In the homes of Palestinians in occupied Jerusalem, privacy is no longer a personal matter, but has become subject to scrutiny and examination by the occupying authorities, whose institutional procedures have even extended to the bedrooms, refrigerators, and trash cans of Jerusalemites in their homes. The entity that violates this privacy is often the 'National Insurance Institute,' which organizes surprise field visits to ensure that the targeted family's 'center of life' is the city of Jerusalem. In these cases, Jerusalemites have no choice but to open their doors.

The 'center of life' is a term used by the occupation's interior ministry and the Israeli insurance institution to ascertain whether the city of Jerusalem, specifically the areas within the municipal boundaries, is the primary place of residence for the Jerusalemite citizen. Based on this, it is decided whether they are entitled to remain there and obtain some of their rights, including family reunification, registering children in the population registry, or receiving insurance benefits. This procedure adds a heavy layer of continuous surveillance and pressure on residents of a city living under the weight of policies targeting their existence and stability.

Surprise visits are often organized for mixed couples, where one spouse holds a Jerusalem ID and the other a West Bank ID. They may also be organized for Jerusalemite couples whose place of residence the Ministry of Interior suspects, assuming they live outside Jerusalem. Thus, through field teams, it seeks to prove this to revoke their residency rights. Field investigators commit violations described by human rights activists as blatant, deliberately opening refrigerators, inspecting trash cans, and checking water and electricity meters.

Jerusalemite families are forced to comply with these procedures in the hope of successfully registering their children and securing their residency, or obtaining family reunification. Human rights sources reported that procedures have changed significantly after the war in October 2023, where the Ministry of Interior and the insurance institution exerted excessive pressure, to the extent that investigators entered bedrooms, searched closets, and rummaged through personal belongings.

In a testimony by Rami Saleh, director of the Jerusalem Center for Legal Aid and Human Rights, he mentioned a case where an investigator entered a home and placed a tissue under the sleeping pillow of the family's daughter. He returned a week later and deduced that she was not living in the house because she had not removed the tissue, which put her at risk of residency revocation. The center also monitored the use of modern technological means, where investigators contact Jerusalemites via 'WhatsApp' and ask them to immediately open their camera or send their geographical location to confirm their presence in Jerusalem at night.

Official departments are not content with questioning residency; the matter has extended to the parentage of children. The number of cases in which the Ministry of Interior requests a DNA test to prove the maternity and paternity of parents to their children as a condition for registration has increased. Attorney Mohammed Shehabi from the Community Work Center confirmed that this test has become a significant psychological and financial burden, in addition to the Interior Ministry's request to present the 'Rav-Kav' public transportation card to monitor the movements of Jerusalemites and ensure they do not commute daily to West Bank cities.

The Jerusalemite finds himself in a cage of accusation, where investigators arrive with a clear view that the citizen is under suspicion and must prove otherwise.

What happened yesterday morning, Wednesday, east of Gaza City, remains shrouded in mystery, amidst the occupation state's claim of an Israeli officer being injured, and the subsequent violent military response according to the Israeli narrative, which resulted in the death of approximately 18 martyrs. This recurring scene, in its various forms, cannot be separated from the broader context of what is happening in the Gaza Strip, nor from the nature of Israeli policy followed since the beginning of the war until today. What the occupation state is doing cannot be summarized as individual violations or “field errors,” but rather it is an organized approach based on the use of excessive force, imposing security realities by force, and managing escalation as an internal political tool. The first phase of the war, which lasted for more than a hundred days, witnessed military operations that claimed the lives of more than 450 Palestinians, before the toll later escalated to hundreds of martyrs, in the absence of any real accountability or actual commitment to announced agreements. This policy is likely to continue, and even escalate, as the occupation state seeks to impose permanent security control over the Gaza Strip, and create a “new reality” based on daily intervention, and imposing renewed conditions under the pretext of completing what it calls “absolute victory.” This is consistent with the prevailing general mood within Israel, where the extremist popular and official environment towards Gaza provides a comfortable climate for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and serves his political goals, especially with the approaching election year of 2026, where Gaza's fate is likely to become a central card in his campaign, either through military escalation or through employing security rhetoric to rally public opinion, in the face of an equally extremist opposition that accuses him of failure and not achieving the war's objectives. One of the central complexities in the current scene lies in the wide gap between the demands of Israel and the United States in the second phase, and what Hamas is actually prepared to offer, a gap that seems unbridgeable. Netanyahu is not merely proposing the disarmament of Hamas, but rather seeks a comprehensive dismantling of its military, authoritative, and organizational capabilities, including its formal and informal structures and its municipal and social networks, making reconstruction a political and security condition, not a humanitarian path. In this context, the fundamental contradiction in his discourse is evident, as he speaks of the success of the second phase as a transition to governance arrangements, international guarantees, and perhaps a role for the Palestinian Authority, while his practical discourse is based on military decisiveness and the rejection of any path from which a political horizon for the Gaza Strip can be inferred, thus keeping the war open in various forms. However, the seriousness of the situation is not limited to Israeli policy alone, but extends to the direct repercussions on Palestinians, who today face an open humanitarian catastrophe, intertwined with famine, health collapse, and widespread destruction, along with threats of forced displacement and the forceful redrawing of the demographic map. The continued commission of crimes by the occupation, and the use of starvation and humanitarian pressure as a weapon, aims in essence to break Palestinian society, and push it towards coercive choices, foremost among them displacement or surrender to imposed realities. In this context, a Palestinian responsibility that cannot be ignored emerges. Dealing with Israeli policy based on escalation and crimes requires a high degree of political caution, and avoiding falling into the trap that the occupation seeks to set, which is to drag Gaza into calculated rounds of escalation that serve its security and electoral agenda. This imposes on Hamas, as an active party in the scene, to balance the requirements of steadfastness and protecting society, with thwarting the occupation's opportunity to use any pretext to accumulate blood and destruction. Moreover, the return of the National Committee for the Administration of Gaza constitutes a real test of the Palestinian ability to seize the opportunity, and not to fail it, whether through internal conflicts or narrow factional calculations. The success of this committee is not only related to the administrative dimension, but also to its ability to contribute to alleviating the humanitarian catastrophe, organizing aid, restoring a minimum level of civilian life, and presenting a responsible Palestinian model that deprives the occupation of pretexts of “chaos” and “vacuum.” Palestinians saving themselves from the rolling catastrophe does not mean adapting to the occupation or accepting its dictates, but rather requires building a rational national stance, consciously managing the conflict, prioritizing the protection of human beings, and preventing Gaza from being turned into an open arena for Israeli power experiments. The battle today is no longer just on the ground, but on society, and on the ability to political and humanitarian steadfastness in the face of a project based on slow genocide and forced displacement. Gaza stands at a dangerous crossroads: either a slide into more blood and destruction according to the rhythm imposed by the occupation, or a difficult attempt to seize a margin of national salvation that protects what remains of Palestinian society, and prevents the humanitarian catastrophe from becoming a permanent fate.

Lebanese journalist Abdullah Qamh revealed that Lebanese security agencies are holding an individual involved in the assassination attempt on Hezbollah Secretary-General Hassan Nasrallah, which was carried out by Israel last September.

Qamh explained in a televised interview that investigations with the detainee at the General Directorate of General Security showed his indirect involvement with the Israeli side, noting that he does not belong to the Shiite community. The detainee made confessions described as extremely dangerous, related to his activities during the 'Support Battle' period in Beirut's Dahiyeh.

According to the information revealed, the detainee frequented certain points in Dahiyeh as part of a group of individuals, carrying a small technical device that was later found to be designed to determine the distance and depth between the ground surface and Hezbollah's underground military installations and tunnels.

The Lebanese journalist indicated that these technical data enabled the Israeli Air Force to determine the type of bunker-buster bombs and the required weight to use them in airstrikes to ensure the destruction of those installations. The confessions also confirmed that the detainee visited the area where the party's central headquarters in Dahiyeh is located, which witnessed the assassination operation.

It is worth noting that Israel carried out the assassination operation against Nasrallah on September 27, 2024, under the name 'New Order,' using 'F-35' aircraft with heavy bombs weighing more than two thousand pounds, which led to the complete destruction of six residential buildings and targeting the headquarters beneath them.

This device was determining the depth between the ground surface and the underground installations, and this matter served the Israelis so they would know what bombs they needed to use.

Dmitry Medvedev, Deputy Chairman of the Russian Security Council, affirmed that Washington's attempt to justify its military actions by referring to the Russian military operation is futile, emphasizing that the operation is not a colonial war but aims to defend Russian citizens.

Medvedev stated that the United States' attempt to justify its military moves by saying that 'others are doing it,' referring to Russia, is a failed attempt. He clarified that his country is protecting its citizens and subjects during the operation taking place on what he described as its 'historical lands.'

The Russian official indicated that the protection of citizens came due to the oppression of a neighboring state, considering the legitimacy of its authorities to be highly questionable, noting that these citizens held a legal referendum and chose to join the Russian Federation.

Medvedev added: 'By its nature, the Russian military operation is not a colonial war, but an act of self-defense. Unfortunately, the social composition of the participants in this conflict allows us to describe it as a transformed form of civil war, born from the ignominious end of the Soviet Union.'

He concluded his statements by indicating that Washington's military activity in areas such as Venezuela, Iran, or Greenland shows no similar signs to what Russia is doing to protect its citizens and historical lands, in his words.

The Russian military operation is not a colonial war, but an act of self-defense and a transformed form of civil war.

The Australian government has avoided responding to calls for the arrest of Israeli President Isaac Herzog during his upcoming visit to the country, scheduled to begin next Monday and last four days, to offer condolences to the victims of the mass shooting incident that targeted the 'Hanukkah' festival at Bondi Beach in Sydney last December, which resulted in the deaths of 15 people.

This visit comes amidst widespread human rights controversy, as a United Nations committee reported in 2025 that Herzog 'incited genocide' through statements in which he considered Palestinians an 'entire nation' responsible for the October 7 attacks, which Israel categorically rejected, describing the report as 'false and misleading'.

For his part, human rights lawyer and member of the UN investigative committee, Chris Sidoti, called on Australian authorities to arrest Herzog upon his arrival, considering Prime Minister Anthony Albanese's invitation to him a 'ridiculous mistake' that should be retracted, while emphasizing the necessity of legal accountability based on international reports.

In an official response, Australian Foreign Minister Penny Wong clarified that the invitation came in response to the wishes of the Australian Jewish community, and aims to honor the victims of the Bondi attack and provide support to the community in the face of what she described as the 'worst antisemitic attack' witnessed on Australian soil.

Concurrently, activists supporting the Palestinian cause announced widespread protests across Australia rejecting the visit, while Sydney police refused to grant permits for demonstrations based on new security powers, and federal police revealed that charges had been laid against a young man who threatened to kill a foreign head of state online.

Sources reported that security measures have been unprecedentedly tightened around the sites the Israeli president will visit, amidst a sharp political and public division over the implications of this visit for Australia's international human rights obligations.

He must be arrested if he comes... The decision to invite him was wrong and should be canceled before it's too late.

In a highly turbulent international moment, the return of US President Donald Trump to the idea of annexing Greenland, this time not as a real estate deal as in 2019, but as an open option that could include the use of military force, opened one of the most dangerous rifts in the transatlantic relationship since the end of World War II, especially since the threat came hours after a US military operation in Venezuela, which led Europeans to interpret the message as a structural shift in American behavior, not just a fleeting rhetorical maneuver. The American position, expressed by the White House on January 7, 2026, when it announced the study of multiple options for acquiring Greenland under the pretext of national security, put NATO before a real existential test, as for the first time a central party in the alliance threatened to use force against territory belonging to a member state, which transformed the discussion from a political dispute into a direct threat to the security structure on which NATO has been based for more than seven decades. Attempts at mitigation led by US Secretary of State Marco Rubio, by saying that Trump prefers purchase over invasion, did not convince European capitals, because merely not ruling out the military option is enough to undermine trust, especially when these statements are accompanied by American leaks talking about a strategic priority for Greenland in confronting adversaries in the Arctic, and with discussions within the Pentagon about potential military scenarios. The European response was swift and gradual, from the secret and urgent meeting of the Danish Parliament, to the joint Scandinavian statement that stressed that Greenland is not an open international file but an issue concerning Denmark and the island's people exclusively, leading to the broader European position signed by seven major countries, confirming that Greenland belongs to its people and that any infringement on its sovereignty represents a clear violation of the United Nations Charter and the principles of border integrity. It is noteworthy that this European position was not directed against the United States as a traditional adversary, but came laden with deep concern that Washington itself might become a factor in the disintegration of the Western system it had led for decades, which was clearly expressed by the warnings of Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen that American control over Greenland could mean the end of NATO in its current form. In this context, Trump's security and economic arguments do not seem convincing even within Western circles, as Greenland is already covered by the alliance's defense umbrella, and the US military presence there has been in place for years, as for the natural resources being promoted, experts agree that they are difficult to extract and of low economic viability, which makes the real motive closer to the logic of power and political symbolism, and Trump's desire to set a historical precedent as a president who expanded the borders of the United States by force or by threat and bullying language. But beyond Greenland itself, lies the deeper transformation revealed by this crisis, which is the transition of the United States under Trump from leading the Western alliance to blackmailing it, and from defending international law to using it selectively, which led European commentators to consider Washington an ideological and geopolitical adversary, no less dangerous than Russia or China, especially since Europe finds itself besieged by simultaneous pressures, a Russian hybrid war from the East, Chinese economic and technological pressure from within, and a direct American threat from the supposed ally. European diplomatic estimates believe that the core of the conflict is not about a remote island inhabited by fifty-six thousand people, but about a broader struggle over the shape of the international system, where the new American strategy views Europe as a regulatory, legal, and commercial power capable of restricting American hegemony, whether through technology legislation or by strengthening the role of the Euro as a currency competing with the dollar. Although opinion polls in Greenland itself show widespread popular rejection of any American annexation, and a preference for a gradual path to independence from Denmark while maintaining financial support, this voice does not seem present in American calculations, which treat the island as a geopolitical location, not a society with political will. In conclusion, we may not witness an actual invasion of Greenland, as observers suggest, as it seems that Trump is using military threat as a negotiating tool to impose concessions, whether in the form of additional bases or economic and security agreements, but the political price of this strategy could be high, because merely threatening to use force within NATO is enough to create cracks that are difficult to repair, and raises an existential question for Europe and the world: Is the Atlantic Alliance still a framework for collective security, or has it become a hostage to a unilateral tendency that recognizes only the logic of force? Greenland, at this moment, is no longer an icy island far from the center of the world, but has become a mirror reflecting the crisis of the Western system itself, between eroding international law, shaking alliances, and a superpower that no longer sees its allies as partners, but as bargaining chips that can be used whenever America's interests come first.

In this article, we discuss settlement in the West Bank, as Israel races against time to impose facts on the ground in the West Bank, which was divided under the 1993 Oslo Accords into three areas (A, B, and C). Area "A" represents 18% of the West Bank's area, Area "B" 20%, and Area "C" approximately 62%. However, Israel has not accepted this equation for dividing the West Bank, which is controlled by two states. The first is the occupying state, represented by the government that legislates laws to control the West Bank through the Israeli army, which practices the most heinous forms of repressive and occupying practices against the Palestinian people. The second state is that of the settlers, who steal land, commit murder, and carry out continuous and escalating attacks against the Palestinian people. This is what the article seeks to discuss and address in detail. In 2021, I reviewed a book titled "Israeli Settlement in the Occupied Arab Territories," and I did not know the author's name at the time, but I expected the book to be by a Palestinian doctor. However, when the book was published internationally in 2022, I was surprised to find that the book was by Dr. Issa Al-Nazzal, an Iraqi. The book discusses the establishment of what is called the "State of Israel" on the land of Palestine in 1948, and states that Israel built many settlements to accommodate Jews. Israel did not stop there, but continued to aspire to occupy more Arab lands, and for that purpose, it launched many wars against its Arab surroundings, during which it managed to quadruple its area at the expense of Arab countries. It then proceeded to build settlements on those lands. The book refutes settlement and addresses each settlement, and also touched upon Israel's settlement policy towards Palestine, mentioning that settlement in Palestine and even in Arab countries was supported by America, which recently, through its president Donald Trump, recognized Jerusalem as the eternal capital of Israel, and the Golan as "Israeli" land. Moreover, in 2020, it presented the Palestinians with a distorted map of the West Bank, cutting off the fertile Jordan Valley and about half of the remaining West Bank for Israel's benefit. In this regard, we can touch upon the stages of building a settlement in the West Bank. The construction process is simpler than anyone in the world can imagine. Settlement begins when a settler or a group of settlers, fewer than the fingers on one hand, are impressed by a mountain in the West Bank. They raise the Israeli flag on it, and on their second visit, they build a canvas shack, and their visits to the mountain continue. Then they place a large iron menorah, then build some zinc houses, and begin to attract groups of settlers to control the area. The process of paving roads and transporting caravans and prefabricated houses to the outpost begins. After that, the Israeli government makes the decision to legalize the outpost to become a legitimate settlement under occupation law. The outpost, which has become a settlement, will not stop there. Instead, a single settler comes to control an area of thousands of dunams under the name of "pastoral settlement," and the army and settlers begin to prevent citizens from accessing their lands and impose a security zone that Palestinians are prohibited from approaching, which may reach the outskirts of Palestinian villages and cities, as happened in Burqa Nablus, Sebastia, Silat ad-Dhahr, Qaryut, Burqa Ram, al-Mughayyir, Turmus Ayya, and all areas where settlements are established. For your information, the number of settlements in the West Bank has reached more than 200 settlements and more than 260 outposts, and dozens of "pastoral settlements." A new type of settlement has been invented, following "pastoral settlement," which is "agricultural settlement," where settlers cultivate stolen Palestinian land, and even agricultural tractors are stolen from citizens, as are plowing tools, seeds, trees, and diesel from gas stations, as happened at the Asira al-Shamaliya station. The lives of settlers are based on stealing from citizens, killing Palestinian livestock, and expelling Bedouin communities and farmers from their grazing areas, as happened in the Jordan Valley, Khirbet Yanun, and other areas. Palestinian heritage, including livestock farming, riding donkeys and horses, and everything related to Palestinian national heritage, has been stolen. Water springs have also been seized, as happened in Qaryut, Al-Auja, and many areas, and today their eyes are on the Tubas area to prevent Palestinians from farming, as this area is considered the agricultural basket of Palestine. At the same time, Israel and the settlers are waging a war of olive tree eradication, and targeting Area "C," which includes 62% of the West Bank's area, and has 1% of the citizens, as Israel works day and night to completely empty it of its inhabitants. In the same vein, Israel is carving out and expanding settlement roads that devour Palestinian lands and steal thousands of dunams in the West Bank, and geographically and topographically engineering the West Bank by imposing a fait accompli policy, and working to connect settlements with each other, which have become large cities with residential towers and much larger communities than Palestinian cities, and even the construction has become similar to Palestinian construction, as is happening in the settlement of Alieh, where a series of towers and communities similar to the city of Nablus have been built. Israel has not stopped at this level of settlement, but rather confiscates land for security and military reasons, and then evacuates military camps and hands them over to settlers, as Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich said on his "X" account that the Israeli army is evacuating its camps in the Beit El settlement northeast of Al-Bireh in the central West Bank, which will allow the construction of 1,200 settlement units and double the area of the settlement, and this settlement is considered in the heart of Ramallah, the virtual Palestinian political capital. In the same vein, Israel follows a demolition policy in Area "C" according to documentation by the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, for the period between January 1, 2010, and January 1, 2025, approximately 8,765 Palestinian structures were demolished in Area "C," most of them under the pretext of building without a permit, including 3,107 agricultural structures, 2,025 inhabited homes, and about 700 uninhabited homes. The demolitions in Area "C" resulted in the displacement of nearly 10,000 Palestinians, and affected about 192,548 others. The demolitions even reached the outskirts of Palestinian cities, as happened and is happening in Nablus, Al-Bireh, Hebron, and many governorates, in addition to demolitions in the three Palestinian refugee camps (Nour Shams, Tulkarm Camp, and Jenin Camp), where half of the camps were demolished, 50,000 Palestinian citizens were displaced, and the camps were topographically engineered in an occupying manner. Former Minister Avigdor Kahalani called for "removing all refugee camps and leveling them to the ground." In addition to the continuous destruction in the Palestinian governorates, as happened in Tubas and Qabatiya, and the daily incursions into the heart of the governorates, disrupting life, daily arrests, and daily killings. Settlers killed 38 Palestinian citizens in 27 months, and the Israeli army killed more than "1,100 Palestinian citizens," and more than 40,000 attacks were carried out against citizens and property. The West Bank is subjected to a silent war of extermination at all levels; all that the occupying state and the state of the settlers are doing aims to resolve the conflict, extend sovereignty, and then annex the West Bank and confine the Palestinian presence only to the specific population centers in Area "A," which is less than 20% of the West Bank's area, which is not enough for citizens' cars. This plan leaves less than 3% of historical Palestine for Palestinians, and all of this contributes to pressuring the Palestinian people to emigrate, and all of this is done with American support and under suspicious Arab silence. It seems that Trump told them to annex the West Bank through decisive action, without announcing it at this time until the political opportunity arises to announce the media annexation. After US President Donald Trump's statement where he said, "I will not allow Israel to annex the West Bank," and added, "That will not happen," Israel escalated confiscation operations, and the Jordan Valley and Tubas governorate were at the forefront of these confiscations, where thousands of dunams were confiscated in the Jordan Valley as well as the Tubas area for a wall that chokes Tubas and controls water wells and fertile agricultural lands. This is what Smotrich announced from Ras al-Ain in Al-Auja in the northern Jordan Valley, where he saluted the settler herds, and told them, "I see the results of your wonderful work. We have returned to the water wells and controlled all these areas, and it is enjoyable to wander here. You are heroes, continue." After that, Israel launched a war to eradicate olive trees and announced the establishment of 19 new settlements in the West Bank, and the return of settlement to the northern settlements in the West Bank, and began work in the Sanur settlement and announced the confiscation of thousands of dunams to establish a bypass road to connect the northern West Bank settlements and confiscate the plains, Al-Masoudiya, and Al-Burj areas from the lands of Burqa and Sebastia under the pretext of tourist confiscation, and this is in the northern West Bank. In addition to confiscation in Hebron, Jericho, Jerusalem, Salfit, and all governorates of the West Bank, and the legalization of 69 outposts in the West Bank, all under the umbrella that Trump does not allow the annexation of the West Bank, and it seems that Trump told them to annex the West Bank through decisive action, without announcing it at this time until the political opportunity arises to announce the media annexation, and this demonstrates the American position on the establishment and recognition of a Palestinian state, as America has not recognized the state of Palestine as Western countries recognized it several months ago; and perhaps Smotrich's statement confirms this joint American-Israeli position when he said: "We are stopping the establishment of a terrorist Palestinian state on the ground, we will continue to develop, build, and settle in the land of our ancestors, believing in the righteousness of our path." This is an integrated strategy through which Israel seeks to enshrine what is called "silent annexation" that devours the West Bank. *Palestinian writer and researcher specializing in ideological movements.

All eyes, news, and estimations are directed towards Istanbul, where last-minute negotiations begin and end on Friday. The question here is: Are we facing de-escalation or justification? To answer this question, we must take into account the factors that directly affect de-escalation on one hand, and those that seek justification on the other. Here, I point out that the developments sweeping the region with American mobilizations and Israeli preparations relate to two axioms known to every political science specialist: First, it has become known to everyone that the direction in the Trumpian and global Zionist and Israeli mindset is settled in terms of the strategic and geopolitical view of Iran, and this view is summarized as follows: "There is no place for a resistant Iran, an ally of the Chinese giant and the Russian bear, in the drawn plan for the West Asia and North Africa region"; and second, it relates to the concept of resolving outstanding issues, especially in "Lebanon" and "Gaza," and that this is not possible without cutting off the head "Iran" or at least completely subjugating it to American will and hegemony and its acceptance of the Israeli captain as the primary influencer in the region. Let's return to what we mentioned above about the concepts of de-escalation and justification and the factors influencing each, where we find that there are internal and external factors that strongly impose themselves on the two concepts above, almost to the point of equality, but they lean somewhat in favor of justification due to the nature of President "Trump's" personality, which is indivisible except by one, and grammatically indeclinable. The external de-escalation factors are primarily based on the apprehension of regional countries allied with Washington, which firmly believe that they will be involved in a war they do not want, a war of total loss, and will achieve nothing but further submission to Israeli influence, meaning that the margin of maneuver in the relationship with the American ally will shrink to zero. Therefore, these countries are looking for a way out to stop the rush towards the point of no return. Here, the "Turkish" negotiation plan emerged through the concept of discussing each file separately, starting first with the nuclear issue and presenting it on "Trump's" altar as a gift to stop the escalation, where "Iran" agrees to transfer 60% enriched uranium to "Russia" and freeze its uranium enrichment on its soil for several years in exchange for forming a regional and international framework for uranium enrichment for civilian use, of course, in addition to full monitoring by the International Atomic Energy Agency inside Iran on the entire Iranian nuclear file. These proposals will be acceptable to "Iran," and it is ready to deal with them fully, but what is the مقابل?!!! What will Iran get?!!! This is the subject of negotiation on Friday, meaning that the condition for Iranian approval will have a مقابل, at a minimum, the lifting of sanctions on oil and gas exports and sanctions related to financial transactions and "Iran's" access to its frozen funds, but, for the Americans, approval is possible if Iran agrees to two issues: the first is to sell its oil and gas in dollars, and the second is "Iran's" agreement to begin negotiations on other files "ballistic missiles, and support for its allies in the region." Thus, the success of the regional factor pressing on President Trump and Iran is linked to what we mentioned above. As for the internal American factor for de-escalation, it is represented by the lack of consensus within the White House administration to go to war, especially since the concept of a limited, decisive, and crushing strike has become unfeasible and will not achieve any of the stated goals; it will not overthrow the regime, it will not stop the nuclear program, and it certainly will not stop Iran's strategic plans in ballistic missile production and others or in supporting its allies in the region, in addition to Iran's threats to turn a limited conflict into a comprehensive regional war, which ended the limited strike plan. But this does not prevent war plans in President "Trump's" mind; he wants something tangible through which he can declare victory, and therefore the internal American factor was linked to the external regional factor, and the negotiation plan in Turkey was put forward on Friday as a last resort that will result in either de-escalation or justification. As for those who seek justification internally and externally, they believe that Friday's negotiations are nothing more than extra time to complete mobilizations and coordinate military operation steps so that they turn from limited to continuous strikes for several days or weeks, and also to create a balance between defense and offense. Therefore, we saw the focus on installing American air defenses in regional countries to increase their reassurance and reduce the intensity of their pressures due to the seismic tremor affecting their interiors, in addition to increasing the target bank and waiting for better weather without winter. Internally in America, the matter is almost entirely linked to President "Trump," who represents the dominant part of the deep state with all its branches, headed by the Zionist-Evangelical lobby, and he will not back down from his decision without at least subjugating the Iranian regime, meaning he wants to exhaust diplomacy to increase internal support. Of course, if diplomacy succeeds in subjugating the Iranian regime, this will be considered President "Trump's" greatest achievement, achieving all his goals without firing a single shot; but there is an influential and pressing internal factor on President "Trump" to deal with the negotiations that will take place in the coming days with "Iran" as a "justification" for the strike, regardless of its outcomes, and this factor is the scandals of what is known as the "Epstein file." The decisive and strongly pressing external factor for going to war against "Iran" is the state of "Israel," and it is ready to agree to support the American-Iranian negotiations according to its four conditions: "stopping uranium enrichment, transferring enriched uranium, setting conditions and monitoring ballistic missile production in terms of their range and number, stopping support for Iran's allies." Otherwise, it will not only not agree, but will inevitably go to strike "Iran" alone, leading to dragging the "United States" to at least defend "Israel," because it will not leave it alone, as it is the guardian of its security according to the American national security strategy set by the "Trump" administration several weeks ago. Thus, the external and internal factors for "de-escalation" or "justification" regarding the potential strike are taking their time in the interaction equation within a specific timeframe, and the nature of the interaction between these factors will favor either de-escalation or justification; and when we talk about the interaction equation, here we mean, first and foremost, President "Trump's" concept of "ego" as a key "element" in that equation, and this clearly suggests that overcoming the "Epstein" story, if possible, and it is possible, has become linked to declaring a complete and flawless victory peacefully or in the bad way "war" as President "Trump" says. There is no doubt that "Witkoff's" arrival in "Israel" today is related to an attempt to convince "Netanyahu, the army, and the Mossad" that President "Trump" has not abandoned the military option, and that dealing with the negotiations will not be in a package deal, but by discussing each file individually, and the beginning will be with the "nuclear file" so that an agreement is reached if it is agreed to discuss the rest of the files in other negotiation rounds, in a "Witkoffian" attempt to reassure "Israel" that there will be no American abandonment of the ballistic missile files and support for "Iran's" allies, and that there will be no agreement on the nuclear file without "Iran" committing to discussing the other files, but the question remains here, will "Netanyahu" and the "army" and "security establishment" be convinced of that?!!! And will the flow of "Epstein" files be stopped? Personally, I don't think so, as the American mobilizations in the region have become an opportune and irreplaceable opportunity for Israel. It remains to review an undeclared and unknown data point, the accuracy of which I personally doubt, but it must be mentioned, where it is said that "Netanyahu sought through President Putin to neutralize Israel from the repercussions of a potential American war behind America's back." Of course, for me, this is out of the question, not only because of the existence of a strategic "American-Israeli" alliance, but the idea of striking "Iran" to be American or joint was "Netanyahu's" idea, which President "Trump" later adopted, just as the American abandonment of its conditions regarding the missile program and the so-called "Iranian regional influence" as demands of its regional allies and its objections to the "2015 agreement" ended due to Gulf pressures to avoid the war option, is also a somewhat exaggerated story, because there are leading political elites in regional countries who informed Washington and President "Trump" that abandoning those demands would strengthen "Iran" in the region and make it appear victorious even over American will. And to summarize based on the above and in my personal estimation, I point out here that the scientific way of thinking and traditional estimations with a president like "Trump" do not apply to the scene in our region; I said before and still do, this region must become an American lake where ships sail with an Israeli captain, and that geopolitical change cannot occur with the revolutionary regime in "Iran," and that "China" cannot be competed with the presence of a country the size of "Iran" allied with it, and that the siege of "Russia" begins by removing the "regime" nail from Iranian geography; "Iran" is a geopolitical pivot state for the great powers, so geography must be shattered to functionally prepare it to disintegrate, and without that, the region will remain torn by influence and the Americans will not be able to completely and fully subjugate it to their influence. I believe that the decision to go to war against "Iran" has been made, and that its postponement the first time was for operational reasons, while it was postponed the second time for political reasons, but it seems there is no such thing as a third time, as matters will be decided next Friday, and everything will depend on the Iranian response and its readiness to market the victory that President "Trump" wants and seeks. Finally, caution is necessary, as the region may ignite before Friday, with the fuel for the ignition being Israeli par excellence and within the concept of miscalculations due to the intensity of mobilizations in the region and the caution shown by fingers on the trigger.

The policies of the Israeli occupation against the Palestinian people are no longer mere isolated violations or circumstantial practices justified by security pretexts. Instead, they have become an organized and integrated project aimed at undermining Palestinian national rights, foremost among them the right to self-determination, and aborting the possibility of establishing an independent, sovereign Palestinian state on the June 4, 1967 borders with East Jerusalem as its capital. This project is based on three interconnected pillars: settlement, forced displacement, and a systematic policy aimed at making Palestinian life impossible.Israeli settlement in the occupied Palestinian territories, including East Jerusalem, constitutes a flagrant violation of international humanitarian law and a war crime under Article (49) of the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949, which prohibits an occupying power from transferring its own civilian population into the occupied territory or deporting the indigenous population from it. Resolutions of international legitimacy have affirmed this principle, particularly Security Council Resolution (2334) of 2016, which considered settlements illegal and a violation of international law and a major obstacle to the two-state solution.The danger of settlement lies not only in its legal transgression but also in its existential effects, as it has contributed to the fragmentation of Palestinian geography, undermining regional communication, and transforming the desired state into isolated enclaves subject to the occupation's hegemony. With the rise of the extreme Israeli right, settlement has transformed from a negotiating tool into an official policy coupled with public rhetoric calling for annexation and denying the Palestinian national existence and its historical rights.In parallel, the policy of forced displacement is escalating through home demolitions, land confiscations, withdrawal of IDs, and the imposition of coercive realities that force Palestinians to leave. Forced displacement is considered a war crime and a crime against humanity according to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, when carried out as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population, a description whose criteria apply to what is happening in the occupied Palestinian territories.However, the most brutal aspect of these policies is evident in the Gaza Strip, which has become the most egregious example of the “making life impossible” policy. Widespread killing, systematic destruction of infrastructure, targeting of hospitals, schools, and shelters, imposing a suffocating siege, deliberate starvation, preventing humanitarian aid, and displacing the population collectively constitute grave violations of the rules of international humanitarian law and resolutions of international legitimacy.The collective punishment imposed on more than two million people in the Gaza Strip is explicitly prohibited under Article (33) of the Fourth Geneva Convention, and the use of starvation as a weapon of war is a war crime according to Article (8) of the Rome Statute. These crimes cannot be viewed as collateral damage of military operations; rather, they are part of a systematic policy aimed at pushing the residents of the Strip, under pressure from killing, hunger, and the absence of basic necessities of life, towards forced migration, in direct violation of the prohibition of forced transfer of protected persons.The continuation of these crimes amid international silence, or merely issuing condemnations and denunciations, has contributed to entrenching a climate of impunity and encouraged the occupation to proceed with its policies. States parties to the Geneva Conventions bear an explicit legal obligation to ensure respect for these conventions in all circumstances, which requires taking effective measures to stop violations, not merely managing them humanely.From Condemnation to Action...Confronting the policies of settlement, displacement, and making life impossible requires moving from the realm of condemnation to the space of organized legal and political action. This necessitates, first, activating the principle of non-recognition and non-assistance, by refraining from recognizing any legal status arising from settlement, annexation, or forced displacement, and stopping any political, military, or economic support that contributes to the perpetuation of these violations.Second, supporting international accountability mechanisms, especially enabling the International Criminal Court to exercise its jurisdiction without selectivity or political pressure, and holding accountable those responsible for war crimes and crimes against humanity committed in the occupied Palestinian territories.Third, adopting deterrent economic measures, including prohibiting dealings with settlements and their products, and holding companies involved in supporting these policies accountable, in line with the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights.Fourth, providing effective international protection for the Palestinian people, especially in the Gaza Strip, and ensuring safe and unconditional access to humanitarian aid, and stopping the policies of siege and starvation.In conclusion, enabling the Palestinian people to exercise their inalienable rights, foremost among them the right of return, self-determination, and the establishment of their independent state, is not merely a political or humanitarian demand, but a fixed legal entitlement. Failure to protect it threatens not only Palestinians but also undermines the foundations of the international system based on law.

In what appeared to be a calculated diplomatic confusion rather than an actual collapse of the process, "Axios" reported on Wednesday that Washington had informed Tehran of the cancellation of a round of talks scheduled for Friday, attributing it to what the report described as Iran's backtracking on previous understandings regarding the venue and content of the negotiations. However, this development was not interpreted in Israel as a definitive closure of the negotiation door, as Channel 12 quoted Israeli assessments that what is happening falls within the framework of American pressure, not a declaration of a break.

This discrepancy between "cancellation" in leaks and "continuation" in official statements poses a central question: Are we facing a logistical dispute over the meeting place, or a deeper conflict over the agenda and negotiation terms? The data that emerged later suggests that the main point of friction is not merely geographical, but rather relates to who has the right to define the "core issues" that should be discussed, and under what political ceiling the process will be managed.

In this context, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio made statements on Wednesday morning that attempted to solidify the direction of US policy, without ruling out the option of a meeting. He said that any upcoming talks with Iran must include its missile and nuclear program, its support for its proxies in the region, and its treatment of its people, noting that the venue for the talks is still being arranged.

Rubio added, during a press conference in Washington, that "any talks, to actually lead to meaningful results, must address specific issues, including the range of Iranian ballistic missiles, its sponsorship of terrorist organizations throughout the region, its nuclear program, in addition to its treatment of its people."

Regarding the venue for talks with Tehran, he explained that Washington initially believed that it had been agreed to hold them in Turkey, before Iranian reports denied approval for that. He added: "We thought there was an existing forum agreed upon in Turkey, and it was arranged with the participation of a number of partners who wanted to attend and participate. But yesterday (Tuesday) I saw conflicting reports from the Iranian side stating that they had not agreed to that, so the matter is still under discussion."

The US Secretary of State stressed that any talks with Iran would not amount to "legitimizing it." This phrase, which outwardly appears to be a political clarification directed at the American public, carries a deeper negotiating message: Washington wants talks that lead to tangible concessions, not a political image that grants Tehran free recognition or lifts its isolation.

In contrast, subsequent media reports suggested that the Sultanate of Oman is the most likely location to host the round, given its traditional role as a mediator between the two parties in indirect meetings, and its familiarity as a channel for smoothing over difficulties when public options falter or their political cost becomes high.

Despite the ambiguity of the location, Rubio confirmed that the talks are scheduled for Friday, noting that the US President's envoy to the Middle East, Steve Witkoff, is "ready to go." Rubio added: "If the Iranians want to meet, we are ready. I'm not sure if an agreement can be reached with these people, but we will try to find out."

On the Iranian side, a parallel move suggested that Tehran does not wish to bear the cost of appearing as the party that thwarts the process. Prior to the expected date, the Iranian Foreign Ministry announced that its minister, Abbas Araghchi, had a phone call with his Omani counterpart, Badr Al Busaidi, during which they discussed bilateral relations and regional developments. This step is usually read as a double signal: solidifying the Omani mediator's role, and confirming Iran's readiness to return to the politically safer channel when the public path becomes a burden or when the circle of international presence expands.

However, the core of the crisis, according to political analysis, goes beyond the question of "where will the round be held?" to the question of "on what will it be held?". Washington seems determined to expand the agenda to include missiles, proxies, and human rights, while Tehran prefers to narrow it down to the nuclear file and lifting sanctions. This discrepancy is not a detail; it is the essence of the negotiation itself: Is it a limited deal within the confines of the nuclear issue, or an attempt to comprehensively reshape Iranian regional and internal behavior?

According to experts, a fundamental paradox emerges here: expanding the scope of negotiations may, from one perspective, seem like a recipe for derailing an agreement by introducing sensitive issues that make reaching a "single package" almost impossible. However, from another perspective, it could be an American tactic to restore "negotiations on Washington's terms" rather than "negotiations as mutual rescue." When the US administration insists on including missiles, regional influence, and human rights, it is not only raising the bar for demands, but also increasing the cost of Iranian rejection and preventing Tehran from limiting the discussion to the nuclear issue alone.

Moreover, the apparent contradiction between the "cancellation" leak and the "meeting is on" statement does not necessarily mean a division within the administration, but may reflect an intentional distribution of roles: a leak that raises the political cost for Iran and pressures it to accept specific conditions or a specific location, versus an official statement that keeps the door open so that Washington does not appear to be withdrawing or obstructing. According to this logic, "confusion" becomes a negotiation tool, not a diplomatic failure.

The Israeli interpretation, reported by Channel 12, suggests that what is happening is closer to pressure than to a definitive cancellation. This interpretation is not separate from Tel Aviv's own calculations: the scenario of a collapse of negotiations automatically opens the door to military possibilities or widespread regional escalation, a path that Washington does not seem to want to push to the forefront now, even if it implicitly hints at it as a means of pressure.

All eyes are on Friday as a test of the seriousness of both parties rather than a technical date. The first scenario is that the round will actually take place, even with Omani mediation or alternative arrangements, meaning that the dispute was part of a "tug-of-war" before sitting down. The second scenario is to postpone the round while keeping communication channels open, an option that allows both parties to avoid political embarrassment and temporarily reduce tension. The third scenario, which is the least announced and most dangerous, is the gradual disintegration of the process with mutual accusations, which opens the door to escalation in the region or a return to the atmosphere of sanctions and mutual responses.

Between these scenarios, the only certainty so far seems to be that negotiations—if they take place—will not be solely about the nuclear issue, and that Washington is trying to establish a new equation: no free political legitimacy, and no narrow deal that leaves missiles and proxies out of the equation. In contrast, Tehran will seek to avoid expanding the agenda because it knows that accepting it means entering into long negotiations in which its basic cards will be exhausted.

The scene of "cancellation" and "confirmation" in one day reflects the nature of the current stage: a policy managed by conflicting messages, media pressure, and keeping all options open—not only to produce an agreement, but also to manage failure if it occurs, and to determine which party will be held responsible before its domestic audience and allies.

News Analysis

In a move that signals a profound transformation in the identity of one of America's most venerable journalistic institutions, The Washington Post management announced a widespread wave of staff reductions and newsroom restructuring. This decision will affect most departments and will practically lead to a reduction in the newspaper's local and international presence, and the closure of editorial units that were a fixed part of its professional structure.

During a comprehensive phone call with employees on Wednesday morning, Matt Murray, the executive editor, along with Wayne Connell, chief human resources officer, stated that "every department across the newsroom will be affected to some degree." According to a recording of the call circulated within media circles, the plan includes closing the sports and books sections, suspending a political podcast titled Post Reports, in addition to restructuring the "Metro" team responsible for covering the capital and its suburbs. Murray clarified that the number of editors would be "significantly" reduced, and the art and design teams would be merged, in a move he described in a tone that seemed closer to an admission than a justification: "These moves are painful... this is a difficult day."

However, the most significant item was the management's announcement to reduce the newspaper's international footprint, while maintaining a "strategic external presence" in "about a dozen locations," with a stated focus on national security issues. This shift, which may seem like resource organization, is interpreted within the institution as a gradual contraction of field journalism in favor of "major files" journalism that is managed from offices rather than created from the ground.

In this context, the decision to cancel the newspaper's correspondent position in occupied Jerusalem stood out among the terminations that affected the entire Middle East coverage team, a decision that goes beyond being an administrative measure. Jerusalem, with its political, religious, and symbolic centrality to the conflict, is not just a point on the international coverage map, but an area where news intertwines with history, and reality with narrative, requiring a steady journalistic eye on the ground, not "remote coverage" managed from capitals.

In addition to Jerusalem, the layoffs affected Ukraine bureau chief Siobhán O'Grady and correspondent Lizzy Johnson, reflecting a broader trend towards reducing field coverage in conflict zones, at a time when international journalism should be more, not less, necessary. The list of laid-off journalists also included prominent journalists such as Ishaan Tharoor, Isha Do, Jesus Rodriguez, Dino Grandoni, and Nilo Tabrizy, who had only days earlier received professional acclaim for his personal coverage of events in Iran, in addition to Caroline O'Donovan, who covered Amazon, as well as the entire Middle East team.

Although Murray emphasized that political and government coverage would remain the "largest part" of The Washington Post's operations, he spoke of a long-overdue "strategic reset," saying that the institution "has not evolved its model or its operations as it should," and that the crisis is not the result of "a single event" or an "easy blame point," but rather long accumulations. However, this discourse seemed to many within the newsroom closer to an attempt to arrange the narrative after the shock, rather than a convincing explanation for its causes.

Rumors of layoffs had been circulating for weeks, but the sense of danger was older than that. One employee described the crisis management method as closer to "psychological warfare," while another said that media links discussing the reductions were circulated within the institution "as if they were secret publications," and that the general feeling was like "a guillotine hanging over their heads." Nevertheless, the same employee added, the newspaper "was doing good journalism," which made the shock double: rising professional performance against a declining administrative decision.

Fingers of blame within the institution point towards Jeff Bezos, the Amazon founder who bought the newspaper in 2013, and to Will Lewis, the publisher who took office in 2024, coming from Rupert Murdoch's media environment. One employee described Lewis as "better at talking than building." In an attempt to contain the anger, Murray said he wanted to be "clear" that the newspaper's commitment to "high-impact journalism that holds power accountable without fear or favor" remains "steadfast," affirming his confidence that this commitment "reaches the highest levels of the company."

But this official language clashed with a strongly worded statement from Marty Baron, the former executive editor, who said that what is happening is "among the darkest days in the history of one of the world's greatest news organizations," warning that the newspaper's ambitions "will be severely curtailed," and that the public will be deprived of "fact-based field reporting" in American society and around the world.

In the background, many within The Washington Post view Bezos's recent decision to withdraw the editorial board's endorsement of Kamala Harris as a pivotal moment. In the days following the decision, more than 250,000 readers canceled their subscriptions. Journalists believe that the financial crisis was already present, but that step deepened the crisis and led to a mass exodus of subscribers, in parallel with the management's failure to create new revenue sources.

Sensitivity also increased after the FBI raided the home of journalist Hannah Natanson in the context of a leak investigation, with employees expressing particular dismay that Bezos "said nothing," at a moment when ownership was supposed to stand behind its journalists.

The deeper irony is that what is happening is not just layoffs, but a redefinition of what journalism is in the age of billionaire owners. When an institution transforms into a project managed by brand logic rather than public service logic, the less profitable sections—such as sports, books, and international coverage—become the first victims, even though they are what give the newspaper its cultural and human depth. The danger is that the editorial role will be reduced to "national security and Washington politics," making journalism closer to an eye for power than a watchdog over it.

The crisis also reveals the paradox of the AI era: the technology that was supposed to relieve pressure on newsrooms has become a factor accelerating the erosion of their revenues through a culture of "summaries" that draws audiences away from the original source, and then is later invoked as a ready excuse for staff reductions. But what management ignores is that the solution does not lie in more deletions, but in restoring trust and repairing editorial identity. Journalism that removes its correspondent from occupied Jerusalem and closes culture and sports units does not just lose employees; it gradually relinquishes a fundamental part of its ability to tell the world as it is: from the field, not from behind screens.

Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi confirmed that nuclear negotiations with the United States will be held in the Omani capital, Muscat, at 10:00 AM on Friday, thus denying reports that spoke of the collapse of the diplomatic track between Washington and Tehran. Press sources quoted an American official confirming that the talks would take place on schedule, while other sources revealed that the White House agreed to move the meeting venue from Turkey to the Sultanate of Oman in response to urgent requests from Arab leaders who urged the American administration to listen to the Iranian point of view.

In the context of preparations, sources reported that at least nine countries contacted the administration of US President Donald Trump to ensure the meeting was held. American officials explained that preparations returned to track after extensive diplomatic interventions, noting that the approval of the meeting came "in respect" for allies in the region and for the experience of the diplomatic track, despite significant doubts within the American administration about Tehran's intentions. US envoy Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner, the President's advisor and son-in-law, are scheduled to head to Doha tomorrow, Thursday, for consultations with Qatari Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Sheikh Mohammed bin Abdulrahman Al Thani before heading to Muscat.

Coinciding with these diplomatic moves, US President Donald Trump maintained an escalating tone, stating in a television interview on Wednesday that Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei should be concerned, especially with the United States strengthening its military buildup in the region. Trump had deployed an aircraft carrier to the Middle East, hinting at additional military options after the strikes that targeted Iranian nuclear facilities during last June's confrontations.

For their part, observers and academics believe that the main obstacle lies not in the negotiation venue but in the agenda of the talks; where the Trump administration insists on the comprehensiveness of the files to include the ballistic program and support for regional factions, which Tehran considers "political suicide" and non-negotiable defensive capabilities. Experts point out that returning to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (the nuclear deal) may be the only way out for regional stability, while others believe that Washington is using military pressure as a tool to impose harsh negotiating conditions.

Iran adheres to its position calling for limiting negotiations to the nuclear file to dispel international concerns about its nuclear weapon, expressing its openness to technical transparency, but refusing to negotiate on behalf of regional countries on regional issues. Researchers warn that Washington's change of position and its demand for a comprehensive agreement may complicate the diplomatic path and raise doubts about the American administration's seriousness in reaching a sustainable settlement.

We told the Arabs that we would hold the meeting if they insisted, but we are very skeptical about the results.

The Ministry of Health in Gaza reported the martyrdom of 24 Palestinians, including children, since dawn today due to Israeli aerial and artillery shelling on various areas in the Gaza Strip, while the occupation army claimed it carried out "precise" strikes after one of its soldiers was targeted. The latest of these targets was in Al-Shati refugee camp, west of Gaza City, where an Israeli drone launched a raid on citizens, resulting in one martyr and several injured.

The Israeli occupation army claimed it targeted Bilal Abu Assi, commander of one of the elite companies in the "Al-Qassam Brigades," the armed wing of the "Hamas" movement, in the southern Gaza Strip, and alleged that Abu Assi led the infiltration operation into Kibbutz Nir Oz during the October 7, 2023 attack. The occupation army stated in its communiqué that targeting Abu Assi came in response to firing at Israeli army forces in the northern Gaza Strip, which resulted in a serious injury to an officer.

For its part, the Islamic Resistance Movement "Hamas" condemned the occupation's escalation in the Gaza Strip, considering it a "continuation of the war of extermination and disruption" of the second phase of the ceasefire agreement, foremost among which is the opening of the Rafah crossing. The movement said that the occupation's claims regarding firing at one of its soldiers are a pretext to continue the aggression, demanding that the international community pressure it to respect its obligations.

On the humanitarian front, UNRWA stated that 20,000 people are in urgent need of medical care in the Gaza Strip. In this context, the suffering of cancer patients in Gaza is worsening; their illness has doubled with the conditions of war amid the lack of treatment and the loss of minimal healthcare, as displaced Basma Abu Obaid recounts in an interview with media sources.

More than 11,000 cancer patients cannot find medicine or painkillers, as the occupation pursued oncology centers, and after the destruction of their specialized Turkish-Palestinian Friendship Hospital and their displacement from one place to another, they ended up in a small room inside the Nasser Medical Complex.

Saleh Sheikh Al-Eid, head of the oncology department at the Gaza Cancer Center, told media sources that the medical team diagnoses patients theoretically only due to the absence of necessary equipment for accurate diagnosis, and Al-Eid also points to the absence of necessary medicines for treating patients.

According to the Palestinian Ministry of Health, more than 3,000 cancer patients need urgent treatment outside the Strip. During the war, many patients died, and others will die if the crossings remain closed. Estimates by local and international institutions indicate that the improvement of the health situation for cancer patients and others with chronic diseases is linked to the rehabilitation of what the war destroyed.

The medical team diagnoses patients theoretically only due to the absence of necessary equipment for accurate diagnosis and essential medicines.

The Israeli Public Prosecution today, Wednesday, filed indictments against 12 Israeli suspects, including reserve soldiers, on charges related to 'aiding the enemy in wartime,' amid suspicions of smuggling prohibited goods into the Gaza Strip. The Ministry of Justice clarified in a statement that the value of the smuggled goods amounted to millions of Israeli shekels, and included cigarette cartons, iPhones, batteries, communication cables, and car parts, describing the operation as an organized and systematic smuggling case.

Sources reported that Betzalel Zini, brother of Shin Bet head David Zini, is among those suspected of involvement in smuggling cigarettes into Gaza in exchange for huge sums of money. According to investigations, the money Zini earned amounts to millions of shekels, exploiting the sharp rise in cigarette prices within the besieged Strip, where the price of a single pack reached more than $530.

The threads of the case began about a month and a half ago, when soldiers stationed in the Gaza Strip seized a suspicious truck containing dozens of phones, drones, batteries, and electrical equipment not permitted to enter. The police took over the investigation with Betzalel Zini instead of the Shin Bet due to his kinship with the head of the agency, while the accused denied his involvement in smuggling, claiming that his job was only to inspect trucks.

For his part, Rabbi Yosef Zini, the father of the Shin Bet head, defended his son Betzalel, considering the case 'fabricated' and aiming to oust his brother David from his position. In a related context, sources quoted investigators as saying that Zini was precisely aware of the goods passing through checkpoints and ignored smuggling in exchange for financial bribes.

It is worth noting that Betzalel Zini holds the position of director of an engineering unit called 'Oriya,' a squad that was active during the current war in extensive destruction operations within the Gaza Strip. The case sparked widespread reactions in Israeli circles, with some considering it 'treason in wartime,' while politicians like Eisenkot believed that these charges do not warrant the resignation of the Shin Bet head from his position.

It is a serious case of organized, systematic, and elaborate smuggling of various goods into the Gaza Strip with the aim of making profits.

Egyptian President Abdel Fattah El-Sisi and his Turkish counterpart Recep Tayyip Erdogan agreed to reject all attempts to disrupt or circumvent the ceasefire agreement in the Gaza Strip, while emphasizing support for the unity of Syria, Sudan, and Libya. Sisi, following a meeting with his Turkish counterpart in Cairo at the conclusion of the Egyptian-Turkish Business Forum summit, stressed the importance of adhering to the implementation of the peace plan in all its stages, and achieving sustainable calm that ensures the protection of civilians and enhances regional stability.

Sisi indicated that Egypt supports Syria's sovereignty and the necessity of enhancing stability there, pointing to the importance of reaching a truce in Sudan that leads to comprehensive peace that preserves its territorial integrity. For his part, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan affirmed that his country is working on initiatives to achieve peace in Gaza, stressing that the humanitarian tragedy continues despite the ceasefire, announcing that Egypt and Turkey will make a joint contribution to the reconstruction of the Strip.

On regional issues, Erdogan stressed the importance of protecting Somalia's sovereignty, announcing that Turkey does not recognize the Israeli decision aimed at the independence of Somaliland, and rejecting any practices that undermine national sovereignty. He also called for resolving outstanding issues through diplomacy, including the Iranian nuclear file, to ensure stability and avoid escalation in the region.

Sources reported that this visit reflects a state of complete agreement between Cairo and Ankara on broad regional issues, and comes as part of efforts to form a strong regional front in light of current international changes. This summit comes after a regional tour by Erdogan that included Riyadh before his arrival in the Egyptian capital.

The two leaders witnessed the signing of a package of agreements and memoranda of understanding to enhance bilateral cooperation, topped by a framework military agreement, in addition to memoranda in the fields of drug and medical supplies regulation, plant quarantine, veterinary services, foreign trade and investment, as well as social service, youth and sports.

The implementation of the ceasefire agreement in Gaza must be adhered to in all its stages, and any disruption or circumvention of the peace plan must be rejected.

A British court on Wednesday acquitted six pro-Palestinian British activists of violent burglary in a case related to a 2024 raid on a factory belonging to the Israeli company "Elbit Systems." This ruling is a significant blow to the prosecution, as the jury did not issue any convictions against the six defendants, who are members of the "Palestine Action" group.

The raid targeted the Israeli company's facility in Bristol, southwest England, in the early hours of August 6, 2024, approximately 10 months after the start of the Israeli aggression on the Gaza Strip. The prosecution told Woolwich Crown Court in London that the attack caused material damage estimated at one million pounds sterling ($1.4 million), noting that a truck was used to break into the site and destroy equipment.

The activists defended themselves by asserting that their motive was humanitarian, aimed at destroying weapons and preventing their use in the "war of extermination" in the Gaza Strip, denying any violence against individuals. The acquitted defendants are: Charlotte Head, Samuel Corner, Leona Cameo, Fatima Zainab Rajwani, Zoe Rogers, and Jordan Devlin.

Despite the acquittal of all on burglary charges, the jury was unable to reach a verdict on charges of causing a public nuisance for three of the defendants, and a charge of causing grievous bodily harm against Samuel Corner, despite deliberations lasting more than 36 hours. An atmosphere of joy prevailed inside the courtroom after the verdict was announced, as the activists celebrated with their supporters.

For their part, the prosecutors stated that they needed time to consider the possibility of requesting a retrial on the charges for which no decision was reached. This ruling comes amid complex political circumstances, as the British government had classified "Palestine Action" as a proscribed organization in July 2025, a year after the incident.

Sources in London reported that this legal battle is part of a series of actions led by activists to remove the organization from terror lists. The British government faces increasing public pressure, as the issue has become a matter of public opinion directly linked to the stance on the war in Gaza and military support for Israel.

Our motive was simply to destroy weapons to stop the genocide committed by Israel in Gaza.

After nearly four months of the cessation of Israeli aggression on the Gaza Strip, and about two weeks after the second phase of US President Donald Trump's peace plan began, and the formation of a 'Peace Council' under his chairmanship, alongside a Palestinian technocratic committee headed by Engineer Ali Shaath, the scene in the Strip remains bleak. In Gaza, which witnessed unprecedented destruction, different kinds of challenges emerged immediately after the ceasefire was announced, as armed groups linked to Israel seek to spread chaos and push it towards civil strife.

Video clips broadcast by Ghassan Al-Dahini, the leader of one of these groups, reveal insults directed at Adham Attallah Al-Akr, a leader of the Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades in Rafah city. Al-Akr appeared in the video stripped of his clothes and showed signs of extreme emaciation due to the tunnel blockade and food shortages. Al-Dahini, who succeeded Yasser Abu Shababa in leading the 'Popular Forces' militia, threatened Hamas with 'inquisition courts' similar to those that took place in Spain, claiming that his group would not allow the sabotage of peace efforts.

Sources reported that Al-Akr was one of the steadfast Qassam leaders in the 'Al-Jneina neighborhood' in Rafah, and contact with him was lost three months ago before he was spotted by the Israeli army or Al-Dahini's militia. The Israeli army announced last Friday that it had spotted eight armed men emerging from a tunnel in Rafah, killing three of them, while it is believed that Al-Dahini handed Al-Akr over to the occupation after abusing and filming him.

For its part, the Fatah movement denied any connection to Al-Dahini, describing his actions as 'a betrayal of its values and goals,' and emphasizing that the fate of collaborators with the occupation is downfall. The 'National Gathering of Palestinian Tribes, Clans, and Families' also described the attack as a heinous crime and barbaric behavior that does not represent the Palestinian tribes, which had previously disavowed Al-Dahini and Abu Shababa.

Reports indicate that the phenomenon of armed militias in Gaza, such as Al-Dahini's group in Rafah, Rami Helles in Shuja'iyya, Ashraf Al-Mansi in the North, and Hussam Al-Astal in Khan Younis, is a product of a plan by the Israeli 'Shin Bet' agency, approved by Benjamin Netanyahu, to create a military alternative to confront Hamas. Yasser Abu Shababa, the founder of these forces, was killed in December 2025 after a history of involvement in criminal activities and looting humanitarian aid under Israeli protection.

The Israeli occupation will not provide protection to those who cooperate with it from popular punishment, and history has proven that the fate of agents is downfall and accountability.

In the streets of Washington, between the halls of Congress and the corners of major banks, everything appears calm on the surface—the usual political clamor, exchanged statements, partisan clashes. But behind this facade, a much more complex and profound game is unfolding. There is a struggle not easily seen, a conflict between two forces competing for the heart of American decision-making: the power of money that controls global flows and turns nations into tools in its calculations, and the power of production that grants a nation its sovereignty and restores to individuals their role as partners in building, not just numbers to be tallied in bank ledgers.

At this critical moment, Donald Trump emerges not as an economic theorist or a designer of a new system, but as a revealing chapter that exposes the suppressed contradictions shaking every institution and every decision, placing the American people before the truth that the choice between economic sovereignty and financial hegemony is not merely a political option but an existential issue for the country. Every speech he gives, every trade threat, every step to rearrange global alliances is not a fleeting tactic but an attempt to redraw the boundaries of what is possible, an effort to restore the state's ability to direct its economy and choices independently.

On the surface of American politics, things appear as a series of partisan conflicts, but the reality is much deeper, a story spanning two centuries between two conflicting models of governance and economy: between a vision that makes humans partners in building and a vision that reduces them to mere numbers in profit and loss calculations. What we see today is not the beginning of events but a moment revealing a temporary peak of an ongoing confrontation between state sovereignty and the transnational global financial economy, between the idea of linking money to production or using money as a tool for human domination. This conflict is often waged in the shadows, but it determines the course of major policies and the limits of what is possible within and outside the United States, reshaping the entire international system.

The story begins with an understanding of two fundamental concepts: The first is the American System, a foundational idea based on state sovereignty and its ability to make economic decisions, linking money to real production—factories, infrastructure, science, and technology. In this model, credit is seen as a tool to build society's productive capacity, not an end in itself, and money becomes a means to liberate and empower individuals. The second concept is the Imperial Financial System, an older model based on control through global banks, speculation, and debt, where finance replaces production and the central bank transforms from a sovereign tool in the hands of the state into an institution serving a narrow network of transnational interests, while individuals are reduced to numbers that can be controlled through debt, fear, and the power of money. Here, money does not develop society but manages it, and soft hegemony replaces traditional military power, with economics becoming a tool to manage the world as a cold calculation.

On the other hand, the sovereign productive model emerges, viewing the state as a partner in development, not merely a market observer. In this conception, credit is directed towards factories, roads, laboratories, education, and everything that enhances long-term productive capacity, while financial speculation is considered a structural risk because it separates money from labor and accumulates wealth without creating real value. This duality has not been resolved throughout history but has settled at the heart of the United States itself: a nation-state with formal sovereignty and, at the same time, a command center for the global financial system, a nation oscillating between the productive dream and global financial control.

Trump as a Witness to Suppressed Contradictions

Here appears Donald Trump, not as an economic theorist or an engineer of an integrated system, but as an instinctive expression of an explosion of suppressed contradictions. His presidency was not the beginning of the conflict, but its moment of revelation, coming at a time when America's industrial base had eroded, the middle class had disintegrated, and large segments of society had become permanent losers in a system whose rules they did not control. With the blockage of channels for change within traditional institutions, populist discourse emerged as a tool for expressing mass protest, a language of rejection that is not a ready-made ideology, but a cry from a society that feels its future is being bought and sold in global markets.

Trump's policies, especially tariffs, were not merely trade measures, but an attempt to re-raise the question of economic sovereignty and break dependence on external production chains that had constrained national decision-making for decades. However, he did not wage an open war on the existing financial system, not only due to a lack of desire, but also an understanding of the limits of what is possible within a complex state with intertwined interests.

In this context, the internal conflict began to reflect on international politics, where the United States was no longer merely a player committed to global financial rules, but a power seeking tools to protect its economic sovereignty, rearranging its alliances, and employing its economy as a political weapon to reshape global interests in a way that serves its national priorities.

During that phase, it became clear that change in the United States is not decided by elections alone. The deep state of the financial system, from institutions and bureaucracy to media, demonstrated its ability to obstruct and contain. Here, populism became a double-edged sword; it succeeded in delegitimizing the existing model but failed to transform into a comprehensive sovereign project capable of redirecting credit and building alternative institutions. Nevertheless, Trump's policies sent a clear message to the world: America is no longer a hostage to the international financial system, and it is prepared to use economic power to rearrange global power balances according to its productive and sovereign interests.

The Ongoing Crisis and the Potential Future

The insistence on continuing and Trump's talk of a third term, despite its constitutional impossibility, was not merely a personal inclination, but a symbolic expression of his understanding that the conflict is not electoral but structural, and that the presidency is a limited tool in a longer battle with a deeper model. He fears that everything he exposed will collapse once the person who ignited the contradictions leaves, in the absence of alternative elites and new institutions capable of carrying the project.

As the picture deepens, it becomes clear that the essence of the conflict is not only financial but also philosophical: the transnational financial model sees humans as numbers and burdens to be managed, while the sovereign productive model sees them as creative energy and a long-term investment, making education, science, and work tools for liberation, not control. In this sense, the battle becomes a struggle over the meaning of politics and the role of the state before it is a struggle over budgets and interest rates.

In the background of the turbulent American scene, a global paradox emerges: while the United States struggles in its internal conflict, rising powers have been practically applying the logic of the sovereign productive economy, directing credit towards industry and infrastructure, realizing that control over supply chains means control over political decisions, and that surplus productive capacity, not financial superiority alone, is the true source of power.

Ultimately, Trump's issue is not the core of the story, but the crisis he revealed. He was neither an engineer of a new system nor a founding leader, but a revealing chapter in an unresolved historical conflict, clearly reflected in American international politics, making it a power seeking its economic sovereignty, rearranging its alliances, and employing economic tools to achieve strategic goals. The open question today is not who will govern, but which model will govern: a model that links money to production and restores the state's sovereignty and role, or a transnational financial model that continues to manage the world as a cold calculation? The future of the entire international system, including the United States, depends on the answer to this question.

The death toll in the Gaza Strip escalated on Wednesday, following a series of bombings that targeted displaced persons' tents and various residential neighborhoods. Medical sources at Nasser Medical Complex reported the martyrdom of 3 individuals as a result of an Israeli bombing that struck tents of displaced persons in areas located outside the scope of the occupation forces' deployment south of Khan Yunis.

In a related context, ambulance and emergency sources reported the death of 4 citizens, including a child, due to intense artillery shelling that targeted the Al-Zaytoun and Al-Tuffah neighborhoods east of Gaza City. These deadly developments come as an extension of a series of ongoing violations of the ceasefire and truce agreement.

On Tuesday, young Ahmed Mohammed Abdel Aal (19 years old) was martyred, succumbing to a head injury from occupation forces' bullets in the "Al-Maslakh" area south of Khan Yunis, an area also located outside the scope of the occupation's military presence. The past hours also witnessed activity by "Apache" helicopters, which fired their weapons towards the eastern areas of the city, coinciding with the evacuation of injured individuals from Sheikh Nasser neighborhood and continued firing east of Al-Bureij refugee camp in the central sector.

According to the latest data from the Ministry of Health, the toll of victims from these daily violations since October 11, 2025, has risen to 526 martyrs and 1447 injured. These figures reflect the scale of the field escalation that transcends all understandings, amidst the occupation forces' insistence on targeting civilians and displaced persons in areas that were classified as far from direct engagement points.

 The toll of victims from daily violations since October 11, 2025, has risen to 526 martyrs and 1447 injured.

Mexican writer David Toscana (1961), residing in Madrid, won the 29th edition of the "Alfaguara" Novel Prize for his novel "The Blind Army," which he submitted under the pseudonym "Cozaro the Writer." The award ceremony took place on Tuesday at the Cibeles Palace, the headquarters of the Madrid City Council. Toscana is considered one of the most famous Latin American novelists in the world, and his books have been translated into countless languages, including Arabic.

The prize is valued at 175,000 dollars, and the winner receives a sculpture by artist Martín Chirino. The novel will also be published throughout the Spanish-speaking world, with a release date in bookstores on March 26. The jury awarded the prize by a majority vote to this historical novel.

The novel tells the story of the Byzantine Emperor Basil II, who ordered the blinding of 15,000 Bulgarian soldiers. The committee noted that "the writer weaves a moving and powerful allegorical tale, moving away from traditional historical narrative, to present a symbolic, almost mythical, reading of war, power, and resistance."

The Madrid-based writer said: "Humor addresses the reader's intelligence, and it is an essential element in my novels. I speak of events that occurred more than a thousand years ago, but they still reflect our contemporary reality." He continued: "Today we read the Iliad, and it still reflects our reality. This is the power of novels."

Toscana had previously won the Vargas Llosa Literary Prize for his Spanish novel "The Burden of Living on Earth." By winning this recent award, he succeeds Argentine writer Guillermo Saccomanno, who won it in 2025. The jury was chaired by Mexican writer Jorge Volpi, and included Argentine writer Agustina Bazterrica, Mexican Brenda Navarro, literary researcher, editor, and cultural organizer Camila Enrich, journalist and director of Página Dos Óscar López, and Pilar Reyes, editorial director of Alfaguara magazine, who had the right to participate without voting.

Toscana studied at the American Institute in Monterrey, and earned a degree in Industrial Engineering and Systems Engineering from the Technological Institute of Higher Studies in the same city. He began writing at the age of twenty-nine. He joined the International Writing Program at the University of Iowa in 1994, and the Berlin Artists Program in 2003. A total of 1140 manuscripts participated in the prize, including 524 from Spain, 171 from Argentina, 169 from Mexico, 109 from Colombia, 62 from the United States, 49 from Chile, 34 from Peru, and 22 from Uruguay.

Humor addresses the reader's intelligence, and it is an essential element in my novels. I speak of events that occurred more than a thousand years ago, but they still reflect our contemporary reality.

The Berlin International Film Festival has historically distinguished itself as the most outspoken among European festivals in embracing political issues. However, the current seventy-sixth edition has sparked widespread controversy regarding a shift in this legacy. Critics argue that the festival, under the leadership of its director Tricia Tuttle, is pursuing a policy of 'systematic exclusion' of politically charged films that advocate for Gaza, by confining them to side sections such as 'Forum' and 'Panorama', and isolating them from competition for the Golden Bear award.

This transformation began to crystallize clearly during the 2024 and 2025 editions, following fierce political reactions in Germany to statements and films addressing the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. Critic Peter Bradshaw warned that Berlin is entering a phase where cinema is effectively censored through institutional pressure, at a time when German cultural bodies are struggling to reconcile freedom of expression with a strict political consensus on the Palestinian issue.

This tension was embodied in the current edition through the exclusion of prominent works from the official competition, such as Anat Even's film 'The Collapse', which addresses the ethical consequences of the destruction of Gaza and was screened in the 'Forum' section, and Assaf Machnes's film 'Where To?', which was screened in the 'Panorama' section. Despite the festival management's emphasis on the importance of these sections, journalistic sources indicated that only official competition films receive media coverage and global exposure, which Gaza films are deprived of.

Despite the absence of official recognition of political motives, budgetary pressures emerge as a crucial factor; Tuttle warned of a significant funding gap threatening the 2027-2028 editions, necessitating 'difficult prioritization'. This climate has pushed some filmmakers to resist, such as Ghanaian director Ayo Tsalithaba, who withdrew his film 'Joy Arrival' in protest of the German stance, considering that the institution no longer upholds universal human values.

Critical opinions were divided regarding the 2026 edition, whose jury is headed by director Wim Wenders; while some defend the diversity of artistic forms, international newspapers believe that Berlin has become 'more cautious' than the Cannes and Venice festivals. It seems that the festival, once a symbol of cinematic resistance, now prefers to protect its prestigious awards from political confrontation, which places the future of the 'Golden Bear' before existential questions about its ability to reward courage in the face of institutional threats.

In the festival economy, the placement of films in competition represents power, and their displacement to the margins constitutes structural marginalization.

The results of a poll conducted by the Hebrew newspaper /Maariv/ revealed that the majority of the Israeli public believes that the time has come for Netanyahu to end his political career.

According to the poll data, most Israelis (53%) believe that the time has come for Netanyahu to end his political role, either because he is harming the country (30%) or because he has achieved successes alongside mistakes, and it is time to “end with dignity” (23%).

While 38% believe that it is not yet time for him to end his role, and that he should run in the next Knesset elections.

However, an absolute majority of coalition voters (81%) support that it is not yet time for Netanyahu to end his political career, although 10% of them support that it is time for him to “end with dignity”.

Among opposition voters, a large majority (60%) believe that Netanyahu is harming the country and should leave, while another 28% say that it is time for him to “end with dignity”.

Netanyahu, 76 years old, began his political career as a Knesset member for the Likud party in 1988. Netanyahu served as prime minister in six different governments spread over three terms. His first term was from 1996 to 1999, his second term from 2009 to 2021, and his current, third term began in December 2022.

In an article brimming with bitterness, Israeli writer Gideon Levy paints a grim picture of the reality in the Gaza Strip, asserting that the recent military escalation in the Al-Mawasi area of Khan Yunis is not merely a “reaction” but a systematic policy to stifle any chance of calm.

Levy believes, in his article in Haaretz, that “Israel,” which has not stopped killing since the ceasefire agreement began last October/November, is now striving to thwart “Trump’s plan,” referring to US President Donald Trump’s plan, and return to a state of all-out war.

The death trap in “safe areas” Levy describes the scenes coming from the southern Strip as “horrific as usual”: scattered bodies, mutilated children, and even animals not spared from abuse. He expresses his disgust at seeing a horse killed by these raids, saying, “The sight was heartbreaking, as the brown mare’s body was thin, and the bombing certainly put an end to its suffering, the suffering of a hungry horse forced to hard labor in the Strip’s areas.”

The writer points out that the bombing that targeted the displaced persons’ tents in Al-Mawasi – which the occupation claimed was safe – proves the complex “Israeli deception.” While Hamas fulfilled its obligations to release the detainees, the Israeli military machine continued to claim lives, killing more than 500 Palestinians during the alleged “truce” period.

Levy asserts that Saturday’s strikes themselves were neither accidental nor their timing, noting that “Israel” claimed it launched them in response to Hamas’s violation of the ceasefire agreement, which Levy doubted, emphasizing instead that it is impossible to ignore the temporal proximity between the killings that occurred on Saturday and the reopening of the Rafah crossing scheduled for today, Sunday.

Sabotage agenda: Levy moves on to political analysis, saying that the timing of the massacres directly aims to:

First, sabotage the political process: obstructing the reopening of the Rafah crossing and the start of the second phase of the American plan.

Second, betting on failure: The Israeli government adopts a policy based on the hope of Trump’s plan failing, to get a new “green light” to reoccupy the entire Strip. This is what Levy quotes from writer Amos Harel in an article in Haaretz last Friday, where he says that the Israeli government’s policy “is based on its hope that Trump’s plan will fail, and that the American president will give “Israel” the green light to retake Gaza.”

The gambler’s escape: Levy likens the Israeli government to a “gambler” who lost his fortune and insists on another round, even though this country in 2026 is worse off (internally and internationally) than it was in 2023, according to Levy.

The writer concludes with a scathing remark about Israeli “indifference.” While Gaza overflows with blood, Israeli streets are preoccupied with luxury advertisements (jacuzzis and sports equipment) in a paradox that reflects the extent of moral decline and escapism from reality in this country, according to Levy.

Human Rights Watch is experiencing one of its most difficult internal upheavals, after its entire team dedicated to Palestine and the occupation officially announced their resignation. This protest move by Omar Shakir, the team leader with ten years of experience, and research assistant Milena Ansari, followed the leadership's sudden decision to withhold a comprehensive human rights report that concluded that the occupation's denial of Palestinian refugees' right of return is not merely a violation, but a 'crime against humanity'. The resigning members considered the withdrawal of the report moments before its scheduled publication a blatant departure from professional standards, and evidence of the organization's submission to political fears at the expense of legal facts.

The report, titled 'Our Souls in the Homes We Left Behind', is 33 pages long and is the product of in-depth research that began in early 2025. The report argued that the continued prevention of return since 1948 and 1967 falls under 'other inhumane acts' according to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.

The researchers based this on the precedent of the 2018 International Criminal Court ruling that condemned the prevention of Rohingya refugees' return, with the report attempting to apply this legal logic to the Palestinian situation to criminalize the occupation's policies that seek to maintain 'demographic superiority' through repression and displacement.

While Omar Shakir described the decision to withhold as a 'cowardly' act aimed at avoiding confrontation with supporters of the occupation and the Trump administration, the new executive director, Philip Bolopon, tried to portray the crisis as a 'professional disagreement' over strengthening the research basis. However, behind the scenes, the dispute revealed pressure to narrow the scope of the report to include only those displaced after 2023, which the team strongly rejected, considering that it removes the essence of the Palestinian tragedy represented by decades of forced deprivation, leading more than 200 employees to sign a petition rejecting political interference in human rights research findings.

This incident portends a deep rift in trust between Human Rights Watch and Palestinian civil society organizations, as activists, including Abay Aboudi, warned that the organization's reports would become suspect as long as they are subject to political considerations. Shakir concluded his journey with the organization with a bitter warning, emphasizing that the world needs a human rights voice that does not tremble in the face of violations, and that the new leadership's handling of the occupation file has undermined the integrity of research review, making the ability to defend Palestinian rights in this international forum subject to a new and serious evaluation.

Withdrawing the report moments before its scheduled publication is a blatant departure from professional standards, and evidence of the organization's submission to political fears at the expense of legal facts.

The Chief of Staff of the Occupation Army, Eyal Zamir, said on Monday that the army is 'preparing for a number of options,' pointing to the need to prepare 'for a series of offensive operations on all war fronts.' This came during a summary conference for the training of army brigades, divisions, and battalions, held as part of 'strengthening foundations and restoring efficiency,' with the participation of senior operations commanders, corps chiefs, and division officers.

Sources stated that the conference discussed drawing practical lessons from the training conducted in the regional divisions, and this is the first time this conference has been held in three years with the return to the maneuver schedule.

The General Staff's framework and timeline for the coming year were also presented, in addition to insights derived from force building and raising the army's readiness for war.

The Chief of Staff affirmed that the army is in a phase of improving combat readiness, stressing the need to continue drawing lessons from the events of October 7. He pointed out that the army must be vigilant to achieve victory in a multi-front war, while enhancing reconnaissance and movement capabilities. He also considered that 'a large-scale attack or a surprise war' is one of the most important lessons of the reference scenario.

Zamir explained that the insistence on holding this educational day stems from the necessity of mutual learning between regional commands and the General Staff, describing it as the 'cornerstone' of growth. He concluded by emphasizing the leadership group's commitment to enhancing defense and attack capabilities, considering that work without learning and drawing lessons is 'futile.'

The army must be vigilant to achieve victory in a multi-front war, and a large-scale attack or a surprise war is one of the most important lessons of the reference scenario.

Medical and field sources reported several injuries among citizens during a raid carried out by occupation forces on the city of Jericho, which resulted in the martyrdom of one person and various injuries.

The Palestinian Ministry of Health announced on Tuesday evening the martyrdom of young man Sa'id Na'il Sa'id Al-Sheikh (24 years old), who succumbed to his injuries from occupation forces' bullets during their raid on Jericho city. The director of Jericho Governmental Hospital, Dr. Riyad Eid, clarified that Al-Sheikh died as a result of a direct bullet wound to the abdomen by the occupation, which caused severe liver damage, leading to his martyrdom despite the intensive efforts of medical teams to save him.

In addition to the martyrdom, medical and field sources reported several other injuries among citizens during the raid, including two live bullet wounds of varying severity, and two injuries resulting from direct assault by occupation soldiers.

Medical teams also recorded the injury of a Palestinian woman who was deliberately run over by a military vehicle belonging to the occupation forces during the incursion into the city, necessitating her transfer for treatment.

This escalation comes amid continuous repeated raids on Jericho city and its camps, where occupation forces deliberately impose strict security measures that cause casualties among unarmed civilians. The martyrdom of young Sa'id Al-Sheikh represents a new case added to the record of escalating violations in the West Bank since the beginning of this year.

Al-Sheikh died as a result of a direct bullet wound to the abdomen by the occupation, which caused severe liver damage.

Media sources confirmed that out of 50 Palestinians who were supposed to return to the Gaza Strip via the Rafah crossing on Monday, the occupation allowed only 12 Palestinians to enter, while 38 others did not pass the security check and will wait on the Egyptian side of the crossing overnight. The sources added that the occupation allowed only five patients, each accompanied by two relatives, to cross to the Egyptian side, bringing the total number of entrants and exits to 27 Palestinians, according to a report published by Reuters on Tuesday.

Fifty Palestinians were scheduled to enter the Strip, and an equal number to exit, with many seeking to leave, including hospital patients, awaiting specialized medical care outside Gaza.

Palestinian officials stressed that the prevention of entry and exit of Gazans through the crossing, which reopened yesterday, was due to the alleged security measures of the occupation, at a time when nearly 20,000 Gaza residents hope to leave the Strip for treatment.

The occupation took control of the border crossing in May 2024, and since then it has remained largely closed except for a brief period during the previous ceasefire in early 2025. The reopening of the crossing was one of the requirements of the first phase of US President Donald Trump's plan, who announced in January that the second phase of negotiations on the future of Gaza would begin.

Despite the reopening, occupation raids on the north and south of the Strip yesterday resulted in the death of at least four martyrs, including a child. The occupation also continues to refuse to allow foreign journalists to enter, who have been banned since the beginning of the war, which caused widespread destruction and killed hundreds of local journalists.

Sources reported that Palestinians need security approval from the occupation to cross, as concrete barriers and barbed wire have been placed throughout the crossing. They must pass through three gates, one of which is managed by the Palestinian Authority under the supervision of a European Union team, but the occupation controls it remotely. The residents of the Strip now live in a narrow coastal strip, after the occupation took control of more than 53% of Gaza's territory and demolished buildings, forcing people to live in temporary tents.

Palestinian officials stressed that the prevention of entry and exit of Gazans through the reopened crossing was due to the alleged security measures of the occupation, at a time when nearly 20,000 Gaza residents hope to leave the Strip for treatment.

During his meeting with US Special Envoy Steve Witkoff, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu affirmed his demands, which he described as 'non-negotiable,' foremost among them the disarmament of the Hamas movement and the dismantling of its military capabilities, along with the complete disarmament of the Gaza Strip. He stressed the necessity of completing all war objectives before embarking on any phase of reconstruction for the Strip.

Netanyahu unequivocally clarified that the Palestinian Authority would not be part of the administration of the Gaza Strip 'in any way,' which aligns with previous reports about his official objection to the use of the Palestinian Authority's emblem in the National Committee for the Administration of Gaza (the Technocrat Committee).

He also informed Ambassador Huckabee of what he described as 'serious violations' uncovered in the Strip, claiming the use of UNRWA bags to conceal combat means, as part of the ongoing incitement campaign against the international agency.

Prior to Envoy Witkoff's meeting with a representative from Iran, Netanyahu emphasized his stance that Tehran has repeatedly proven that its commitments cannot be relied upon, in a clear indication of skepticism regarding any negotiation path that might result from the anticipated Istanbul meetings, coinciding with the implementation of the second phase of the American plan under the supervision of the 'Peace Council' headed by Donald Trump.

The Palestinian Authority will not be part of the administration of the Gaza Strip in any way.

Media sources reported the killing of Saif al-Islam, son of the late Libyan leader Colonel Muammar Gaddafi, on Tuesday, according to the official Libyan news agency. The announcement came based on a post published by Saif al-Islam Gaddafi's advisor and head of his political team, Abdullah Othman, who confirmed the death without delving into the details of the incident.

The spokesman for the former Libyan regime, Moussa Ibrahim, also mourned Saif al-Islam in a post on his official account, indicating that he was subjected to a 'treacherous' assassination. Ibrahim stated that Saif al-Islam aspired to unite Libya, describing him as the most fortunate and popular candidate in the country, and criticizing the parties behind the incident.

In contrast, the 444th Fighting Brigade issued a statement categorically denying what is being circulated on social media platforms regarding its connection to the clashes that occurred in the city of Zintan, and the accompanying news of Saif al-Islam Gaddafi's killing, which adds a state of ambiguity to the reality of what happened on the ground.

These reports come amid a state of ambiguity surrounding Saif al-Islam Gaddafi's movements for years, as his name has remained present in the Libyan political scene, especially with the increasing talk in recent periods about the possibilities of his entry into political and electoral paths, amid a sharp division witnessed in the country and complexities related to unifying institutions and ending the transitional phase.

Saif al-Islam Gaddafi is considered one of the most prominent symbols of the Libyan regime, and his name topped the scene after the events of 2011, before he later appeared on various occasions that sparked widespread controversy about his political future, at a time when security and political crises continue to hinder reaching a comprehensive settlement and holding general elections in the country.

They assassinated hope and a future, and sowed hatred and animosity.. The goal is more bloodshed, the division of Libya, and the destruction of every national unity project.

The Jeddah Astronomical Society has determined the date for the appearance of the Ramadan crescent moon in the sky during the current month of February, according to astronomical calculations. This month witnesses a number of diverse astronomical phenomena, making it one of the most distinctive months for observation, and providing astronomy enthusiasts with an opportunity to follow the moon, planets, and stars and enjoy striking cosmic scenes.

In this regard, the head of the Jeddah Astronomical Society, Engineer Majed Abu Zahra, explained that the observation of faint celestial bodies is affected during the first week of February due to the bright moonlight, as the moon was full on the first of the month. Abu Zahra clarified that the name 'Snow Moon' is not a scientific astronomical term, but rather a traditional name used by some indigenous North American cultures due to its historical association with the period of snowfall.

The head of the society affirmed that astronomy does not rely on such designations in scientific classification, as the moon is known according to its geometric state in its orbit, such as 'Full Moon' when it is at an elongation of approximately 180 degrees from the sun. He mentioned that the full moon follows a high path in the northern hemisphere sky, rising with sunset and setting with sunrise, following the path of the summer sun.

Sources added that on the night of February 2nd or 3rd, depending on the geographical location, the waning gibbous moon will pass in front of the star Regulus, the brightest star in the constellation Leo, in a phenomenon known as occultation, which is observed across a geographical range extending from Northwest Africa to parts of North America, while it is seen as a conjunction in Saudi Arabia and most Arab countries.

Regarding Ramadan, Abu Zahra said that February 18th will witness the observation of the thin Ramadan crescent between the planets Mercury and Venus shortly after sunset, which requires a clear western horizon free of obstructions, while the waxing crescent will appear on the evening of February 19th near Saturn in a low scene on the western horizon after sunset.

The head of the Astronomical Society explained that Jupiter is the most prominent celestial body during this month, appearing in the constellation Gemini and easily distinguishable as a very bright point in the southeastern horizon after sunset. He also indicated that Saturn is making its last evening appearances this season, being seen low in the southwest at the beginning of the month and setting early.

February 18th will witness the observation of the thin Ramadan crescent between the planets Mercury and Venus shortly after sunset.