud Abbas. Germany is closely monitoring these reforms in cooperation with the European Union, and significant progress has been made in this area. In the school education sector, we see that the Ministry of Education is keen on reform and has taken many important steps in recent months towards a modern and contemporary education system. We also welcome the reform of the social assistance system in line with international standards and the actual needs of families. We will continue to support the Palestinian Authority in its journey towards achieving these necessary reforms, and it is crucial that the reform momentum does not diminish.

We also believe that the upcoming municipal elections represent an important step towards a future Palestinian state, based on the principles of democracy, the rule of law, and human rights.

Relief According to Humanitarian Principles

* Germany emphasizes that aid must pass through the United Nations and independent humanitarian organizations, not through politicized or military channels. Does this mean a principled rejection of any model that links relief to security control over the population or to the re-engineering of the political reality in Gaza?

The humanitarian principles stipulated in international law form the fundamental basis on which Germany provides humanitarian aid, including the principles of "humanity," "neutrality," and "impartiality." The principle of "independence" was added in 2003, according to UN Resolution 58/114. Humanitarian assistance based on these principles is needs-based assistance, provided by independent organizations, often non-governmental organizations, committed to respecting humanitarian principles. These organizations provide the necessary assistance, partly in cooperation with local partner organizations, directly to those affected.

Germany will continue, within its capabilities, to support international and humanitarian organizations that adhere to humanitarian principles. In addition to humanitarian aid, we also support early recovery efforts in Gaza. Germany was the first country to support, for example, the United Nations Development Programme in providing temporary housing and repairing water lines in Gaza. We have so far allocated more than 220 million euros, in addition to the humanitarian aid we provide for early recovery projects implemented by the United Nations, which includes not only Gaza but also the West Bank. Here, we consider the United Nations a fundamental and proven pillar of cooperation. From this perspective, we welcome the UN fund launched last week, named "Horizon Fund: One Palestine, One United Nations, One Future."

Consistent Support for UNRWA and International Organizations

* Amidst escalating Israeli pressure on UNRWA and on the international and humanitarian presence in general, how does Germany view the future of its support for the agency and for the work of international humanitarian organizations and international non-governmental organizations working with Palestinians?

We consider international and humanitarian organizations that adhere to humanitarian principles an indispensable element in providing humanitarian aid, including during the early recovery phase. From this perspective, we work alongside other donors to ensure that international non-governmental organizations can operate freely in Gaza. We also conduct an important and high-level critical dialogue with the Israeli government in this regard. We also make continuous efforts to facilitate the entry of goods into Gaza, especially what are known as dual-use goods.

Germany recognizes the central importance of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees (UNRWA) in providing essential quasi-governmental services and humanitarian aid to approximately 6 million Palestinian refugees in Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, and the Palestinian territories. Therefore, in 2025, Germany was the largest bilateral donor to UNRWA. Up to 108.1 million euros were provided for all UNRWA operational areas in the region, namely Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, and the Palestinian territories, and a significant donation was also made in 2026.

It is also crucial to move forward with UNRWA reform measures by implementing the fifty recommendations contained in the so-called Colonna report, and to complete them at a faster pace. We support this reform path by funding concrete measures, including measures aimed at improving staff vetting mechanisms and taking other steps to enhance neutrality.

When Israeli security forces stormed the UNRWA compound in East Jerusalem on December 8, 2025, and began demolishing buildings on January 20, 2026, this was clearly condemned by German Development Minister Reem Alabali-Radovan, who described the destruction of UNRWA headquarters in Jerusalem as deeply disturbing. UNRWA must remain able to operate, as its role is indispensable in providing relief to Palestinian refugees in Gaza, as well as in the entire region.

Rejection of Annexation and Settlements

* Recently, the political discourse in Berlin has been characterized by greater clarity regarding Israeli settlement construction and settler violence. If Berlin has reached this diagnosis, what prevents it from resorting to more effective political or legal pressure tools?

Our position is very clear: we condemn settlement policy and the accompanying settler violence as violations of international law, and we raise this issue repeatedly and frankly with the Israeli government directly. German Chancellor Friedrich Merz has stated very clearly that Germany rejects any steps aimed at annexing territories taken by Israel in the Palestinian territories. Any annexation, whether legal or de facto, would be a grave mistake, as settlement construction jeopardizes the negotiated two-state solution and does not contribute to ending the Israeli occupation of the West Bank, which the International Court of Justice demands.

Regarding settler violence, I must state very clearly here that the extent of settler violence in the West Bank is intolerable. German Foreign Minister Johann Wadephul witnessed the effects of settler violence himself during his visit to the city of Taybeh and condemned it repeatedly. In this context, the German government calls on the Israeli government not only to stop settlement construction but also to hold those responsible for settler violence accountable. Israel must act decisively in this regard, and there must be no impunity for settlers who commit these attacks.

Regarding sanctions, I would like to add that we have already, at the European Union level, imposed sanctions on violent settlers and settlement organizations.

Growing Concern over the West Bank

* In light of repeated Israeli military operations, displacement, and the reshaping of the reality on the ground in cities and refugee camps in the West Bank, from Jenin to Tulkarem and beyond, does Germany view what is happening as merely a security escalation, or a structural shift in the management of the occupation on the ground?

The German government views the developments in the security situation in the West Bank with great concern. Repeated military operations by Israeli forces in Areas "A," "B," and "C," and severe restrictions on the freedom of movement and travel for Palestinian residents, through constantly expanding checkpoints and barriers, have created an unbearable situation for many Palestinians. We are particularly concerned about the large number of internally displaced persons.

We believe that Israel's decisions to allow private land purchases and to extend Israeli administrative procedures to areas in the West Bank that, under the Oslo Accords, fall under the responsibility of the Palestinian Authority, are inconsistent with international law and constitute an additional obstacle to the two-state solution. The West Bank is an integral part of the future Palestinian state. Therefore, we reject any permanent changes that create irreversible facts on the ground, which would hinder the cohesion and geographical contiguity of the future Palestinian state and undermine the two-state solution.

Jerusalem and Freedom of Worship

* In Jerusalem, with escalating restrictions on Palestinians and the closure of Al-Aqsa Mosque or restricted access to it at certain times, does Germany view these policies as undermining the historical and legal status quo, freedom of worship, and political and religious stability in the city?

Germany attaches great importance to the protection of holy sites, and therefore we closely monitor any restrictions imposed on access to religious sites, including Al-Aqsa Mosque and the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. During the war with Iran, for example, Muslim worshippers were completely prevented from entering the Noble Sanctuary, and on Latin Palm Sunday, His Beatitude Latin Patriarch Cardinal Pierbattista Pizzaballa was prevented from entering the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. Orthodox Easter also witnessed restrictions on entry and clashes with Israeli security forces inside and around the Church of the Holy Sepulchre.

Here we emphasize that freedom of worship is a fundamental right that must be guaranteed for Muslims, Jews, and Christians alike. At the same time, we believe that Jerusalem is a particularly sensitive environment, where any action can have significant political and social repercussions. Therefore, the status quo in the holy sites in Jerusalem must be preserved, including the safe and dignified access of believers to their holy sites.

Berlin Rejects the Death Penalty

* In light of the Knesset's approval of a law imposing the death penalty on Palestinian prisoners in specific cases, how does Germany assess the legal and political implications of this legislation, and what message do you believe it sends at this time?

We believe that the death penalty is an inhumane and brutal punishment everywhere and under all circumstances. The legislation passed by the Israeli Knesset, which would expand the scope of application of the death penalty in Israel, raises our serious concern, not to mention that this law would effectively affect Palestinians exclusively, and thus would be discriminatory. We call on Israel to reconsider this decision and to maintain its previous suspension of the application of the death penalty.

Rejecting the death penalty is part of our core values. Therefore, Germany advocates worldwide for the abolition of the death penalty and will continue to clearly articulate this position in dialogue with Israel.

Adherence to the Two-State Solution

* Since Germany links recognition of the State of Palestine to a negotiating path that has effectively reached a deadlock, how does Berlin respond to criticisms that any further delay in recognition is no longer seen as a neutral stance, but has become part of the crisis of a lack of political horizon, and places Germany in a more divergent position with an increasing number of its European partners?

Germany affirms its commitment to the two-state solution achieved through negotiations, and sees this horizon as the most sustainable path to achieving peace and security for both sides. I will not hide from you that there are different approaches within Europe on the issue of recognition, and we are in close contact with our partners in this regard. However, we fully realize that people in Palestine increasingly view the current situation as offering no future prospects.

Therefore, it is of great importance for us not to merely stop at a discussion about symbolic recognition, but to actively contribute to improving the situation in Gaza and the West Bank, and to preserve the prospects for achieving the two-state solution. Our significant commitment in the areas of humanitarian aid, early recovery, and economic cooperation speaks for itself in this regard, and our constructive support for the reform of the Palestinian Authority also comes into play here.

German Withdrawal Raises Questions

* Germany announced its withdrawal as a third party from the defense of Israel before the International Criminal Court. How can the political and legal implications of this step be interpreted, and does it reflect a certain review in the German approach to this issue?

Indeed, there will be no intervention by Germany as a third party in the lawsuit filed by South Africa against Israel before the International Court of Justice in December 2023. We ourselves are a party to another pending lawsuit before the International Court of Justice, and therefore we decided not to resort to the option of intervening as a third party in the lawsuit filed by South Africa. Instead, we decided to focus on the lawsuit in which we ourselves are a direct party.

Internal Debate and Shifting Stance

* Within Germany, party positions on Palestine vary, from the war on Gaza and settlements to the limits of support for Israel and the priority of international law and human rights. To what extent does this party and societal debate reflect on official policy, and might it change Berlin's positioning in the next phase?

We see that, despite the outbreak of the recent war with Iran, interest in Germany remains very high in Gaza and the fate of its residents following the devastating war that resulted in a huge number of civilian casualties. Various German media outlets regularly publish reports on this topic, and discussions are held in the Bundestag and the government, and German streets witness demonstrations due to the situation in the Middle East. The German public is also well aware of the significantly increasing violence by extremist settlers in the West Bank.

Furthermore, the German government, like other European partners, criticizes Israeli settlement construction that violates international law and calls on the Israeli government to stop the systematic expulsion of Palestinians. At the same time, due to our historical responsibility towards Israel, and also in light of rising anti-Semitism in Germany, criticisms directed at Israel are often cautiously formulated by some parts of the German government and parliament. Nevertheless, Berlin's position is constantly evolving in this regard.

Betting on the Diplomatic Path

* Regarding the war between Israel and the United States on one side, and Iran and Hezbollah on the other, how does Germany define its political position, and is its stance limited to preventing escalation, or does it also include a critical review of the legitimacy and limits of the war?

We finally see a glimmer of hope on the diplomatic front thanks to the ceasefire between Iran on one side, and Israel and the United States on the other. For the first time since the outbreak of the war, an opportunity arises to open a window of time to find a negotiated solution, even if the ceasefire in the region remains fragile. We want to continue to support the opportunity for peace through diplomatic channels. Therefore, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz announced that, in coordination with the United States and European partners, we will now resume talks with Tehran, in order to contribute in this way to the success of the upcoming negotiations.

Above all, we need a sustainable understanding that ensures freedom of navigation in the Strait of Hormuz once again. Therefore, the German Chancellor affirmed that Germany is ready to contribute to ensuring freedom of navigation in the Strait of Hormuz after a peace agreement is reached, provided that a feasible mandate and concept are available for this purpose. In addition, the Chancellor asked Israel, in a recent phone call with Prime Minister Netanyahu, to end the attacks on Lebanon that have escalated recently, because the intensity with which Israel has waged the war there jeopardizes all peace efforts.

A stark example reflecting one aspect of what is happening in the occupied West Bank by the occupation authorities, which sponsor and provide military, financial, and political support for the daily increase in settler attacks across the occupied territories, which have resulted in the displacement of more than 90 communities, and the martyrdom of more than 38 individuals, becoming 40 as of this morning, with the attack on the village of Al-Mughayyir, and the martyrdom of two and the injury of many by settler bullets in the village, east of Ramallah, and also the demolition of Al-Maleh school in the Jordan Valley. But the model discussed in this article is what is happening in another area, Masafer Yatta, south of Hebron, specifically in Umm Al-Khair, the small village east of Yatta, where the villagers (516 citizens) live in catastrophic conditions in every sense of the word, due to direct and continuous targeting by settler gangs, with the protection, support, and cover of the occupation army.

In addition to the successive attacks aimed at displacing the villagers by settlers, as part of organized and repeated attacks on the residents, the execution of the young human rights activist, Ouda Al-Hathaleen, was documented, after one of the settlers (named Yanoun Levi), whose name and appearance are well known to the people in the area, and who is one of the most prominent settlers responsible for terrorizing and attacking the village and neighboring villages, pointed his weapon at the young man and fired directly into his chest from a short distance, leading to his martyrdom. This is part of a series of multi-faceted attacks: land confiscation, placement of caravans, establishment of settlement outposts, and providing them with water and electricity.

But today, the horrific scene is also different from the previous forms, as over the past few days, school students in the village have been prevented from reaching their schools. 51 male and female students were unable to attend and sit at their desks, due to settlers blocking the roads with barbed wire, placed over long distances to form an extended barrier preventing students from passing. These children are innocent, except that they carry school bags, notebooks, rulers, and pens on their shoulders! They just want to have an opportunity for education, and to look to the future away from fence openings and gun muzzles. Today, they also organized a (peaceful) sit-in to express their feelings as children who have been deprived of going to school over the past days, after the return of in-person learning. The response of the heavily armed soldiers was nothing but firing grenades and bullets. Military armored vehicles, helmets, and automatic firearms against a handful of children who came to say: it is our right to learn in a safe and stable environment without terror or fear, sometimes with police dogs, and other times with settler rampages, then attacking the school and militarily closing off the area with all manifestations. The occupation seeks to prevent education in the area, and fundamentally prevent the elements of life there.

They brought more tanks and military forces against the blue and white "school uniform" of girls no older than 10 years old, who are in elementary school. A large crowd, automatic rifles, and tear gas against the students of Umm Al-Khair. What danger do young students of this age pose to a heavily armed army that protects settlers, and gives the green light for continuous attacks and assaults on the village and other surrounding villages? And has the school uniform become a danger to the security of the area? Or is it an all-out war as part of ethnic cleansing policies to erase the Palestinian presence, and education is one of the targeted sectors like health, agriculture, and others? Policies of ignorance are perhaps a prelude to displacement, and emptying the area of its inhabitants after pressure, to change curricula, bomb schools, and other practices and measures. What is happening to prevent students from reaching their schools? And what civilized democratic world accepts to remain silent about these attacks? Masafer Yatta is one of the areas planned for displacement, and the surrounding outposts (Karmel and other outposts and settlements) do not wish well for Umm Al-Khair, nor for the students and people of Umm Al-Khair. In reality, they do not want any Palestinian presence there at all.

"Education is a right for all," this is the slogan of international organizations, human rights principles, and international laws that everyone boasts about. Today, this slogan faces a challenge at Umm Al-Khair school, whose students have the right to receive lessons away from tank tracks and the sounds of bombs and bullets. Umm Al-Khair's message today from under the barbed wire, in the voices of the students: We want legal and moral protection for our right to education. This is the responsibility of the United Nations and international institutions, and this is what everyone awaits, even if after a while.

The Palestinian economy in the Gaza Strip remains a living testament to the systematic Israeli occupation policy that targets not only land and people but also the economic and social infrastructure of the Palestinian people. The unjust blockade imposed since 2007 and escalating after the October 2023 aggression was not merely a security measure, as the occupation claims, but a strategic tool for collective punishment aimed at dismantling productive capacity and transforming the Strip into an open-air prison suffering from complete dependence on humanitarian aid. According to the latest data from the Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics and international reports, the Gazan economy is experiencing an unprecedented collapse that has surpassed all previous limits of recession imposed by the occupation over decades.

The signs of this collapse began to appear clearly in the GDP figures. The GDP of the Gaza Strip recorded a sharp decline of 84 percent compared to 2023, while it experienced an additional contraction of 8.7 percent during 2025 compared to 2024. Experts estimate that the Gazan economy has shrunk by a cumulative 87 percent over the past two years, meaning that the economy, which was estimated at between 2.5 and 3 billion dollars before the aggression, has shrunk to less than 400 million dollars. As for the per capita GDP, it fell to about 161 dollars in 2024, a level that dates back to the early 2000s, erasing more than twenty years of any previous developmental progress. This dramatic decline is not the result of natural factors or fleeting crises, but a direct consequence of the occupation's policy of restricting imports, destroying infrastructure, and preventing exports, thus turning Gaza into an economically isolated area completely cut off from its regional and international surroundings.

Unemployment stands out as one of the most prominent indicators of the economic catastrophe. The unemployment rate in Gaza exceeded 78 percent during 2025, according to reports from the Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics, after hovering around 45 percent before the aggression. This means that about eight out of ten individuals in the workforce are now unemployed, surpassing all recorded figures in any other region in the world. The tragedy is not limited to job losses but extends to the disintegration of the labor market itself, as most productive activities in the industrial, commercial, and agricultural sectors have ceased. The private sector, which was the backbone of the Gazan economy before the blockade, has completely collapsed due to the destruction of factories, farms, and markets, and the restriction of goods movement. In this reality, more than 95 percent of families rely on humanitarian aid to survive.

As for poverty rates, they have reached catastrophic levels exceeding 90 percent in some estimates, leaving the vast majority of the population living below the national poverty line. Before the aggression, the poverty rate exceeded 63 percent, but the continuous blockade and import restrictions have transformed this situation into an existential crisis. Dependence on humanitarian aid has become a daily reality for more than two million people, yet the flow of this aid remains limited by deliberate Israeli policy. The number of trucks entering the Strip daily does not exceed, at best, 200 to 300 trucks, while the population needs at least 600 trucks daily to meet basic needs for food, fuel, medicine, and construction materials, which confirms the occupation's disregard for implementing the first phase of the truce terms.

During March 2026, for example, the number of trucks entering fell to less than 400 trucks for the entire month in some periods, reflecting the continuation of the blockade despite the announcement of a ceasefire in October 2025. These restrictions are not technical but purely political, aimed at keeping the Gazan economy in a state of continuous strangulation.

The social dimensions of this economic reality are evident in the disintegration of the social fabric itself. Chronic unemployment and extreme poverty lead to high rates of dependence on aid, generating a sense of despair and frustration among young generations who find themselves deprived of any prospect of progress or stability. Moreover, the rise in basic commodity prices by rates reaching 300 and 400 percent in some periods makes even available goods out of reach for the majority. In the cultural context, this collapse leads to a noticeable decline in cultural and educational life, as the occupation has destroyed most educational institutions and halted cultural activities, threatening the collective identity of the Palestinian people due to daily economic pressures.

The Palestinian individual in Gaza faces not only an economic crisis but a complex existential crisis that threatens their ability to preserve their life and cultural heritage.

Politically, this reality represents a model of modern settler colonialism that relies on economic control as a tool for indirect displacement. The occupation well understands that keeping Gaza in a state of complete dependence on external aid weakens the citizen and transforms the conflict from a military confrontation into a daily battle for survival. Nevertheless, Palestinian steadfastness, manifested in the ability of the population to rebuild their lives despite all restrictions, confirms that a resistant economy is not just a slogan but a reality that reflects the people's determination to confront the blockade machine.

International reports from the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development and the World Bank all confirm that this collapse is not accidental but a direct result of Israeli restrictions on imports, exports, and the movement of individuals and goods.

In conclusion, the economic reality of Gaza remains damning evidence that the Israeli blockade is not merely a temporary measure but a long-term strategy aimed at eliminating any possibility of independent development. The stark figures of unemployment, poverty, and economic contraction demand that the international community assume its moral and legal responsibility to lift this unjust blockade. Without ending the occupation, opening the crossings, and rebuilding infrastructure, the Gaza Strip will continue to suffer from this deplorable situation that is unworthy of 21st-century humanity. Nevertheless, the will of the Palestinian people to persevere remains the true guarantee for restoring rights and rebuilding an independent national economy that reflects the aspirations of future generations for freedom and dignity.

Washington – Said Arikat – 22/4/2026

News Analysis

In a scene that summarizes his crisis management style, US President Donald Trump announced on Tuesday an indefinite extension of the ceasefire with Iran, after insisting until the last hours that the truce would end on schedule and that Washington would not grant Tehran additional time. Then, with a surprising decision, the position completely reversed. This shift does not seem to be an expression of negotiating prowess as much as it reflects a volatile political approach, controlled more by immediate reactions and pressures than by a coherent strategic vision.

Indeed, current American policy combines contradictory elements: an extension of the truce, while maintaining the naval blockade; calls for negotiation, while military threats continue; talk of a comprehensive deal, with the absence of a clear timeline or a stable negotiating framework. This contradiction makes Washington appear as if it wants to use war and diplomacy simultaneously, without settling on either path.

Moreover, justifying the decision by requesting Pakistani mediation raises a fundamental question: Is the United States truly leading the crisis, or is it looking for someone to help it get out of a predicament it created itself? The superpower that was brandishing military decisive action suddenly seemed to need external mediation to justify backing down from a deadline it had set itself.

More dangerously, this approach places the entire region at the mercy of political fluctuations in Washington. Escalation could suddenly return, negotiations could stall without warning, markets fluctuate with every statement, and allies and adversaries try to interpret whether a new tweet will mean war or de-escalation.

Speculations for the next few days

Scenario One: An Extended Truce with No Political Substance

The most likely possibility is that the truce will continue without a real breakthrough, with Trump continuing to extend time under different headings, while Iran contents itself with vague responses that do not include decisive commitments. In this scenario, the truce turns into crisis management rather than a resolution. Washington will market this as successful pressure, while Tehran will consider it an opportunity to catch its breath and reorganize its exhausted institutions. However, the continuation of the gray situation raises the level of tension, because any naval or security incident could upset the fragile balance within hours.

Scenario Two: Limited Escalation to Compensate for an Image of Hesitation

Trump may feel that extending the truce made him appear to be backing down after a hawkish speech, so he resorts to a limited escalatory step to restore an image of firmness. This could take the form of tightening the blockade, intercepting ships, or carrying out localized strikes against targets associated with Iran or its allies. Such a scenario is consistent with a political pattern based on rapid compensation after a retreat. However, the problem is that limited strikes rarely remain limited, as Tehran may be prompted to a calculated response that later escalates into a wider confrontation.

Scenario Three: A Tactical Iranian Response That Confuses Washington

Tehran may surprise the US administration by presenting a partial negotiating paper that includes a willingness to discuss navigation security, a limited exchange of frozen assets, or temporary arrangements for sanctions. Such a step would put Trump to a difficult test: if he rejects it, he would appear to be rejecting negotiations, and if he accepts it, he would appear to have lowered his previous conditions. Iran realizes that contradictions within Washington can be exploited, and therefore may offer a proposal that does not resolve the crisis but reveals its adversary's confusion.

Scenario Four: A Larger-Than-Expected Pakistani Role

If direct channels continue to falter, Pakistani mediation may expand to include Gulf and European parties, with an attempt to produce a temporary understanding that eases tensions. The success of this path would mean a relative retreat of the direct American role in managing the crisis, and Washington becoming a party that blesses rather than leads. This is a development that is inconsistent with the image of a central power that Trump tries to present, but it may be the only practical way out of the current stalemate.

Scenario Five: A Sudden Collapse Due to Miscalculation

The most dangerous possibility is the collapse of the truce without a prior political decision, as a result of a field error, a naval friction, or a hasty statement that forces both parties to respond. In a charged atmosphere filled with distrust, wars do not always need a conscious decision; sometimes a small incident with a volatile leadership is enough to ignite the fronts. This is what makes the policy of contradictory messages more dangerous than a clear confrontation.

It is noticeable that Trump manages crises with the logic of an election campaign: excitement, surprises, and changing positions according to the political moment. However, international crises are not managed by media impressions. When military and diplomatic decisions become linked to the rhythm of news and reactions, adversaries and allies lose the ability to understand Washington's intentions, and ambiguity becomes a burden, not a tool of power.

Maintaining the blockade while extending the truce reflects a fundamental contradiction. The truce is supposed to open a window for de-escalation, while the blockade is a direct continuation of the conflict by other means. This approach gives Washington the feeling that it is exerting maximum pressure, but in reality, it reduces the chances of a settlement, because the other party sees itself under coercion, not within a balanced negotiation process.

What Trump markets as a rejection of a "bad deal" can also be interpreted as an inability to produce a viable deal. A confident administration defines its goals and adheres to them within a clear plan, while the repeated transition between threat, extension, and open waiting suggests an administration that reacts to the crisis day by day, not an administration that shapes its end.

In conclusion, the crisis is no longer limited to the conflict with Iran, but now includes a crisis in the American decision-making process itself. When power is mixed with hesitation, deterrence with showmanship, and diplomacy with improvisation, regional stability becomes hostage to political mood rather than strategic calculations.

Political and military circles in the United States are witnessing widespread controversy following the spread of allegations that President Donald Trump was prevented from accessing nuclear codes. These reports came in the context of an emergency meeting held to discuss the ongoing military escalation with Iran, raising questions about the nature of the relationship between the Commander-in-Chief and senior military leadership.

This narrative was based on statements made by Larry Johnson, a former CIA analyst, who indicated a sharp confrontation occurred during a meeting last Saturday. According to Johnson, Trump attempted to activate the nuclear option in the confrontation with Tehran, but the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff intervened directly to prevent it.

Johnson explained in a media appearance that General Dan Kaine refused to respond to the President's request, based on his military authority and field assessments of the crisis. He added that the President's behavior during the meeting caused a state of severe concern within the Pentagon, necessitating exceptional measures to control the decision-making process at that critical moment.

In contrast, the White House quickly issued an official statement denying these reports entirely, emphasizing that the circulating claims are baseless. The US administration stressed that discussions regarding a response to Iran remain within traditional frameworks, and that talk of using nuclear weapons was not on the table.

For its part, American press sources indicated that Johnson's narrative so far lacks any independent confirmation from within the administration or the Department of Defense. Reports noted that the absence of parallel leaks from official sources weakens the credibility of these claims, placing them within the framework of political speculation related to the state of internal polarization.

Allegations did not stop at the nuclear file but extended to include reports of Trump being prevented from entering the Situation Room for a specific period during a rescue operation for American pilots. Sources stated that military leaders preferred to keep the President away from the real-time details of the operation due to what they described as his emotional state, which could affect the course of sensitive field operations.

Observers believe that these leaks reflect the depth of the gap between the White House and military leaders in dealing with the complex Iranian file. Despite the official denial, the repetition of such narratives indicates the existence of unstated tensions regarding the mechanism of military decision-making in major crises threatening US national security.

Trump had previously made controversial statements, warning that the failure of the diplomatic path with Iran could lead to catastrophic results described as the end of civilization. Analysts linked these statements to the possibility of the administration resorting to unconventional military options, which Washington continuously tries to deny to calm international fears.

On the partisan front, a number of Republican politicians expressed skepticism about these narratives, considering them aimed at distorting the President's image and portraying him as not in control of affairs. They affirmed that American laws grant the President broad and clear powers regarding the nuclear arsenal, making the hypothesis of military prevention legally complex.

The issue remains, for now, within the framework of media debate, as no material evidence or documents have emerged to prove the alleged confrontation between Trump and General Kaine. With continued tension in the Middle East, eyes remain on Washington to monitor any developments that may reveal the truth of what is happening behind closed doors in American decision-making.

The claims regarding the attempted use of nuclear codes are incorrect, and the administration's statements about keeping options open do not include nuclear weapons.

A recent strategic study issued by the Israeli Institute for National Security Studies warned of an unprecedented deterioration in Israel's standing within the United States, emphasizing that the crisis is no longer limited to fleeting media criticism. The study clarified that this decline has begun to affect the historical foundations of the bilateral relationship, especially the principle of bipartisan support that characterized American policy for many decades.

The study, prepared by researchers Avishai Ben Sasson Gordes and Ted Sasson, was titled 'A Severe Crisis in Israel's Status in the United States.' The data indicated that the negative perception of Israel is no longer confined to the progressive wing of the Democratic Party but has begun to clearly seep into the youth bases of the Republican Party and traditional religious communities.

The figures in the report revealed that about 60% of Americans now hold a negative view of Israel, a significant increase compared to previous years. The researchers believe that this accelerated decline is directly due to the ongoing repercussions of the war on Gaza and confrontations with Iran, which has created an impression that Israel is dragging Washington into conflicts that do not serve American national interests.

In a striking international comparison, the study showed that Israel's image in American consciousness is now approaching the classification of countries considered traditional adversaries of Washington, such as Russia, China, and Iran. This shift indicates a fundamental change in Israel's position, from being an obvious ally beyond suspicion to a polarizing party and a source of intense political debate.

Younger age groups stand out as the most critical of Israeli policies, with the percentage of negative views among Americans under thirty reaching 75%. More alarmingly for decision-makers in Tel Aviv is the extension of this negativity to 64% of young Republicans, a group Israel had relied on as a permanent strategic support base.

The American Jewish community has not been immune to these shifts, as the study indicates that nearly 30% of American Jews now lean in their sympathy towards the Palestinian side. Polls also showed that the majority of Jewish voters prefer diplomatic paths and sanctions over military options in dealing with thorny regional issues.

Regarding military aid, the study revealed a deep division within the American Jewish community, with 44% supporting linking aid to Israel's adherence to international and American laws. In contrast, the percentage of supporters of unconditional aid dropped to only 31%, while a significant percentage opposed providing any form of financial or military support.

These popular pressures have tangibly moved into the halls of Congress, where the study observed 40 Democratic senators voting in favor of legislation restricting the export of certain military equipment. These proposed restrictions included preventing the sale of military bulldozers and heavy bombs, indicating a shift in opposition from mere political statements to serious legislative attempts to exert pressure.

Research sources indicated that criticism is no longer limited to figures known for their traditional anti-Israel stances but has extended to voices historically classified as close friends. These politicians now clearly distinguish between supporting Israel's security and supporting the policies of its current government, especially regarding controversial wars and settlement activity.

The study also noted a decline in the influence of the 'AIPAC' organization in some political circles, where affiliation with it is no longer a guaranteed electoral asset as in the past. On the contrary, the absolute support represented by the organization has become a political burden in some electoral districts that require explanations and justifications to young and independent voters.

In the Republican camp, the recent war sparked an unusual public debate among media figures and conservative influencers about the utility of absolute American involvement in supporting Israel. Voices emerged attacking Washington's military commitments, considering them to serve external agendas and not align with the 'America First' principle adopted by a wide segment of the new right.

The study attributes this structural shift to several intertwined factors, primarily the violence perpetrated by settlers in the West Bank and Israeli involvement in internal American polarization. These factors contributed to reshaping Israel's image as a 'costly' ally whose preservation requires a high political and moral price that many are no longer willing to pay.

The researchers concluded that Israel's real loss lies in the loss of 'the obviousness of support,' where every decision related to its support is subject to lengthy discussions and opposition within American institutions. This situation directly affects one of the most important foundations of Israeli strategic power, which is the absolute American guarantee that was previously considered unquestionable.

The study concludes by recommending a comprehensive re-evaluation of how the relationship with Washington is managed, warning that continuing the current approach could lead to long-term strategic isolation. It emphasizes that restoring trust with rising generations, religious and Jewish communities requires fundamental changes in field policies, not just in propaganda campaigns.

The most dangerous thing Israel is losing is not just the level of support, but the obviousness of support itself, and when its support becomes a subject of debate in the street, Congress, and the Jewish community.

The pace of security pursuits carried out by the Israeli occupation army against candidates for local council elections in the West Bank has escalated, coinciding with the approaching polling date scheduled for next Saturday. Field sources reported that raids included several cities and towns, where dozens of candidates underwent harsh field interrogations accompanied by direct threats of prolonged detention or physical liquidation if they continued in the electoral race.

In the town of Balaa, northeast of Tulkarm, occupation forces carried out a wide-ranging military operation targeting about 33 citizens, most of whom were involved in electoral lists. Bilal Jitawi, a candidate from the 'Al-Wefaq' list, recounted details of his ten-hour detention, during which Israeli intelligence officers tried to force him to withdraw, claiming he received support from the Hamas movement, despite his insistence on the independence of his candidacy.

Jitawi confirmed that the investigation focused entirely on the details of the electoral process and voting mechanisms, where the interrogator sent him a clear message about the necessity of withdrawal to prevent any organizationally supported figures from reaching municipal councils. The candidate considered these practices a blatant interference in the political rights of the Palestinian people and their ability to freely choose their representatives.

For his part, the current mayor of Balaa, Mohammed Suleiman, explained that the occupation still detains two prominent figures from the town who support the electoral lists, which has caused a state of apprehension and concern among the residents. He pointed out that these pressures led to a reduction in propaganda activities and family gatherings for fear of pursuit, which serves the occupation's efforts to thwart the entire electoral process.

In another testimony, released prisoner Bahaa Abu Setta stated that he was subjected to detention and abuse along with a group of candidates, where they were handcuffed and blindfolded for long hours. He added that the intelligence officer threatened him with returning to prison if he went to polling stations or cast his vote for any list, in a clear attempt to reduce the rate of popular participation.

These violations were not limited to Tulkarm but extended to Nablus Governorate, specifically in the town of Asira al-Shamaliya, where the occupation arrested 12 cadres from the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine. Sources reported that the detainees were subjected to humiliating conditions and interrogations focused on the nature of the lists they support, with explicit threats to liquidate independent candidates who enjoy factional support.

These security threats prompted the residents of Asira al-Shamaliya to make an exceptional decision to abandon competing lists and resort to the 'acclamation' option to elect municipal council members. This measure aims to protect candidates from direct Israeli targeting, after political forces withdrew their public support to spare independent figures the risk of pursuit or assassination.

Official statistics indicate that 365 lists are competing in 183 local bodies in the West Bank, comprising more than 2,700 candidates who aspire to serve their local communities. However, Israeli interventions are now threatening the legitimacy of these elections and their ability to produce strong local leaders capable of facing the increasing challenges under occupation.

Observers believe that through this campaign, the occupation seeks to entrench a model of 'family administration' instead of political organizations and national institutions. This approach aims to fragment the Palestinian situation and weaken political authorities, making local bodies mere service tools isolated from their national and general political context.

These developments come amid complex security and economic conditions in the West Bank, especially with the ongoing war on the Gaza Strip and daily incursions into major cities. These conditions have reflected on the momentum of election campaigning, which has significantly receded in public streets and moved to digital platforms and social media.

Political analyst Suleiman Basharat considered that Israel is following a systematic strategy to make Palestinians feel that all details of their lives are under its direct control. He stressed that interference in elections, whether by disruption or pursuit, aims to empty Palestinian institutions of their competencies and link their success to the satisfaction of the occupation's security apparatus.

Basharat added that the occupation is trying to create a gap between citizens and their institutions by absenting the institutional and national dimension, and pushing society towards tribalism and narrow family ties. This approach ensures the occupation's ease of control and dominance, and prevents the formation of any unified institutional front capable of making independent developmental or political decisions.

On the factional level, positions remain divergent regarding participation in these elections, with the Islamic Jihad movement boycotting the entire process, while Hamas set conditions related to adherence to national programs. Amidst these complexities, the independent candidate finds himself in direct confrontation with the Israeli repressive machine that does not differentiate between one affiliation and another.

In conclusion, Palestinian circles are awaiting the results of the polls amidst these pressures, with questions about the ability of the upcoming local councils to withstand the occupation's attempts to impose a new political reality. The biggest challenge remains to preserve the national character of these institutions and prevent their transformation into fragile entities managed by intimidation and threats.

The occupation is trying to obscure the institutional dimension in the Palestinian situation, and empty it of the elements of success and efficiency, to reinforce weakness and entrench reliance on families instead of institutions.

Former Israeli Army Chiefs of Staff, Moshe Ya'alon and Dan Halutz, issued a sharp and unprecedented political stance in a joint article published in the Hebrew newspaper Haaretz. The two generals directed direct accusations at Benjamin Netanyahu's government, claiming it has 'kidnapped' the state's key institutions, indicating that the current authority prioritizes its political survival above the values and unifying institutions upon which Israel was founded.

These statements derive exceptional weight given the high military and security backgrounds of their authors; Ya'alon served as both Chief of Staff and Minister of Defense, while Halutz led the General Staff and the Air Force. This combination of experience makes the article a political testimony from the heart of the security elite, reflecting the extent of the division and rupture between former military leaders and the government's current political approach.

The former leaders used harsh language, stating that 'Israel is a kidnapped state,' an expression that summarizes their view of the alarming reality the country is experiencing under the current administration. The article clarified that the problem is no longer limited to the mismanagement of specific issues but has extended to the core of power, which now treats the state as if it were private property serving narrow objectives.

Ya'alon and Halutz stressed that the current regime views the 'democratic Jewish state' as an obstacle to its continuation, which has led it to a direct clash with traditional institutional foundations. The two generals considered this trend a dangerous deviation from the path set by the founding elites, where public values are marginalized in favor of protecting the ruling coalition and its followers.

The timing of the article's publication coincided with the 'Torch Lighting' celebrations, which the authors used to direct scathing criticism at the current official symbolism. The two leaders believed that these national occasions have transformed from platforms for reinforcing collective identity into tools for polishing the authority's image and rephrasing the public narrative to serve the government's interests and cover up its accumulated failures.

The article accused the government of attempting to 'falsify public consciousness' and erase the effects of political and security failures by turning sovereign state symbols into personal propaganda tools. The two generals warned that this behavior leads to an erosion of trust between the public and institutions, creating a state of national alienation among broad segments of Israeli society.

In a striking linguistic escalation, Ya'alon and Halutz described the government's practices as resembling 'gang behavior,' a description rarely issued by military figures of such stature. They indicated that this style of governance relies on imposing political will away from the legal and ethical standards recognized in the administration of democratic states.

The article also touched upon the issue of conscription, where the two generals strongly attacked the government's efforts to pass laws exempting certain groups from military service. The authors considered these legislations an existential threat to the concept of a 'people's army' and a serious infringement on the principle of equality in bearing burdens, describing them as a 'betrayal of military and national principles.'

The article did not overlook the aspect related to field policies, accusing the government of providing cover for settler violence against Palestinians in the West Bank, and even sometimes encouraging this behavior. The two generals linked this violence to the general trend of eroding official responsibility and the absence of truth in the government's discourse directed both domestically and internationally.

In conclusion, Ya'alon and Halutz called on the Israeli public to act and participate in alternative events in Tel Aviv under the slogan 'The State Belongs to the People.' This call aims to reclaim what they described as the kidnapped state and emphasize the necessity of rephrasing the social contract that ensures the state serves its citizens instead of rulers serving their private interests.

Israel is a kidnapped state, and the democratic Jewish state has become an obstacle to this regime, its followers, and its survival.

The world today is witnessing major transformations that go beyond changing traditional balances of power to redefine the concept of security and the daily routine of human life. War is no longer merely a military confrontation between adversaries; it has transformed into a multi-layered operational structure that simultaneously targets the economy, space, time, and cyberspace.

This new phase began with the emergence of the 'techno-biological' battle since 2020, where global health crises revealed the international system's ability to shift from managing life to managing restriction. This transformation made humans an input for examination and measurement, testing their susceptibility to compliance under the pressures of fear and the rearrangement of collective behavior.

War later moved to the 'techno-economic' layer, where markets were no longer just spaces for commercial exchange but became systems for political reshaping. At this level, states are exhausted through energy bills, import imbalances, and changes in supply routes, turning economic dependence from an advantage into structural fragility.

The strategic importance of geography emerges at its 'techno-geomatic' level, where a waterway no longer derives its weight from its name on a map but from its function as a timing point. Straits and ports have become complex pressure tools whose operation is shared by geography, law, and security, imposing a new reality on international navigation maps.

National sovereignty in the current era is no longer limited to geographical control but is linked to the ability to manage a state's position within the global transit network. He who owns the land but does not manage its strategic function possesses only the form of the state without the essence of its true power, making his sovereignty incomplete in the face of external interventions.

The 'techno-geospatial' layer gives military execution its meaning, where modern battles are managed through the ability to see, connect, and anticipate via satellites. This upper network collects data and coordinates monitoring, reducing the distance between the occurrence of an event and the strategic decision-making in operations rooms.

As for direct military engagement, it represents the visible and final layer of war, and only occurs after exhausting the adversary in the layers of monitoring and economic fatigue. A military strike in this context becomes a message or a political statement, expressing the stage of execution and negotiation, not the stage of establishing the conflict.

The Arab region is at the heart of this geopolitical conflict due to its oversight of the most important vital straits and passages such as Hormuz, Bab al-Mandab, and the Suez Canal. However, this strategic location can turn into a burden if there is no vision capable of transforming geography into a real political and economic lever.

Some countries suffer from a structural dilemma of being in controlling positions without possessing the ability to govern these positions or manage their policies. This disconnect between location and management leads to the transformation of sovereignty into a point of exhaustion, especially in the presence of fragmented internal fronts that weaken the state's negotiating weight.

Addressing these challenges requires building a new theory of state action that reconfigures the relationship between five essential elements: human, place, time, technology, and economy. A country's waterways cannot be protected if its society suffers from marginalization or persecution, or if its system relies on external dependency.

A holistic vision requires not separating maritime sovereignty from the overall sovereignty of the state, as the world has entered a highly sensitive maritime phase to any disturbance. Those who can read these transformations well begin to build self-capacity, because the mind that can interpret geography is the one that creates sovereignty in the modern era.

The impact of disturbances in straits and maritime channels extends to the details of daily life for citizens in different continents of the world, directly and indirectly. Every tension in strategic transit points quickly infiltrates food and energy prices, making geography a decisive factor in determining the cost of living and the stability of societies.

Global supply chains manifest as a hidden force affecting the daily security of individuals, from energy chains to semiconductors and technology. This interconnected system means that global stability is no longer just an issue for nations and governments, but a system that affects the individual in the most precise details of their daily life.

In conclusion, the decision remains with the peoples who realize that economic and technical sovereignty is the only guarantee for protecting the geographical function of states. Days are cycles, and whoever possesses the tools of monitoring, analysis, and response will be able to transform maritime threats into strategic assets that ensure their survival and strength.

Sovereignty in its contemporary meaning is no longer merely jurisdiction over land, but has become the ability to protect the strategic function of space and time.

Hezbollah announced on Tuesday evening that it had carried out its first offensive military operation since the ceasefire agreement came into effect, targeting an Israeli settlement in the Upper Galilee. In an official statement, the party clarified that its fighters shelled an artillery position belonging to the occupation army in the Kfar Giladi settlement with a rocket barrage and a swarm of kamikaze drones.

The party affirmed that this military action came as a direct response to repeated Israeli violations, which have exceeded 200 documented breaches since the temporary truce began last Thursday. The statement indicated that the targeted position was the primary source of artillery shelling that struck the town of Yahmar al-Shaqif deep inside Lebanese territory in recent hours.

Hezbollah's leadership stressed that this operation is part of defending Lebanon and its people against blatant aggressions, which included targeting civilians and destroying property. It considered that the international community's silence on these transgressions compelled the resistance to respond in the field to deter the occupation from continuing its violations of Lebanese sovereignty and the terms of the agreement.

In contrast, Israeli Security Minister Yisrael Katz stated that Tel Aviv intends to maintain its military control over all areas it has penetrated in southern Lebanon. These statements confirm the occupation's intention not to withdraw immediately, placing the fragile ceasefire agreement under a real test amidst ongoing field operations.

For his part, Lebanese Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri issued a strong warning to the occupation, emphasizing that forces refusing to withdraw would face continuous resistance. Berri said in media statements that Israel's continued presence in any location or its drawing of new geographical lines means the continuation of an open conflict with the Lebanese resistance.

On the diplomatic front, the United States is scheduled to host high-level ambassadorial talks between the Lebanese and Israeli sides next Thursday. These discussions aim to avert the imminent collapse of the truce and discuss mechanisms for solidifying the ceasefire and preventing the situation from sliding back into a comprehensive confrontation.

In the field, media sources reported an escalation in the pace of Israeli attacks on Tuesday, with artillery intensively targeting several border towns. The shelling coincided with widespread demolition operations of homes and infrastructure, in an attempt by the occupation army to create a buffer zone devoid of residents and urban landmarks.

Reports from southern Lebanon stated that the occupation army carried out booby-trapping and demolition operations in at least eight border villages, including Houla and Tayr Harfa. The aggressions included the destruction of entire residential neighborhoods, leveling them to the ground, leading to a new wave of displacement for residents who tried to return to inspect their homes.

In the Bint Jbeil district, Israeli military vehicles continued excavation and demolition work in the Al-Maslakh neighborhood of the historic city of Bint Jbeil. These actions were accompanied by intense low-altitude drone flights and artillery shelling towards the outskirts of the towns of Kunin and Beit Yahoun to intimidate civilians.

Systematic destruction also affected the villages of Beit Leif, Shema, Al-Bayada, and Naqoura, where the occupation's engineering teams completely blew up residential blocks. These field movements come despite the ongoing truce, which was supposed to give civilians a chance to safely return to their destroyed villages.

Local sources reported that Israeli reconnaissance planes did not leave the airspace of the city of Tyre and its surrounding areas, increasing the state of tension and anxiety among residents. The sources added that the occupation is imposing a fire blockade on some roads to prevent movement between villages, in a clear violation of the understandings to cease hostile operations.

The Lebanese public awaits the results of upcoming political moves amidst this dangerous field escalation that threatens to undermine the de-escalation process. The southern front remains susceptible to further escalation if international pressure fails to compel the occupation to fully withdraw and stop targeting Lebanese villages and towns.

If Israel maintains its occupation, whether of areas or sites, it means that every day it will smell the scent of resistance.

US President Donald Trump announced on Tuesday evening his decision to extend the ceasefire in the military confrontation with Iran, indicating that this decision will remain in effect until a formal Iranian proposal is submitted and ongoing discussions conclude. Trump clarified via the 'Truth Social' platform that this step came in response to a request from the Pakistani government, which seeks to postpone military operations to allow the Iranian leadership an opportunity to formulate a unified negotiating position.

The US President emphasized in his statements that the US Armed Forces have received clear instructions to continue imposing a strict blockade and remain on high alert to act when necessary. Trump affirmed that the extension of the truce is directly linked to the seriousness of the proposals Tehran will present, noting that Washington is prepared to end this crisis one way or another based on the results of the stalled diplomatic process.

In a related context, the Pakistani capital, Islamabad, witnessed a state of cautious anticipation, as the second round of direct negotiations between the two parties was supposed to begin hours before the previous deadline expired. These diplomatic efforts led by Pakistan aim to reach a comprehensive agreement that ends the armed conflict that recently erupted, but field and political developments continue to pose significant complexities for mediators.

For its part, media sources reported that Tehran informed the American side, via the Pakistani mediator, of a surprising decision not to send its negotiating delegation to Islamabad tomorrow, Wednesday. This Iranian apology adds to the ambiguity of the political scene, especially given Tehran's adherence to its positions rejecting what it describes as 'negotiating under the duress of threat and military blockade' imposed by the United States.

On the American front, press reports confirmed the indefinite postponement of Vice President J.D. Vance's visit to Pakistan, a visit that aimed to advance negotiations. This postponement reflects the magnitude of the gap between the two parties and the difficulty of reaching common ground amidst the ongoing US naval blockade, which Iran insists must be lifted as a prerequisite for progress in any talks.

Informed sources stated that Pakistani efforts to persuade Washington to lift the blockade on Iranian ships and release their detained crews have not achieved any tangible breakthrough so far. Tehran asserts that it will not accept negotiations aimed at forcing it to surrender, emphasizing that returning to the negotiating table requires the US administration to abandon its policy of continuous threats and placing obstacles in the way of peaceful solutions.

The roots of the current confrontation date back to February 28, when the United States and Israel began extensive military operations against Iran, resulting in over 3,000 deaths. Pakistani mediation on April 8 succeeded in securing a temporary two-week truce, which aimed to open a window for dialogue and spare the region the ravages of a comprehensive war.

Despite Islamabad hosting a previous round of talks on April 11, those sessions did not result in an agreement to end the hostility. The situation remains open to all possibilities, with observers believing that the extension of the truce may be the last chance for diplomacy before returning to the military option, given Washington's insistence on keeping its army in a state of full combat readiness.

I have instructed our military to continue the blockade and remain on high alert and capable of action, and I will extend the ceasefire until their proposal is submitted.

The blessed Al-Aqsa Mosque witnessed a new escalation, represented by dozens of settlers storming its courtyards under heavy protection from the Israeli occupation police. The intruders provocatively raised the Israeli flag in the courtyards of Al-Haram Al-Sharif, specifically in the eastern area and near the revered Dome of the Rock Mosque.

Videos and photos circulated on social media platforms documented settlers performing Talmudic rituals, silent prayers, and others aloud. Many of them also performed what is called 'epic prostration' on the ground, in a move aimed at establishing a new reality inside the mosque and challenging the feelings of worshippers and Muslims everywhere.

For its part, the State of Qatar expressed its strong condemnation of these practices, describing them as a blatant violation of international law and international legitimacy. The Qatari Ministry of Foreign Affairs affirmed in a statement that these actions represent a provocation to the feelings of millions of Muslims around the world and reveal the occupation's intentions towards holy sites.

Doha stressed its categorical rejection of any attempts aimed at undermining the existing religious and historical status of the blessed Al-Aqsa Mosque. It called on the international community to bear its moral and legal responsibilities towards the city of Jerusalem and to firmly confront repeated Israeli violations that undermine peace opportunities.

In a related context, Qatar reiterated its firm stance on the justice of the Palestinian cause and the right of the Palestinian people to practice their religious rituals with complete freedom. It pointed to the necessity of establishing an independent Palestinian state on the 1967 borders, with East Jerusalem as its eternal capital.

In turn, the Arab Republic of Egypt condemned in the strongest terms the settlers' storming of Al-Aqsa Mosque and the raising of the Israeli flag under the protection of security forces. The Egyptian Foreign Ministry considered this escalation unacceptable and one that increases the state of tension and unrest in the region in general.

Cairo clarified that such violations disregard the rules of international law and international humanitarian law that protect holy sites in the occupied territories. It warned that these provocative steps could undermine all efforts aimed at restoring stability and calm in the Palestinian territories.

Egypt also affirmed its rejection of any unilateral measures aimed at changing the Arab and Islamic identity of the city of Jerusalem and its holy sites. It stressed the need to preserve the existing legal and historical status of Islamic and Christian holy sites alike, without any interference from the occupation authorities.

In the Jordanian capital, Amman, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs described the raising of Israeli flags in Al-Aqsa as an unacceptable incitement aimed at imposing new realities. Official sources confirmed that these repeated incursions constitute a flagrant violation of Israel's international obligations as an occupying power.

Jordan warned of the dire consequences of the continuation of these provocations aimed at dividing Al-Aqsa Mosque temporally and spatially between Muslims and Jews. The Jordanian Foreign Ministry indicated that these absurd practices by the Israeli police and settlers threaten to ignite the situation in the entire region.

The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan reiterated that Al-Aqsa Mosque, with its total area of 144 dunams, is a pure place of worship for Muslims alone. It stressed that any attempt to claim Israeli sovereignty over occupied Jerusalem is null and void and has no legal effect under international resolutions.

The Jordanian Foreign Ministry also pointed out that the Jerusalem Awqaf Department, affiliated with the Jordanian Ministry of Awqaf, is the sole authority responsible for managing the mosque's affairs. It clarified that regulating entry and exit and supervising all facilities of Al-Haram Al-Sharif falls within the exclusive powers of this administration under the historical status quo.

Jordan called on the international community to take a firm and clear stance obliging the occupation authorities to stop all their unilateral measures in Jerusalem and the West Bank. It demanded the necessity of providing international protection for the Palestinian people and their holy sites in the face of settler aggression and systematic Israeli policies.

These condemnations come at a time when warnings of an explosion in the field situation are increasing as a result of the continued daily incursions into Al-Aqsa Mosque. Palestinian activists are calling for the necessity of Arab and international action that goes beyond condemnation statements to stop the violations targeting the identity of occupied Jerusalem.

The blessed Al-Aqsa Mosque, with its full area of 144 dunams, is a pure place of worship for Muslims, and the Jerusalem Awqaf Department is the sole authority exclusively responsible for its administration.

In a clear replication of military practices in the Gaza Strip, soldiers from the Israeli occupation army circulated video clips documenting extensive bombings of residential buildings deep within Lebanese villages. The recordings showed members of Battalion (7106) carrying out the bombings amidst celebratory atmospheres, claiming they were in fulfillment of the memory of their comrade, Sergeant First Class Lidor Borat, who was killed in battles last week.

Violations were not limited to the destruction of infrastructure but extended to include deliberate tampering with the belongings of civilians in areas from which residents were forcibly displaced. Field sources observed soldiers raiding homes in the Marjayoun area of southern Lebanon, where they deliberately broke furniture, vandalized personal property, and filmed and published these acts on social media as a form of boasting.

In a scene reflecting moral degradation, occupation soldiers appeared mocking the belongings of a displaced Lebanese woman, displaying her personal clothes in front of the camera while making sarcastic comments. These actions sparked a wave of anger, as they target the dignity of displaced persons who left everything they owned to escape the intense shelling affecting their villages and towns.

Observers and legal experts believe that these behaviors are not individual acts but rather part of a combat doctrine that adopts a policy of 'unjustified destruction.' These clips strikingly resemble hundreds of videos broadcast by soldiers during their war on Gaza, which included the demolition of entire residential blocks, universities, and mosques without any clear military necessity, placing them within the framework of war crimes.

These events recall a series of scandals that have plagued the occupation army since the start of the ground invasion of the Gaza Strip, with reports of organized theft of jewelry and antiquities from Palestinian homes. Cameras also previously documented deliberate destruction of humanitarian aid and tampering with the kitchens of evacuated homes, reinforcing the hypothesis that these practices have a green light from the leadership.

Repeating the Gaza scenario in Lebanon indicates a strategy aimed at making border areas uninhabitable by completely destroying the urban and residential fabric. This policy not only aims to achieve military gains but also seeks to break the will of the popular base by targeting personal symbols and private property that represent the memory and history of the local population.

Amidst the continuation of these violations, international human rights organizations demand accountability for the soldiers and officers appearing in these clips, considering the silence of the Israeli military leadership as direct complicity. These organizations affirm that the soldiers' self-documentation of their crimes provides conclusive evidence that can be used in international courts to condemn occupation leaders for violating the Geneva Conventions related to the protection of civilians during wartime.

These scenes constitute legal evidence of a policy of unjustified destruction, which is prohibited by international laws and classified as war crimes.

Economic circles in the occupation state are following with increasing concern the repercussions of the navigation crisis in the Strait of Hormuz and the American blockade on Iranian ports, as Hebrew forums monitor the routes of oil tankers departing the Arabian Gulf. Although the occupation has not been directly affected so far, estimates indicate that the crisis's reverberations are likely to reach Western markets and the Israeli interior soon.

Lior Bacalo, economic editor at Hebrew Channel 12, predicted that oil refineries in Europe and the United States would begin to feel a severe shortage of supplies within a few weeks. This shortage comes after Asian countries acquired record quantities of crude oil that were allocated for Western markets, amid uncertainty about the continued opening of vital waterways.

For his part, Professor Yossi Mann, an expert in Middle East studies at Bar-Ilan University, pointed out that the world is approaching a moment of truth where theoretical scarcity turns into a tangible reality. He explained that countries that relied on their strategic reserves during the past period have begun to lose this time margin as supply disruptions from the Gulf region continue.

Asian countries are the most vulnerable to direct damage due to their heavy reliance on Middle Eastern oil, as the reserves of most of these countries, with the exception of China, cover only one month's consumption. The signs of the crisis have begun to appear clearly in the Philippines, which declared a national emergency in the energy sector after local fuel prices doubled unprecedentedly.

In contrast, China appears to be in a relatively safer position, possessing reserves sufficient for four months, while countries like Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan rely on their massive financial capabilities to secure their needs at any cost. Nevertheless, these countries remain vulnerable to the sharp price fluctuations imposed by current market conditions and fierce competition for available shipments.

Developing countries such as India and Bangladesh face severe challenges in providing petroleum derivatives, as they lack sufficient budgets to cope with high prices. Bangladesh has resorted to imposing strict restrictions on the use of air conditioners to save electricity, in a step aimed at reducing fuel consumption and raising public awareness of the seriousness of the current stage.

In the context of austerity measures, Cambodia, Vietnam, and Indonesia ordered public sector employees to work from home to reduce pressure on transportation and fuel consumption. In India, heavy industries and plastic factories began reducing working days and temporarily laying off workers, due to high operating costs that made production economically unfeasible.

Despite Australia's wealth, it was forced to release parts of its fuel reserves and reduce taxes to cope with the shortage of derivatives imported from Asia. In Europe, the Netherlands announced its readiness to buy oil at any price to secure its needs, reflecting the panic that has begun to creep into developed economies as summer approaches.

Reports indicate that fluctuations in statements about opening and closing the Strait of Hormuz lead to sharp price volatility, but temporary declines are often related to futures contracts, not spot prices. Experts confirm that those who urgently need oil now are forced to pay exorbitant amounts that far exceed the prices announced on global exchanges.

Economic sources quoted officials at HSBC Bank as monitoring purchase operations where the value of a barrel of oil supplied to Sri Lanka reached about $286. This insane increase reflects the true scale of the crisis facing countries that do not have long-term contracts or sufficient reserves to secure their basic needs.

Israeli analysts warned that energy shocks do not stop at fuel but slowly spread to include the fertilizer and transport sectors, leading to global food prices. This sequence represents the biggest threat to stability in countries like Egypt and Jordan, where food subsidies act as a safety valve to prevent widespread social unrest.

According to the Hebrew report, any attack on Iran or additional military escalation could negatively impact the security of the occupation by destabilizing neighboring countries linked by peace agreements. Rising bread and energy prices could lead to popular protests that put ruling regimes in the face of difficult security challenges along the Israeli borders.

The Trump administration faces increasing pressure as oil shortages worsen, coinciding with Europe entering a race with Asian countries to secure natural gas for winter. This global competition has created what resembles an open 'price war,' in which Europeans appear to be in a weaker position against increasing Asian demand.

In conclusion, Iran is playing for time, exploiting the peak of its seasonal exports to China, whose demand for energy rises with the onset of summer. Every day the Strait of Hormuz remains closed represents a dual pressure; it deprives Iran of vital income, but at the same time, it puts the entire world on the brink of an unprecedented energy crisis.

We are at the moment when the anticipated shortage turns into a real shortage, as time is running out after strategic reserves have been depleted.

The United States faces an unprecedented strategic challenge in the erosion of its advanced weapons stockpiles, following recent military operations against Iran. Recent military reports and analyses indicate that the rapid rate of ammunition consumption raises deep questions about the US military's ability to engage in large-scale conflicts in the near future, especially with increasing tensions in other parts of the world.

According to data released by the Center for Strategic and International Studies, US forces depleted approximately 45% of their total inventory of precision-guided missiles in just seven weeks. The depletion did not stop there but also affected vital air defense systems, with at least 50% of 'THAAD' ballistic missile interceptor missiles lost, in addition to a similar percentage of the famous 'Patriot' missiles.

Leaked figures, which align with internal Pentagon assessments, indicate that the US arsenal also lost about 30% of its 'Tomahawk' cruise missiles and more than 20% of its long-range air-to-ground guided missiles. Reports also recorded a 20% shortage in SM-3 and SM-6 naval interceptor missiles, reflecting immense pressure on the defensive and offensive capabilities of the US Navy.

These shocking numerical data clearly contradict the public statements of US President Donald Trump, who recently asserted that his country does not suffer from any shortage of military equipment. Despite this denial, the additional funding requests submitted by the US administration to compensate for the shortages resulting from the Iranian war confirm the existence of a real crisis in military supply chains.

Although the US Department of Defense has signed a series of massive contracts with military manufacturing companies to expand production lines, experts warn about the time factor. According to estimates from the Center for Strategic Studies, the delivery of replacement systems will take between three and five years, a long period that could leave Washington in a state of strategic vulnerability.

While analysts believe that the United States may have enough bombs to continue operations against Iranian targets if the current de-escalation collapses, the greater danger lies in confronting an equivalent adversary. The remaining ammunition in warehouses is no longer sufficient to fight a comprehensive war against a major power like China, which puts US defense plans in the Pacific at stake.

For his part, Mark Cancian, a retired Marine Corps colonel, explained that high military spending in recent weeks has created clear security gaps in the Western Pacific region. Cancian added that replenishing these stockpiles to their normal levels could take one to four years, while reaching the required deterrence levels would require additional years of continuous effort.

In contrast, the US Department of Defense is trying to reassure allies and the domestic audience, with Pentagon spokesman Sean Parnell stating that the military remains fully prepared to carry out its assigned missions. Parnell affirmed in press statements that US forces are capable of acting at the time and place determined by the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces, despite the pressures imposed by the recent war.

Military leaders, including the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, had previously warned that engaging in long military campaigns would inevitably affect US commitments to allies in Europe and Asia. Members of Congress, such as Senator Mark Kelly, also expressed concern about the ability of the US industrial base to keep pace with adversaries who possess massive and continuous production capabilities of missiles and drones.

High ammunition expenditures have increased vulnerabilities in the Western Pacific, and it will take years to replenish these stockpiles.

By: Said Arikat

April 22, 2026

News Analysis

Washington, D.C- President Donald Trump’s sudden decision to extend the ceasefire with Iran, after repeatedly insisting it would expire, is not a sign of strategic brilliance or diplomatic finesse. It is the latest demonstration of a presidency that confuses chaos with leverage, improvisation with strength, and contradiction with statecraft. What unfolded was not careful crisis management. It was a spectacle of confusion—one that risks dragging an already volatile region toward catastrophe.

Only hours before the truce was due to end, Trump was signaling renewed confrontation. Then, without warning, he reversed himself and granted an open-ended extension. Such abrupt pivots have become the defining grammar of his foreign policy. Deadlines are declared dramatically, then discarded casually. Threats are issued loudly, then diluted quietly. Allies are left guessing, adversaries are left calculating, and the world is expected to interpret indecision as tactical genius.

But indecision dressed up as unpredictability is still indecision.

The deeper problem is not simply that Trump changed course. It is that he changed course while preserving all the conditions of conflict. The maritime blockade of Iranian ports remains in place. American forces remain on alert. Military pressure continues. In effect, Trump announced peace while maintaining the architecture of war.

That is not diplomacy. It is incoherence.

A ceasefire is supposed to reduce tension, create political space, and lower the chances of accidental escalation. Instead, Trump has produced a suspended crisis in which hostilities are paused but confrontation continues through other means. Iran is told to negotiate while under siege. Washington demands concessions while offering no meaningful confidence-building measures. This is less a negotiating framework than an ultimatum with better branding.

The administration says it is waiting for a “unified proposal” from Tehran, while simultaneously mocking Iran’s fractured leadership. Yet if Washington genuinely believes Iran’s political system is divided among clerics, security institutions, elected officials, and rival factions, then demanding a swift, coherent response is either naïve or cynical. It suggests an administration more interested in public posturing than in understanding the adversary it claims to be pressuring.

Then there is the remarkable fact that Pakistan reportedly helped persuade Trump to delay confrontation. Pakistan deserves credit for trying to prevent war. But what does it say about American leadership that the United States required outside mediation to retreat from its own self-imposed deadline? Great powers once shaped events. Under Trump, America increasingly improvises around crises of its own making.

This pattern has consequences. Every empty ultimatum weakens deterrence. Every theatrical reversal erodes credibility. Every contradictory signal increases the risk that someone, somewhere, will misread rhetoric as resolve or hesitation as weakness. Foreign policy is not reality television. The cost of confusion is measured not in ratings, but in lives.

Israel reportedly remains deeply skeptical that any durable deal is near and is preparing for renewed conflict. That skepticism is understandable. Regional actors have learned that Trump’s policy can shift between sunrise and sunset. Today’s red line may become tomorrow’s bargaining chip. Today’s promise of force may become tomorrow’s “historic breakthrough.” Such volatility does not reassure allies; it unnerves them.

Several outcomes are now possible, none attractive.

The most likely is prolonged drift: ceasefire in name, blockade in practice, talks delayed, tensions simmering. That may spare the region immediate war, but it also creates ideal conditions for miscalculation. A naval incident, proxy strike, or careless statement could unravel the arrangement overnight.

A second possibility is performative escalation. Having appeared to retreat, Trump may seek to recover his image through a limited strike, harsher enforcement, or dramatic rhetoric. Leaders who mistake appearances for strategy often escalate to compensate for embarrassment. That path is especially dangerous because symbolic military actions rarely remain symbolic for long.

A third scenario is a thin interim deal, brokered by Pakistan or Gulf states, allowing all sides to claim success while resolving little. Trump would market it as a triumph. Tehran would portray it as resistance. The underlying dispute would remain intact, deferred to another crisis.

The most dangerous outcome is accidental war. In an atmosphere of military readiness, political vanity, and mixed signals, conflict does not require intention. It requires only one misjudgment.

What this episode truly exposes is Trump’s belief that foreign policy can be run like a campaign rally: loud threats, dramatic reversals, simplistic slogans, endless self-congratulation. But states are not crowds, wars are not applause lines, and adversaries do not disappear because a leader changes the script mid-performance.

A serious Iran policy would define objectives clearly, coordinate with allies consistently, calibrate pressure intelligently, and pair deterrence with credible diplomacy. It would understand that coercion without strategy is merely bullying, and unpredictability without discipline is merely disorder.

Trump offers none of this. He offers noise mistaken for strength, improvisation mistaken for mastery, and confusion mistaken for leverage.

The result is neither peace nor credible pressure. It is a region trapped inside one man’s volatility.

And that may be the most dangerous reality of all.

Israeli occupation forces committed a series of new aggressions in the Gaza Strip at dawn today, Tuesday, resulting in the martyrdom of four Palestinian citizens in various areas of the Strip. Medical and field sources reported that an aerial bombardment targeted a gathering of citizens near the Al-Zagzoog intersection in the Al-Amal neighborhood northwest of Khan Yunis city, leading to the immediate death of three young men. The skies of the area witnessed intensive flights of warplanes following the attack that occurred in the middle of the night.

Regarding the details of the victims, local sources stated that the martyrs in the Khan Yunis raid were Darwish Al-Attal, Saad Abu Hilal, and Majed Abu Moussa, noting a state of deep sorrow that prevailed in the area, especially since Al-Attal had just gotten married a few days earlier. Concurrently, Israeli warships targeted the northern coasts of the Strip, leading to the martyrdom of citizen Hiba Jamal Abu Shaqfa in the Al-Salateen area west of Beit Lahia, following direct gunfire towards the area.

These field developments come amidst the ongoing daily Israeli violations of the ceasefire agreement that came into effect last October. According to the latest data from the Ministry of Health, the number of martyrs since the truce began has reached 777, in addition to more than 2,193 others who sustained various injuries. Reports also indicated that civil defense teams were able to recover 761 bodies from under the rubble in various governorates of the Strip during the truce period.

Overall, the cumulative toll of the Israeli aggression since October 7, 2023, continues to record record numbers, reaching 72,553 martyrs and 172,296 injuries. In contrast, the Israeli occupation army admitted to the killing of 5 of its soldiers during military operations in Gaza since the last agreement came into effect, amidst continuing field tensions that threaten the collapse of the fragile truce in light of ongoing bombardment and gunfire.

Israeli violations and aggressions since the agreement came into effect have resulted in the martyrdom of 777 Palestinians and the injury of 2,193 others.

The eyes of the international community are turning towards the Pakistani capital, Islamabad, where crucial negotiations are underway, aiming to end the ongoing nightmare of bloodshed in the region. In contrast, strong voices within official and unofficial circles in Israel hope for the failure of these deliberations and the inability to reach any agreement that would end the state of conflict.

The ruling coalition led by Benjamin Netanyahu believes that any understanding between the United States and Iran represents a devastating strategic loss for Israel. This stance stems from the conviction that the Iranian regime remaining resilient and capable of self-restoration poses a future existential threat that cannot be accepted under any circumstances.

The Israeli government considers reaching an agreement without achieving the full military objectives of the war to be a disaster at the domestic political level. Netanyahu and his allies fear facing a 'day of reckoning' in the upcoming elections, where the specter of political downfall haunts the coalition leaders if the confrontation with Tehran is not decisively resolved.

The desire for continued fighting is not limited to the political level but extends to broad sectors of Israeli society. Opinion polls indicate that about 60% of Israelis support resuming military operations on the Iranian and Lebanese fronts to ensure long-term deterrence.

Former National Security Advisor, Meir Ben-Shabbat, affirmed that blowing up the negotiations without a settlement is a preferred option over any agreement that might be reached. Ben-Shabbat warned that extending the current truce might give the Iranians an opportunity to improve their terms and strengthen their leverage in future negotiation rounds.

Ben-Shabbat noted in his analysis that the three possibilities outlined since the first day of the truce remain strongly in play. These scenarios range from achieving a comprehensive agreement, extending the current ceasefire, or a full return to the square of war and direct confrontation.

Sources reported that the escalation in official statements and the reinforcement of military forces in the region do not necessarily mean a move towards war. However, these moves are used as pressure tools to influence the quality of gains and to formulate a narrative of resilience for the public on both negotiating sides.

Israeli analyses emphasize the need to prepare for the possibility of renewed fighting, especially after the revelation that Tehran retains missile capabilities described as dangerous. Observers believe that the ceasefire in Lebanon strengthened the link between the Lebanese and Iranian fronts, making any threat from one linked to the other.

A preferred scenario for some Israeli circles emerges, which involves changing the nature of military objectives if the war resumes under a Trump administration. This vision centers on shifting from striking military capabilities to targeting the functional capacity of the Iranian state, including energy and electricity facilities and bridges.

This proposed military approach aims to paralyze Iran as a state entity for a certain period, which could lead to a fracture in the regime's internal cohesion. Analysts suggest that these living pressures would erode the regime's legitimacy and lead opponents to the streets amid the government's inability to perform its duties.

Israel expresses grave concern about reports of a US proposal to establish an aid fund for Iran worth $250 billion. This proposal is viewed in Tel Aviv as a lifeline that Tehran eagerly awaits to restore its economy, which has been exhausted by sanctions and wars.

Israeli officials believe that the Iranian regime emerging with massive financial resources will not change its nuclear ambitions but will reinforce its conviction of the necessity of possessing nuclear weapons. They see the only solution as exercising unilateral pressure against Tehran while it is in its current state of weakness.

Media sources reported that the ceasefire in Lebanon was imposed on Israel by direct pressure from the new US administration. Despite official attempts to portray the agreement as the beginning of a historic peace, doubts still prevail within Israel's security and military establishment.

Military analyst Amos Harel agrees with assessments indicating that the collapse of the Islamabad negotiations is the ideal outcome for Netanyahu. Reports confirm that cabinet members are awaiting the opportune moment to complete what they describe as the mission of definitively destroying the capabilities of Hamas, Hezbollah, and Iran.

Renewing the war on Iran or blowing up negotiations without a settlement are preferred options for Israel over any agreement that might offer Tehran a lifeline.

Informed sources reported that the Pakistani capital, Islamabad, will witness intensive diplomatic activity, as US Vice President, De Vance, is scheduled to arrive by Tuesday morning. This visit comes within the framework of international efforts to hold direct talks with the Iranian side, aimed at drafting a final agreement that would lead to an end to the ongoing war.

In a related context, reports citing diplomatic sources indicated a state of procrastination in the Iranian position in recent hours. This procrastination, according to sources, is due to pressure exerted by the Revolutionary Guard on the negotiating delegation, with the aim of pushing it towards taking more radical and hardline positions on the terms of the anticipated agreement, which reflected a state of internal conflict over the ceiling of possible concessions.

Regarding the supreme leadership in Tehran, sources confirmed that the negotiating team remained in a state of anticipation for final directives from the Iranian Supreme Leader. The delegation had already received the 'green light' on Monday night, paving the way for the start of the crucial round of talks in Pakistan, amid international hopes that these moves would lead to a de-escalation of military tensions in the region.

The Iranian team awaited the green light from the Supreme Leader, and it came on Monday night.

What is happening in the West Bank is no longer merely a traditional occupation based on direct military control; rather, it has evolved into a more dangerous and cunning model, which can be described as a "cost-free occupation." This model allows the occupation to practice all forms of oppression—killing, arresting, confiscating land, and restricting people—without paying a real price, neither politically, nor security-wise, nor even economically. In this reality, the occupation moves with almost absolute freedom, raiding cities whenever it wishes, setting up checkpoints wherever it desires, and reshaping geography and demography according to its interests, while the Palestinian is left alone in a daily confrontation with a comprehensive system of oppression.Life in the West Bank is no longer measured by indicators of apparent stability, but by the accumulated suffocation in its small details: the worker prevented from reaching his job, the student detained at a checkpoint for hours, the farmer deprived of his land, and the family living under the threat of invasion at any moment… all these images reflect a complex reality, where oppression is no longer an exceptional event but has transformed into a permanent state. Economically, the ability to endure erodes with the narrowing of livelihoods, and socially, a state of anxiety and uncertainty deepens, while the sense of security dwindles to its lowest levels.However, the danger of this scene lies not only in the occupation's practices but in the political environment that allows it to continue in this comfortable manner. Here, the problematic role of the Authority emerges, which is supposed to be the first line of defense for society, but instead becomes part of an equation that eases the burden on the occupation, rather than strengthening the people's resilience. An administrative and security reality is established that ensures the stability of Israeli control at the lowest possible cost.This transformation makes the occupation more capable of expanding without organized resistance or real pressure, as it no longer needs permanent deployment or to bear the consequences of directly managing the population, as long as there are others performing this function on its behalf. Here lies the cruel paradox: a people living under the harshest forms of control, under a political structure incapable of protecting them, and even contributing—directly or indirectly—to the reproduction of this reality.The most dangerous aspect of "cost-free occupation" is that it does not merely perpetuate control but works to dismantle society from within, by exhausting it economically and psychologically, and undermining its trust in all existing frameworks. With the continuation of this model, confrontation becomes more complex, because the challenge is no longer just ending the occupation, but dismantling the structure that allows it to be comfortable and sustainable.In the West Bank, the question is no longer just how the occupation ends, but how it became so cost-free. Between an increasingly aggressive occupation and an Authority whose function and legitimacy are eroding, the Palestinian faces a harsh equation: either break this reality with all its complexities, or surrender to the gradual suffocation that does not kill all at once, but slowly consumes life until the last breath.

In response to the overthrow and assault on the symbol of Jesus Christ by an Israeli settler soldier, Jerusalem Archbishop Atallah Hanna described this behavior as carrying implications of racial hostility towards all that is Christian, Muslim, and Arab. He said: "Whoever assaults Christian symbols is the same one who assaults Islamic symbols, and he is the same one who kills people, and killing people is no less important than targeting religious symbols." Archbishop Atallah Hanna concluded by saying: "They do not believe in peace, nor in brotherhood, nor in partnership; rather, they are racist in their dealings with Christian clergy and with Islamic clergy. They are the ones who prevented prayer in Al-Aqsa Mosque and in the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. They are a foreign occupation that infringes upon our rights, our dignity, and our faith, but that will only increase our determination to remain and stand firm on the Holy Land." Israeli Zionist recklessness and extremism are an expression of "insolence," deluding themselves that oppression and force, and suppressing the other, are the way for the colony to survive and for its project to succeed on the land of Palestine, and from there extending to the Arab East with hegemony, dominance, and unilateralism. The leaders of the colonial project deluded themselves that they would be outside the conclusion of those who preceded them among the colonizers. They did not learn from the hegemony of Great Britain, whose sun never set on its colonies, and from France and its defeats in the colonies of West Africa, and the United States and its retreat from Vietnam and the Southeast Asian region, and the Soviet Union, which lost its political and value balance, leading to its defeat in Afghanistan. And so, the end of the Israeli Zionist expansionist colonial project, as it was unable to benefit from the agreements, understandings, and common denominators that were reached and signed, especially with the Palestinian people through the gradual, multi-stage Oslo Agreement, and they killed the Oslo partners, Yitzhak Rabin and Yasser Arafat, and the bet on the interim agreement failed, leading to the prevention of the two-state solution on the land of Palestine. The Zionist left failed and lost its power to act after the Labor Party had 42 seats in the Knesset, only to fall to 4 seats in the November 2022 elections. The path of the Israeli right, allied with extremist Jewish religious parties, has worked and continues to work assiduously and cumulatively to abolish the manifestations of the Oslo Agreement with the aim of eliminating the two-state solution and maintaining the Israeli solution as dominant: one Zionist Israeli state from the sea to the river, coupled with diligent work to make the land of Palestine expelling its people and original owners. The power of the extremist Israeli right and its repeated, continuous crimes against Palestinians first, and then against Lebanese and Syrians, and its infringement on the security and sovereignty of many Arab countries, has not granted it security, stability, or legitimacy, and here is the legitimacy of force, previously supported by Europe and later by America, dissipating among European peoples and the streets of their capitals and parliaments, and strongly among the youth of the American Democratic Party, and to a lesser extent among the youth of the Republican Party. A clear indication of the change and awareness sweeping through European and American societies, not to mention the peoples of Asia, Africa, and Latin America.

The least that can be said is that in about three weeks from now, the "Fatah" movement will hold its eighth conference, which comes several years late from its predecessor; years of necessity dictated by internal disputes, wars, and political storms that have swept over the movement's strongholds in the homeland and the diaspora.However, the holding of this year's conference, even if the circumstances and conditions that the movement and the homeland are going through are not ideal, constitutes an existential necessity, given that the keffiyeh worn by "Fatah", and which it has made a universal movement representing the last clusters of hope under which the oppressed, the sorrowful, the afflicted by the enormity of loss, and the pained and hungry in the tents seek refuge from "the gloom of the scene and the bad outcome."In times of crises, disasters, and wars, people suppress their anger and rationalize their criticism of national movements, but it will not be long before a flood of questions opens up that needs convincing answers, regarding the existential challenges facing the entire cause, due to the mistakes committed by these movements, and "Fatah", like all national action factions, bears a part of the responsibilities, but it is the largest part by virtue of its weight, past, present, and future, and by virtue of the hopes placed on the owner of the first shot.It is Fatah's right to be fascinated with itself, as the owner of the first bullet, but this fascination does not exempt it from its responsibility to ward off the last bullet from its people, a task that requires national reviews, not for the purpose of accountability and assigning responsibility, but rather to ensure that catastrophic mistakes are not repeated, to correct performance, and to solidify the ranks with a national unity free from any supra-Palestinian agendas.Today, "Fatah" faces historical responsibilities, as the safety valve for the cause, which obliges it to zero out internal differences, build bridges, and embrace the dissenting before the agreeing within it, and in all national action factions, and to help the struggling among those factions to recover from their stumbles, and for the comprehensive movement, above all, to be keen on turning over its soil, weeding its garden, and streamlining its performance, by opening windows for the sun to allow generations to compete, with respect and appreciation for the early pioneers who carried the movement on their shoulders and bled their wounds in its early years, and for the coming days to be like a "body shop" to fill the cracks in the roofs to prevent leakage from their ceilings… There is no option today for "Fatah"; it is either success, or success.

The idea that a prolonged conflict can be broken through a “calculated shock” is not new in political history, but it remains one of the most sensitive and complex ideas, as it always stands on the fine line between reshaping the regional order and sliding into wider chaos. In the case of chronic tension between the United States and Iran, we are facing an extended model of “conflict management” rather than resolution: decades of indirect deterrence, proxy wars, undeclared confrontations, and blurry red lines constantly tested without being fully crossed.

This pattern was not a product of weakness, but rather a result of precise strategic calculations. Confronting a country the size of Iran, with its geographical and demographic depth, its network of regional relations, and its ability to respond disproportionately across multiple arenas, made any thought of a comprehensive war an extremely costly option. Therefore, successive US administrations preferred a policy based on containment and deterrence, keeping the conflict within a relatively low level of escalation, through indirect economic and military tools, proxy wars, and constant tension management without reaching a breaking point.

However, this very “inconclusiveness” is not without cumulative cost. A state of continuous hostility without a comprehensive war gradually produces an environment of slow attrition: a permanent arms race, chronic regional tension, and an expansion in the maneuvering space for non-state actors who find in this ambiguity room for influence. Thus, the situation turns into an unstable equation: no one achieves a decisive victory, but everyone loses stability.

From this perspective, the shift being discussed, especially in the context of more impulsive policies attributed to the Donald Trump administration, can be understood as an attempt to break this entrenched pattern. The idea here is not to go to a comprehensive war, but to raise the level of friction to a degree that forces both parties to directly test the limits of power. Instead of calculations remaining theoretical or based on uncertain estimates, there becomes practical friction, even if limited, revealing each party's ability to withstand, respond, and impose a threat ceiling.

This shift cannot be understood solely as escalation, but also as a process of managing escalation itself. What emerged in this context was the ability of the United States, as the main active power, to keep the war within “controlled” limits and prevent it from spiraling into a comprehensive war. At the same time, Iran showed equally important behavior: precisely calculated responses, controlled escalation, and avoidance of sliding into reckless reactions despite pressures and escalatory statements. This mutual behavior was not merely self-restraint, but a result of a practical mutual understanding of the danger of losing control.

More importantly, this interaction produced something akin to “unwritten rules of engagement” that formed during the testing itself, not before. And here a pivotal point emerged: that the war or friction did not get out of control, but rather transformed into a space for redefining the limits of possible action. In this sense, Iran was no longer merely a targeted or contained party, but became a regional actor whose responses were precisely calculated, giving it the position of an “unignorable peer” without implying recklessness or slippage. In return, this dynamic reshaped Washington's own calculations, to deal with Iran as a power whose ability to influence and deter cannot be underestimated.

Within this framework, the United States also played an additional role that was not limited to direct confrontation, but also to regulating the regional rhythm, including managing Israel's behavior and preventing its slide into uncalculated escalation. This role made Washington not only a party to the conflict, but also a regulator of the limits of its escalation, thereby maintaining the ability to control its overall trajectory.

This “forced clarity” that arose from mutual testing reshaped the logic of deterrence itself. Instead of being based on assumptions, it became based on actual experience. Each party became more precisely aware of the other's limits: what can be endured, what can be responded to, and what can lead to a comprehensive escalation. Here, ambiguity turns into clarity, but it is a clarity fraught with risks, because it produces stability based on experience, not on trust.

In this context, drawing an analogy to the post-1973 October War experience between Egypt and Israel becomes analytically tempting. Before that war, there was a pattern of attrition and unresolved hostility. But the war itself broke the stalemate, redefined the balance of power, and later paved the way for the Camp David Accords, which established a relatively stable system of relations, even if it remained cold in nature. However, the fundamental difference is that the US-Iranian situation is more complex, because it is multi-arena, including the Gulf, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and maritime passages, in addition to non-state actors capable of escalating beyond the direct control of states.

Despite these differences, the scenario that logically emerges in this analysis is the transition from a managed conflict to a tested conflict, and then to a stable system of mutual deterrence. In this system, traditional peace is not achieved, but implicit rules are formed: clear red lines, non-overlapping spheres of influence, and communication channels, even informal ones, to avoid misunderstanding. Over time, this could lead to an “extended cold peace,” where trust is absent, but the probabilities of comprehensive war are reduced.

However, this path cannot be considered inevitable. There are structural risks that could return it to chaos: miscalculation that could turn limited friction into widespread escalation, the autonomy of proxies who could drag parties into unintended confrontations, internal political changes that could redefine strategic calculations, and finally, a breakdown of deterrence if any party feels that the other has lost the ability or will to respond.

In the end, what is forming is not just a military or political confrontation, but a transitional moment in the nature of the regional order itself: from a long hostility managed by ambiguity, to a hostility tested by friction, and from hypothetical deterrence to experienced deterrence. If this transformation succeeds in establishing its rules, it could lead to long-term stability based on managing power instead of denying it. If it fails, breaking the pattern could become the beginning of a new and more complex cycle of repeated escalation.

In this sense, the essence of the conflict lies not only in the balance of power, but in the ability to transform the test of power itself into a structure of stability, rather than it becoming a prelude to a long-term unraveling.

Washington – Said Arikat – 21/4/2026

News Analysis

The traditional relationship between the American Democratic Party and Israel is undergoing a rapid transformation, after decades of being one of the entrenched certainties in American politics. Forty out of 47 Democratic senators recently voted in favor of halting an arms deal to Israel, a move considered the most significant yet in the decline of the old consensus based on unconditional support.

This shift does not merely reflect a fleeting disagreement over Benjamin Netanyahu's government, but rather indicates a deeper change in the political mood within the Democratic base, where broad segments of voters now view the war in Gaza as a pivotal moment that has led to a re-evaluation of Israel's image and its regional role, as well as the limits of American support for it.

Recent polls show that about 80 percent of Democrats or those leaning towards them hold a negative view of Israel, compared to a much lower percentage a few years ago. This means that Democratic politicians can no longer ignore their electoral base, especially with the upcoming presidential elections approaching.

This shift has extended to figures from swing states and presidential hopefuls, such as Mark Kelly, Ruben Gallego, Jon Ossoff, and Elissa Slotkin, confirming that the issue is no longer confined to the progressive wing, but has become a broader trend within the party.

In contrast, party leaders, such as Chuck Schumer, are still trying to maintain a middle ground: criticizing Netanyahu and his policies, while adhering to Israel as a strategic ally. However, this equation seems more difficult as the gap between leadership and the base widens.

Three Stages of Transformation

The rift began during Barack Obama's tenure, when disagreement with Netanyahu escalated over settlements and the Iranian nuclear deal. Then came the Gaza war after the October 7 attacks, making Israel a daily topic in the media and on social media platforms, where initial feelings of sympathy turned into widespread anger due to the scale of destruction and human losses.

As for the third stage, it came with the return of Donald Trump and the escalation of confrontation with Iran, as many Democrats linked Netanyahu and Trump, which deepened the aversion to Israel among segments that were previously more inclined to support it.

Where is the Party Heading?

Within the Democratic Party today, there are three main trends: the first wants to impose conditions on military aid, the second calls for a complete halt to direct military funding, and the third goes further by demanding political and economic sanctions similar to those imposed on the apartheid regime in South Africa.

In contrast, there is a liberal Zionist current that still sees the necessity of maintaining the American-Israeli alliance, but after reformulating it and linking it to a political solution for the Palestinian issue. As for the more leftist current, it believes that the problem is structural, and that disengagement between Washington and Tel Aviv has become a strategic and moral necessity.

The Democratic shift towards Israel is not only due to Gaza, but also to a demographic and cultural change within the American party itself. Younger generations are more sensitive to issues of justice and human rights, and less connected to traditional Cold War narratives. Moreover, the party's ethnic and religious diversity has made its view of the Middle East less biased towards the old vision. Therefore, what is happening is not a temporary wave of anger, but a long-term reshaping of the party's foreign identity, whose effects will appear in the upcoming elections and American strategic decision-making.

The major dilemma facing Israel is that losing the Democratic Party is more dangerous than any temporary disagreement with a Republican or Democratic administration. The relationship with Washington has always been based on bipartisan consensus, not on the mood of a single administration. If Israel becomes a partisan issue associated only with Republicans, it loses one of its most important diplomatic strengths. This explains the growing concern within its supportive circles in the United States, because politicizing the relationship threatens its historical sustainability in the long run.

As for Arabs and Palestinians, this shift does not necessarily mean an imminent American upheaval in policies. American institutions, influential lobbies, and congressional balances still impose clear limits on any radical change. But it opens a new political window that can be built upon through a rational and organized discourse that addresses American society in the language of rights and interests. Major changes often begin with a shift in public opinion, then gradually move to institutions and decision-makers.

In conclusion, Israel is no longer a settled issue for Democrats as it once was, but has become an open and contentious file. If the party returns to the White House in 2028, it may find itself forced to make unprecedented decisions regarding the future of this historic alliance.

In mid-September 2024, the Lebanese arena witnessed one of the most complex intelligence operations, where more than three thousand 'pager' communication devices belonging to Hezbollah elements were detonated. Data revealed that the operation was carried out through a precise penetration of the supply chain, planting explosive materials that were activated simultaneously, resulting in thousands injured and dozens killed at a precise timing.

Operations did not stop there; they were followed by the assassination of Hezbollah's Secretary-General, Hassan Nasrallah, in a fortified underground facility. Military sources used special bombs capable of penetrating reinforced concrete layers up to eight stories deep, based on accurate intelligence that enabled the precise identification of the leadership meeting location.

In the context of external operations, the 'Epic Fury' operation targeting the Iranian interior stood out, where Unit 8200 and the Mossad agency relied on years of meticulous monitoring of leaders' lifestyles. This monitoring included hacking traffic cameras and tracking personal guards' schedules, leading to the use of 'Sparrow' missiles capable of hitting very small targets from vast distances.

These operations demonstrate the occupation's possession of a superior technological system and the ability to reach complex targets underground and in fortified capitals. However, a major paradox emerges when the scene shifts to the Palestinian territories, where this alleged 'genius' disappears, replaced by a scorched-earth policy and indiscriminate destruction of residential neighborhoods.

Field statistics indicate that about 85% of the victims of the aggression on Gaza are civilians, with entire residential blocks being wiped out under the pretext of targeting a single fighter. This disparity raises fundamental questions about why the technical accuracy that the occupation boasts about abroad is absent when it comes to the Palestinian interior.

In the West Bank, the same scene is repeated, where officials claim inability to identify resistance fighters, which prompts them to use excessive force and destroy infrastructure. This claim completely contradicts the capabilities shown by the occupation in pursuing its adversaries across continents and penetrating the most complex security systems in the region.

This contradiction reveals a premeditated intention to carry out a systematic genocide against the Palestinian people, aiming to make the land an uninhabitable environment. The real goal is not intelligence incompetence, but the desire to displace Palestinians and empty the land through the exercise of extreme violence and collective intimidation.

Testimonies from within the Israeli security establishment, such as Sima Shine's statements, confirm that success in using force generates an appetite for further expansion and oppression. Accordingly, Palestinian resistance is used as a continuous pretext to implement expansionist agendas, proving that the issue is essentially about political will, not technical capability.

It is not a matter of capability, but essentially a matter of will and intent to carry out genocide.

Contemporary wars witness an intensive use of religious discourse by political leaders to justify policies of enslavement or extermination, where religion is inserted into conflicts primarily aimed at controlling wealth. Since the events of October 7, 2023, a clear trend has emerged among Benjamin Netanyahu and American military officials to invoke texts from ancient books to support their military might, despite the interpretations of falsification and distortion that these texts are subjected to, serving war agendas.

In a striking incident that reflects the shallowness of religious culture versus cinematic tyranny, US Secretary of War 'Pete Hegseth' read a text he attributed to the 'Book of Ezekiel' during a religious conference at the Pentagon, speaking with great emotion about the necessity of fighting the enemy and expelling them from their land. However, the surprise was that the mentioned text was not biblical, but a famous excerpt from the American action film 'Pulp Fiction,' which the film's hero Samuel Jackson used to recite decades ago.

It seems that officials in the American administration, influenced by Hollywood culture, have begun to confuse cinematic narratives with religious scriptures, as these individuals have not actually read the books of Ezekiel or Isaiah, which speak of building the temple. Instead, they appear as young men enamored with movies, memorizing the dialogues of their heroes and invoking them in critical political and military contexts, which reflects a dangerous overlap between art, reality, and religion in the mindset of decision-makers.

This association with acting is not new to the White House, as presidents who mastered the art, such as Ronald Reagan, or sought it, such as Donald Trump, who now contents himself with giving 'extra' roles to his ministers in real wars he wages across continents, have entered it. This trend has caused artistic matters to intertwine with religion, to the extent that some even contend with supreme religious authorities like the Pope, believing that their own vision is the absolute truth and anything else is error.

What Islamic holy sites in noble Jerusalem are subjected to, in terms of abuse and falsification of heritage, is a direct result of chronic distortion in extremist religious readings, which parallels American transgressions affecting all humanity. The painful irony lies in the existence of a preserved Quran that does not find its way to full application by its followers, while others cling to distorted and ideologized texts and apply them strictly to achieve their political goals.

What is disheartening is that we have a preserved, undistorted Quran and we do not apply it, while they have distorted books, with their premeditation and determination, and they apply them.