When the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs hosted a conference in Paris that brought together dozens of Palestinians and Israelis under the title of supporting peace and the two-state solution, the picture initially appeared positive and encouraging. France, like other friendly nations to the Palestinian people, continues to try to maintain a political horizon in a time of increasing wars, extremism, and despair. Furthermore, involving civil society organizations in the discussion about the future of the region remains a legitimate and desirable goal.

However, behind this facade hides a phenomenon that has been expanding in recent years: the rise of a class of non-governmental organizations, some of which have exceeded the natural role of civil society and have gradually begun to act as an alternative to political parties and national factions.

During long years of division, stagnation, absence of elections, and decline of democratic life, parties and factions have lost a large part of their vitality and their ability to attract new generations. Their diplomatic, intellectual, and media presence on the international stage has also declined, and they have distanced themselves from many discussions revolving around the future of the Palestinian cause.

With the decline of organized political action, non-governmental organizations emerged that succeeded in building extensive relationships with funders, diplomatic missions, and international institutions. It was natural for these institutions to play an important role in the fields of development, human rights, community dialogue, and capacity building. However, some of these institutions decided to transform from their civil role to an undeclared political role, where figures associated with this sector began to speak on behalf of Palestinians in international conferences, participate in drafting political initiatives, sit at informal negotiation tables, and be presented to foreign governments as representatives of Palestinian society.

Over time, a new class of unelected political elites emerged. They enjoyed diplomatic invitations, became addicted to international conferences, and were captivated by ceremonies, protocols, and official meetings. Some of their members traveled between Paris, Brussels, Geneva, and Washington more than they traveled between Nablus, Hebron, Gaza, and the Palestinian camps. And because the international community always looks for ready and familiar partners, the same faces kept reappearing at the same conferences, speaking the same discourse, and receiving the same funding year after year.

Perhaps the most prominent example of this reality is what we recently witnessed: the distribution of approximately 18 million euros through a French government agency to a specific group of institutions working in this sector. The intention here is not to object to supporting civil society or funding initiatives aimed at dialogue and peace, as such support can be legitimate and beneficial if it is subject to standards of transparency, accountability, and justice. But Palestinians have the right to ask: How were the beneficiaries chosen? What criteria were adopted? What is the real impact these institutions have achieved within Palestinian society over the past years? And why do the same names and the same organizations recur in most international funding programs?

More importantly, how can the injection of millions of euros into a sector that claims to represent Palestinian society be justified, while this society itself remains unaware of the details of these funds, how they are spent, and their results? Some institutions working in this field manage annual budgets that exceed those of active political parties and forces, and some of their senior officials receive salaries and allowances that exceed what Palestinian ministers and officials receive. While the Palestinian employee, teacher, and worker struggle to secure their basic needs, a financially comfortable professional class has emerged around part of this sector, whose sustainability is linked more to the continuation of external funding than to measuring its real impact within Palestinian society.

The issue is not only about legitimacy but also about accountability. No one elected these institutions. No one authorized them to speak on behalf of Palestinians. And no organization, no matter how important its contributions, can claim to represent an entire society or replace political parties, movements, and national institutions. Political parties, despite all the criticisms that can be directed at them, remain obligated to their public to justify their positions and decisions. However, part of this new sector has succeeded in combining political influence with a lack of popular accountability. Hence, the necessity of launching a serious national discussion about transparency arises.

If some of these organizations wish to play a direct political role, and if they demand to be seen as partners in shaping public policies and representing Palestinian society, then Palestinians have the right to know more about them... Where does their funding come from? Who are the members of their boards of directors? How are their decisions made? Who determines their political priorities? And what are the mechanisms that make them accountable to the society they claim to represent?

External funding is not an accusation, civil work is not a crime, and association with the international community is not a flaw. But political work without transparency, claiming representation without authorization, and demanding influence over the future of the Palestinian people without being subject to societal oversight are matters that deserve discussion and accountability. However, the Palestinian cause does not need to replace old elites with new elites, nor to replace factions with non-governmental organizations, nor to transfer national decision-making from political institutions to the rooms of funded projects. What Palestine needs today is to revive politics itself.

We need free elections, modern parties, new leadership, accountable institutions, and a strong and independent civil society that plays its natural role in oversight, awareness, and defending rights, rather than becoming an alternative to political life. Democracy is not built by projects, representation is not granted through diplomatic invitations, and legitimacy is not issued by European embassies.

Any civil society organization has the right to defend its ideas and initiatives, but no one has the right to demand a political and representative role without first accepting the rules of transparency, accountability, and popular oversight to which democratic political work is subject. Palestinian democracy cannot be built by replacing parties with non-governmental organizations, just as a state cannot be built by replacing citizens with funders.

Politics is made by the people's representatives, not by project owners. Legitimacy is granted by voters, not by donors. And the future of Palestine must be decided by Palestinians through their elected institutions, not through funding networks and international conferences, no matter how good the intentions of those in charge.

Groups of extremist settlers launched a destructive attack targeting places of worship in the Ramallah governorate, central occupied West Bank, early Wednesday morning. Local sources reported that settlers infiltrated the towns of Jaljulia and Mazari al-Nubani, where they set fire to two mosques and spray-painted racist and incitement slogans on their walls, in a move that reflects the escalating pace of settlement terrorism against Palestinian holy sites.

In the town of Jaljulia, residents rose up to confront the settlers who attempted to burn the 'Grand Mosque,' leading to clashes during which occupation forces intervened to secure the withdrawal of the attackers. The army forces heavily fired toxic and tear gas canisters at citizens, providing security cover for the settlers and preventing Palestinians from protecting their mosque. This was repeated in the town of Mazari al-Nubani, where the 'Al-Farouq' mosque suffered extensive material damage to its contents and basic facilities.

These attacks come amidst international and official reports warning of an explosion of the situation, as the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) documented more than a thousand attacks carried out by settlers since the beginning of this year. These systematic attacks have led to the displacement of more than 2,200 Palestinians from their communities, amid international silence and field complicity by the occupation army, which provides protection to settlers during the commission of their crimes.

For its part, the Wall and Settlement Resistance Commission revealed shocking figures indicating that the occupation army and settlers carried out more than 1,600 attacks in just one month in various areas of the West Bank. Approximately 750,000 settlers currently reside in the West Bank, distributed among 141 settlements and 224 outposts. These outposts serve as launching pads for daily attacks targeting Palestinian property, holy sites, and lives.

The residents of Jaljulia confronted the settlers during their attempt to burn the Grand Mosque, which prompted the occupation forces to storm the area and provide protection for the attackers.

Official sources at the Swiss Ministry of Foreign Affairs reported the cancellation of the round of talks that was scheduled to begin in the Bürgenstock mountain resort between the United States and Iran. This step reflects a sudden setback in the implementation of the comprehensive agreement that ended the military confrontation between the two powers, raising questions about the resilience of recent understandings.

The Swiss announcement followed confirmations from the White House stating that US Vice President JD Vance had canceled his scheduled visit to Switzerland. Vance was supposed to meet with Iranian negotiators to oversee the start of technical discussions related to the implementation of the fourteen agreed-upon articles of the agreement between the two sides.

A White House spokesperson attributed this setback to what he described as logistical complexities, noting that the US delegation was preparing to depart as soon as final arrangements were completed. The spokesperson explained that the nature of these negotiations is always unpredictable, which made organizational aspects an obstacle to completing the meeting on its scheduled date.

For its part, Tehran adopted a reserved stance towards official ceremonies, with the Iranian Ministry of Foreign Affairs considering a signing ceremony in Geneva unnecessary. Tehran based its position on the fact that the presidents of the two countries had already signed the agreement document last Wednesday, making the focus on procedural steps more important than protocol displays.

In a related context, media sources quoted Iranian negotiators expressing their desire to seek practical and tangible indications of Washington's commitment to its pledges before engaging in any new rounds of negotiations. Although Tehran expressed its readiness for technical discussions after extending the ceasefire for sixty days, mutual trust remains the biggest challenge for both parties.

On the ground, these diplomatic developments coincided with the continuation of Israeli military operations in southern Lebanon, which puts additional pressure on the strength of regional understandings. Reports indicated that Iran tried to impose its own interpretations of the clauses related to the Lebanese situation, which was met with reservations from other international parties involved in monitoring the agreement.

Inside Iran, sharp statements emerged from Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei, who considered that the American signing of the agreement came as a result of a state of despair within President Donald Trump's administration. Khamenei warned that the upcoming negotiations on the nuclear program would not be easy, affirming his country's absolute rejection of what he described as exaggerated American demands.

The controversial agreement includes a two-month deadline to reach a final settlement on the Iranian nuclear file, with promises to establish an international fund for the reconstruction of Iran worth up to $300 billion. The agreement also includes a package of economic incentives aimed at ensuring regional stability and permanently halting military escalation.

In Washington, informed sources revealed that the US Department of Defense may request massive additional funding of up to $80 billion to cover war expenses and related operations. This figure represents a huge jump compared to previous estimates announced by the Pentagon last April, which limited the cost to only $25 billion.

The new funding request faces fierce opposition within Congress, as lawmakers express growing concern about the repercussions of these expenditures on the struggling American economy. Critics believe that the extent of concessions made in the agreement is not commensurate with the exorbitant costs incurred by the US Treasury during the conflict, opening the door to a long internal political debate.

The logistical aspects of these negotiations have never been easy or predictable.

By: Said Arikat

June 19, 2026

News analysis

Washington, D.C- Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu finds himself trapped by the consequences of a war he spent years promoting and ultimately helped bring about. The campaign against Iran, which he championed relentlessly and reportedly persuaded President Donald Trump to join, has failed to produce the strategic transformation he promised. Instead of weakening Iran into submission, the war exposed the limits of military force, heightened fears of regional instability, and accelerated the very outcome Netanyahu has spent decades trying to prevent: direct diplomacy between Washington and Tehran.

For Netanyahu, this is more than a policy setback. It is a profound political and strategic defeat.

Few leaders have invested more personal capital in portraying Iran as an existential threat requiring perpetual confrontation. For years, Netanyahu warned that diplomacy was naïve, compromise was dangerous, and military pressure was the only language Tehran understood. Successive Israeli governments under his leadership worked tirelessly to shape American policy around that premise. Whether through public speeches, private lobbying, or direct intervention in American political debates, Netanyahu consistently sought to steer Washington toward a harder line against Iran.

The result was a strategy built on a simple assumption: that sufficient military pressure would either force Tehran to capitulate or create conditions for internal upheaval. Yet the war delivered neither outcome. Iran suffered significant damage but remained intact. Its government survived. Its institutions endured. Rather than producing a decisive victory, the conflict generated uncertainty, economic disruption, and growing concern about the risk of a wider regional war.

As the costs mounted, Washington began confronting a reality that Netanyahu had long sought to avoid. There was no clear military endgame. The prospect of an open-ended conflict stretching across the Middle East offered little strategic benefit to the United States and considerable political risk. Faced with that reality, the Trump administration increasingly gravitated toward diplomacy as the only viable path to de-escalation.

That shift has left Netanyahu politically stranded.

The irony is difficult to miss. The Israeli leader who devoted much of his career to preventing an American-Iranian accommodation may ultimately be remembered as the man whose failed war made such an accommodation unavoidable. Far from discrediting diplomacy, the conflict strengthened the argument for it. The longer the fighting continued, the clearer it became that military force could not deliver the sweeping political objectives promised by its advocates.

More troubling for Netanyahu is the growing perception that he played a decisive role in drawing the United States into a conflict that served Israeli political interests more than American national interests. Critics increasingly argue that Washington was encouraged to enter a dangerous regional quagmire without a clearly defined objective beyond escalation itself. The expectation that military pressure would somehow produce a fundamentally different Middle East proved as unrealistic as it was costly.

This perception matters because the political environment in the United States has changed dramatically.

For decades, support for Israel was among the least controversial positions in American politics. Today, however, public opinion is increasingly against Israel. Younger Americans, independents, and even portions of the traditional pro-Israel constituency have become more critical of Israeli policies. The images emerging from Gaza, the expansion of settlements, the continued occupation of Palestinian territories, and allegations of apartheid-like practices have reshaped public perceptions. Criticism once confined to the margins has entered the political mainstream.

Netanyahu himself has become a central symbol of that shift.

To many Americans, he no longer appears as a statesman safeguarding Israeli security. Instead, he is increasingly viewed as a politician who has repeatedly chosen escalation over diplomacy, conflict over compromise, and political survival over regional stability. The perception that he encouraged the United States to become involved in another costly Middle Eastern war has only deepened that skepticism.

Indeed, a growing number of Americans regard Netanyahu not as a trusted ally but as an ungrateful and manipulative partner—one willing to leverage American power in pursuit of objectives that many believe neither advance American interests nor contribute to regional peace.

Yet even as his standing erodes abroad, Netanyahu faces mounting pressure at home.

The emerging American-Iranian agreement threatens the ideological foundations of the coalition that has sustained him politically. Many of his most ardent supporters reject not merely this agreement but virtually any agreement that limits Israel’s freedom of action. Their vision of regional order rests on permanent military superiority, indefinite occupation, and the belief that force rather than diplomacy should determine political outcomes.

For these factions, any accommodation with Iran is unacceptable. More broadly, they oppose diplomatic arrangements that might constrain Israeli power, whether related to Iran, the Palestinians, or regional security. Their preferred outcome is not coexistence but uncontested dominance.

This places Netanyahu in an increasingly impossible position.

On one side stands Trump, who appears eager to transform a costly and inconclusive conflict into a diplomatic achievement. On the other stands a political base that regards compromise as surrender. Netanyahu cannot afford to alienate either.

Unlike his famous confrontation with former President Barack Obama over the 2015 nuclear agreement, however, Netanyahu’s room for maneuver is severely limited. When Obama pursued diplomacy, Netanyahu openly challenged him, lobbied Congress against him, and effectively inserted himself into American domestic politics. He calculated, correctly, that he could defy a Democratic administration without suffering lasting consequences.

Trump presents a different challenge altogether.

Netanyahu understands that openly undermining a Trump-backed agreement could provoke a backlash from the very political forces upon which Israel has increasingly relied. Whatever influence he once wielded in Washington, he cannot casually challenge Trump in the way he challenged Obama. The political risks are simply too great.

Consequently, Netanyahu finds himself trapped between the failure of the war he promoted and the diplomacy he cannot embrace.

The deeper problem is that the regional landscape is changing in ways that undermine the foundations of his strategy. The assumption that military escalation would produce political transformation has been discredited. Regional actors increasingly favor stability over confrontation. Washington appears more interested in preventing another endless war than in sustaining one. Even among Israel’s closest partners, enthusiasm for permanent conflict is fading.

For Netanyahu, these developments are not merely unwelcome; they are existentially threatening to the political narrative that has defined his career. For decades, he positioned himself as the indispensable guardian against Iranian power and the principal advocate of confrontation. Now diplomacy is advancing precisely because confrontation failed.

That is the essence of his predicament. The war he encouraged did not achieve its objectives. The quagmire he helped create is one Washington increasingly wishes to escape. And the diplomatic process emerging from its ruins threatens to expose the central flaw in Netanyahu’s long-standing strategy: the belief that military force could indefinitely substitute for political solutions.

If the American-Iranian agreement succeeds, it will represent more than a diplomatic breakthrough. It will stand as a verdict on the failure of the politics of perpetual escalation. And no leader will find that verdict more difficult to accept than Benjamin Netanyahu.

A recent economic assessment conducted by a team specializing in Middle Eastern affairs showed that the recently signed Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the United States and Iran heavily favors Tehran. The report indicated that the 14-point document grants Iran a clear advantage in 9 key provisions, while Washington achieved explicit gains in only two provisions, with three remaining in the framework of procedural neutrality.

Analysts considered the first provision, concerning the cessation of military operations on all fronts, including the Lebanese arena, a political victory for Iran. This commitment places the United States under direct responsibility to contain its ally Israel and prevent it from launching attacks, providing security cover for Tehran's allies in the region under the umbrella of the new international agreement.

Regarding respect for sovereignty and territorial integrity, the assessment clarified that this provision restricts the American side more than its Iranian counterpart. Realistically, Tehran does not possess the technical or military capability to target American territory, making Washington's commitment not to interfere or target a fundamental security concession that serves the stability of the Iranian regime.

Sources also highlighted the fourth provision, which obliges the United States to completely lift the naval blockade and withdraw its forces from Iran's vicinity within a specified period of 30 days. Experts believe that the ambiguity of the term 'Iran's vicinity' may give Tehran an opportunity to demand broader withdrawals, thereby reducing US military influence in vital waterways in the region.

As for navigation in the Strait of Hormuz, the assessment considered that the current wording serves the Iranian agenda, as Tehran commits to ensuring safe passage for only 60 days without fees. This short timeframe opens the door for future negotiations with Gulf and Omani states, enhancing Iran's negotiating position in managing one of the world's most important waterways.

Provision six, concerning reconstruction, represents the cornerstone of Tehran's economic gains, as it stipulates a development plan with funding of no less than $300 billion. Although the sources and mechanisms of funding will be determined in the final agreement, the mere approval of this huge amount is an international recognition of the need to support the Iranian economy, which has been exhausted by years of isolation.

In a related context, the report stressed the importance of the seventh provision, which stipulates the termination of all forms of US sanctions, including those issued by Congress or the United Nations. This comprehensive commitment to the gradual lifting of primary and secondary sanctions represents a response to Tehran's historical demands and paves the way for its full return to the global financial and trade system.

On the other hand, the eighth provision emerged as one of Washington's few gains, in which Iran affirmed its non-pursuit of developing or possessing nuclear weapons. However, the assessment noted that the implementation mechanisms still lack precise details, with fundamental nuclear issues deferred to subsequent rounds of negotiations, which may reduce the actual value of this American commitment.

Regarding the current status of the nuclear program, the report considered that the ninth provision serves Iran because it prevents Washington from imposing new sanctions or strengthening its military presence in exchange for freezing nuclear activities at their current level. This balance prevents American escalation without imposing a real dismantling of the nuclear infrastructure that Iran has developed over the past years.

The memorandum also included immediate exemptions for Iranian oil and petrochemical exports, which analysts described as a vital and rapid gain for Tehran. These exemptions are not limited to crude sales but extend to banking, insurance, and transportation services, ensuring the legal and regular flow of hard currency into the Iranian treasury.

Regarding frozen assets, the agreement granted Tehran full right to access its restricted funds abroad and use them to settle its obligations or transfer them freely. This provision ends years of legal and financial conflict over Iranian funds held in international banks and restores full control to Tehran over its idle financial resources.

As for the provisions related to implementation mechanisms and the path of final negotiations in Switzerland, they were classified as neutral procedural steps aimed at organizing the transitional process. However, the last provision, which stipulates the adoption of the agreement by a binding resolution of the UN Security Council, represents a major legal guarantee for Iran, aimed at preventing a repeat of the scenario of unilateral US withdrawal that occurred in 2018.

The assessment concluded that these gains, despite their magnitude on paper, remain linked to the Iranian state's ability to translate them into tangible reality that addresses internal crises. Informed sources confirmed that the next round of negotiations in Switzerland will be crucial in transforming these understandings into a final and comprehensive agreement that ends decades of tension between the two parties.

The US-Iran agreement overwhelmingly favors Tehran, as most provisions of the memorandum of understanding grant Iran greater political, economic, and security gains than the United States.

Urgent: Washington's Message

Washington – Said Arikat – 6/18/2026

The memorandum of understanding signed between Washington and Tehran has entered the practical implementation phase, after US Vice President J.D. Vance announced the start of the sixty-day official negotiation period to reach a permanent agreement between the two countries, while simultaneously confirming the lifting of the naval blockade imposed by the US Navy on Iranian ports.

Vance's statements came during a press conference held at the White House, dedicated to defending the new understanding in the face of increasing criticism from the administration's opponents inside and outside the United States, who question the agreement's ability to achieve its stated goals or ensure Iran's commitment to its pledges.

Vance said that the lifting of naval restrictions allowed more than a dozen ships carrying approximately 12.5 million barrels of crude oil to pass through the Strait of Hormuz, considering this step to be an implementation of the obligations required from the American side under the preliminary phase of the agreement.

The US Vice President indicated that the sixty-day period represents a crucial test of Tehran's seriousness and its readiness to fulfill commitments related to reducing high-level uranium enrichment, an issue that has remained the main point of contention between the two countries for years.

In response to journalists' questions regarding previous statements by President Donald Trump hinting at the possibility of Iran retaining some missile capabilities, Vance clarified that any future arrangements in this area would be limited exclusively to defensive capabilities and would not allow the possession of systems that pose a threat to regional security or the international community.

He also stressed that the administration is not providing money to Iran, denying the accusations made by critics of the agreement. He affirmed that any sanctions exemptions or economic facilities will remain directly and fully linked to the extent of Tehran's commitment to the terms of the understanding and the ongoing negotiation framework.

The Trump administration seeks to market the agreement as a historic opportunity to end decades of animosity between the two countries, at a time when negotiations are preparing to move to a more complex phase during upcoming diplomatic summits and consultations that may define the features of the US-Iranian relationship for many years to come.

However, doubts still surround the negotiation process, especially in light of the strong opposition the agreement faces from political parties within the United States, in addition to Israeli and regional reservations that believe any easing of sanctions could give Iran additional resources to strengthen its influence in the region.

Test of Trust After Four Decades of Hostility

The importance of the announcement lies not only in the lifting of the naval blockade or the start of the negotiation deadline, but in that it represents the first practical test of the possible level of trust between Washington and Tehran after more than four decades of estrangement and repeated clashes. The two parties are not only negotiating technical issues related to enrichment or sanctions, but also about redefining the rules of political and security engagement that have governed their relations since 1979. Therefore, the success of the sixty-day period will largely depend on each party's ability to convince the other that it is ready to move from crisis management to addressing its root causes.

The Retreat of the Logic of Force in Favor of Pragmatism

The decision to lift the naval blockade reflects a significant shift in the Trump administration's approach to Iran. After years of maximum pressure, sanctions, and threats of military force, it appears that the White House has become more convinced of the utility of political and economic incentives in pushing Tehran towards long-term settlements. This does not mean that Washington is abandoning its pressure tools, but rather reordering its priorities to achieve strategic goals at the lowest possible cost. This shift may have broader implications for overall US policy in the Middle East.

Israel Faces a New Strategic Reality

The progress of negotiations is likely to raise increasing concern within Israel, which has built a large part of its regional strategy over the past years on the continuation of US-Iranian tension. The closer Washington and Tehran get to stable understandings, the less able the Israeli government will be to use the Iranian threat as an absolute priority in relations with the United States. Furthermore, the success of the agreement may strengthen voices within Washington calling for a re-evaluation of traditional policies towards the Middle East, including the approach to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.

A Narrow and Risky Diplomatic Window

Despite the positive atmosphere that the US administration is trying to project, the path to a permanent agreement is still fraught with obstacles. The issues at hand go beyond the nuclear file to include ballistic missiles, sanctions, regional influence, and security arrangements in the Gulf. Moreover, any unforeseen military or political incident could threaten to derail the entire process. Therefore, the sixty-day deadline seems more like a narrow diplomatic window that both parties must quickly utilize, before the forces of extremism and confrontation regain the initiative and return relations to the cycle of escalation once again.

The Christian presence in Palestine has never been merely a religious minority living in a holy land; rather, it has been an integral part of the historical and cultural identity of this land, a living witness to the succession of civilizations, religions, and cultures over thousands of years. However, this presence, which has endured wars, empires, and major transformations, today faces unprecedented challenges that threaten its continuity, amidst escalating attacks, increasing emigration, and a worrying decline in numbers. Recent data indicate a significant escalation in attacks targeting Christians and their holy sites in Jerusalem and the rest of the Holy Land. 155 incidents were documented in 2025, ranging from physical assaults on clergy, vandalism of church properties, racist graffiti, and repeated harassment of pilgrims and visitors. In the first months of 2026 alone, more than 88 new incidents were recorded, reflecting an escalating trend that portends further tension and targeting. These attacks cannot be viewed as isolated or separate incidents; rather, they occur within a political, security, and social environment that pressures the Christian presence and drives many of its members to consider emigration. Difficult economic conditions, rising living costs, declining job opportunities, and restrictions on movement and construction are all intertwined factors that create an unwelcoming environment for indigenous populations, including Christians. Demographic figures reveal the extent of the transformation that the Holy Land has witnessed over the past decades. In Jerusalem, where Christians once constituted a significant proportion of the city's population, their presence has dwindled to a narrow margin not exceeding about 2% of the population, after their proportion was much higher in previous historical stages. In Bethlehem, the city whose name is associated with the birth of Christ, the percentage of Christians has decreased from about 80% to approximately 10% only, in one of the most alarming demographic shifts in the region. This decline represents a loss not only for Christians but also for Palestine and for the entire global human and religious heritage. The religious and cultural diversity that characterized Jerusalem, Bethlehem, and Nazareth for centuries was one of their most important strengths and unique features. When the components of this diversity shrink, the Holy City itself loses a part of its soul, history, and identity. Churches and Christian institutions warn that the continuation of current conditions will lead to an accelerated pace of emigration, especially among young people who seek security, stability, and economic opportunities outside the country. With every family that leaves, society not only loses some of its members but also loses a part of its memory, history, and connection to its roots extending in this land since the beginnings of early Christianity. The painful irony is that the world, whose millions of people annually flock to visit and bless the holy places, often stands helpless or silent in the face of the continuous erosion of the local Christian presence that has preserved and cared for these places over the centuries. Holy sites are not just stones and ruins; they are also people, communities, and living cultures that give these places their true meaning. The danger facing Christians in the Holy Land today is not only the decline in their numbers but also the possibility of their historical presence becoming merely a memory or a limited symbolic presence. If the attacks, restrictive policies, and forced emigration continue in their current form, Jerusalem and Bethlehem may witness profound demographic changes in the coming decades that will be difficult to reverse or compensate for their effects. The issue at its core is not a matter of a specific sect or religious group, but a matter of an indigenous people and a part of the history of this land. Protecting the Christian presence in Palestine is not the responsibility of Christians alone, but a humanitarian, moral, and political responsibility related to preserving the identity, diversity, and heritage of the Holy Land, which is part of the global human heritage. What is happening today in Jerusalem, Bethlehem, and the rest of the Holy Land is not just a transient demographic decline, but a slow process of attrition of one of the oldest indigenous components of this land. When Christians are forced to leave under the weight of attacks, restrictions, and lack of prospects, the issue goes beyond population numbers to affect the identity of the place itself. Jerusalem, which is being emptied of its historical diversity, and Bethlehem, where the children of the cradle of Christ are diminishing year after year, are not just cities losing a part of their inhabitants, but losing a part of their soul and memory. If the world continues to merely observe this bleeding in silence, the danger will not be only to the Christian presence, but to the historical narrative of the entire Holy Land. Then, a day may come when churches are full of pilgrims and tourists, but empty of their indigenous people who kept the flame of this heritage alive for long centuries. At that point, the question will not be: Why did the Christian presence in Palestine decline? But rather, why was the Holy Land left to lose its people one after another before the eyes of the world?

The United States of America officially announced the details of the Memorandum of Understanding reached with the Islamic Republic of Iran, named 'Islamabad Memorandum of Understanding'. This announcement paves the way for a transitional phase aimed at ending military and political tensions in the region through a specific temporal roadmap.

The memorandum includes a fundamental clause stipulating the immediate and permanent cessation of all military operations on all active fronts, with explicit mention that this cessation includes the Lebanese arena. Both parties also pledged to refrain from launching any future attacks or threatening the use of force, while guaranteeing the full sovereignty and territorial integrity of the concerned states.

Regarding the field aspect, Washington committed to immediately begin lifting the naval blockade imposed on Iran, with this blockade to be fully lifted within thirty days. The agreement also included a US pledge to withdraw military forces from areas surrounding Iran within one month of the signing of the anticipated final agreement.

For its part, Tehran pledged to secure commercial navigation in the Gulf and Oman Sea for sixty days, and to begin technical operations to remove naval mines within thirty days. Iran will open a dialogue with the Sultanate of Oman to regulate the future administration of the Strait of Hormuz in line with international laws and the rights of riparian states.

On the economic front, the document revealed a massive plan for the reconstruction and development of Iran worth no less than 300 billion US dollars, to be implemented in cooperation with regional partners. The US administration will issue all necessary financial licenses to ensure the flow of these investments as part of the final agreement to be approved.

The memorandum also stipulated a US commitment to end all forms of sanctions imposed on Tehran, whether unilateral sanctions or those issued by the UN Security Council and the International Atomic Energy Agency. This will be accompanied by a clear timeline ensuring the gradual and systematic lifting of restrictions on the Iranian economy during the negotiation period.

In the nuclear file, Iran reiterated its commitment not to seek nuclear weapons, and both parties agreed on a mechanism to reduce uranium enrichment levels at existing sites. This process will be under the direct supervision of the International Atomic Energy Agency, taking into account Iran's peaceful nuclear needs in the final agreement.

Under the new understandings, the US Treasury Department will issue immediate waivers allowing Iran to export crude oil, its derivatives, and petroleum products without hindrance. These waivers include all logistical services associated with export, including insurance, transportation, and international banking transactions that were previously prohibited.

The United States also commits to providing full access to frozen Iranian funds and assets abroad immediately upon the implementation of the memorandum's provisions. Mechanisms for transferring these funds to settle payments specified by the Central Bank of Iran will be agreed upon, with all necessary legal permits issued to facilitate these operations.

The memorandum set a sixty-day period to reach the final version of the agreement, with the possibility of extension if both parties agree. During this period, the current status of Iran's nuclear program will be maintained in exchange for no new US sanctions or additional troop deployments in the region.

Informed sources reported that the final round of negotiations will begin in Switzerland next Friday, where discussions will focus on technical details and implementation mechanisms. A joint monitoring mechanism will oversee ensuring the commitment of all parties to the memorandum's provisions to ensure a smooth transition towards a comprehensive agreement.

Finally, the memorandum emphasized that the final agreement reached will be submitted to the UN Security Council for adoption as a binding resolution under Chapter VII. This approach reflects the desire of both parties to give the understandings a permanent international legal character, ensuring long-term stability in the region.

The United States of America and the Islamic Republic of Iran pledge to respect each other's sovereignty and territorial integrity, and to refrain from interfering in each other's internal affairs.

In a new crime reflecting the harsh reality in the Gaza Strip, Israeli occupation missiles assassinated the dream of young Abd Al-Jawad Abu Laban, who was racing against time to arrange the details of his promised wedding. While he was eagerly touring the streets to distribute wedding invitations to relatives and friends, occupation aircraft surprised him with a treacherous raid targeting his vehicle in central Gaza City, turning the anticipated wedding suit into a shroud wrapped around his pure body.

Local sources reported that the targeting not only resulted in Abu Laban's death but also led to the martyrdom of two other young men who were with him, in addition to varying injuries among passersby. The area where the bombing occurred turned into a scene of sorrow and shock, as wedding invitations bearing the names of the guests were scattered, mixing with the blood of the martyrs and the wreckage of the destroyed vehicle in a heartbreaking scene.

The farewell scenes at the hospital were extremely harsh, as members of Abu Laban's family appeared in a state of complete shock and bewilderment before their son's body. The martyr's uncle recited moving words as he embraced his body, reminding him that next Friday was supposed to be his grand wedding day, bitterly pointing out that the invitation cards, whose distribution journey was incomplete, were still in his possession.

For his part, journalist Islam Badr documented the first moments after the bombing through video footage, showing images of the charred vehicle wreckage and remnants of colored paper bearing the details of the wedding ceremony. These images spread like wildfire on social media platforms, making the story of the 'Gaza Groom' a new symbol of the ongoing suffering experienced by the residents of the Strip under the weight of direct targeting.

Activists and journalists widely reacted to the tragedy, with blogger Mahmoud Al-Sharif writing words expressing oppression, explaining that the occupation deliberately kills joy in the hearts of Palestinians. Al-Sharif affirmed that the presence of invitation cards inside the targeted vehicle summarizes the story of a people deprived of their most basic rights to life and celebrating their social occasions amidst death lurking at every corner.

In the context of international and local condemnation, Yahya Bashir bitterly questioned the concept of hope and life that the world talks about in light of these repeated crimes. Bashir denounced the form of life imposed on Palestinians, where anyone who tries to restore the pulse of their normal life faces missiles that end their dreams in an instant, emphasizing that this targeting is a cowardly act that fears the stability of the Palestinian people.

For her part, journalist Nusaiba Helles explained that the occupation practices a policy of assassinating joy before its birth, noting that the martyr Abd Al-Jawad was distributing his invitations hoping for a peaceful life. She added that these crimes aim to break the morale of Palestinians, but in return, they increase their determination to expose the true face of the occupation to the international community that stands silent in the face of these violations.

On the statistical front, the Government Media Office in Gaza revealed terrifying figures related to Israeli violations, with 3269 breaches of the ceasefire agreement recorded since October 2025. These continuous violations have led to the death of more than 990 martyrs and the injury of over 3138 citizens, confirming that the Strip is living in a state of continuous war despite all declared understandings.

Friday is the wedding day, and the invitation cards are still with you, my son.

Palestinian institutions specializing in prisoner and ex-prisoner affairs have launched an urgent humanitarian appeal to the World Health Organization, demanding immediate intervention to stop the escalating health catastrophe within Israeli occupation prisons. Al-Dameer Foundation, the Palestinian Prisoners' Club, and the Commission of Detainees and Ex-Detainees Affairs all confirmed that scabies has become widespread and alarming among prisoners, warning of serious repercussions for their lives in the absence of even minimal medical care.

Human rights sources explained in a joint statement that field data and recent testimonies indicate an unprecedented deterioration in the health condition of detainees, despite previous warnings directed to international organizations in April of last year. The institutions noted that the occupation continues to impose punitive measures that have exacerbated the health crisis, turning prisons into a fertile environment for the transmission of infectious and skin diseases among thousands of Palestinians.

Human rights reports documented the severe suffering experienced by infected prisoners, who endure intense itching and acute skin inflammations leading to constant pain and complete deprivation of sleep and rest. This suffering was not limited to adults but extended to child prisoners who face harsh detention conditions lacking the most basic standards of public health, leaving deep physical and psychological scars on their tender bodies.

The institutions attributed the rapid spread of scabies to the policy of extreme overcrowding within cells, and the deliberate deprivation of prisoners of essential cleaning supplies by prison administrations, as well as a sharp reduction in bathing periods. The sources also pointed out that the occupation authorities refuse to isolate the infected from the healthy and prevent the access of necessary medicines and treatment protocols, which confirms a deliberate intention of medical negligence as a tool of abuse.

Palestinian bodies stressed that these practices constitute a blatant violation of the Geneva Conventions and international human rights standards, which oblige the occupying power to provide full healthcare to detainees. The institutions held the occupation authorities fully responsible for the lives and physical safety of prisoners, considering that international silence on these crimes encourages the occupation to proceed with its repressive and inhumane policies.

As part of the required action, the institutions called on the World Health Organization to send independent international medical teams to conduct field visits to prisons and closely examine the extent of the health catastrophe. They also called for real pressure on the occupation government to compel it to provide immediate treatment for the infected, ensure the introduction of personal hygiene supplies, and work to reduce overcrowding to prevent further infections.

It is worth noting that occupation prisons currently hold about 9,500 Palestinian prisoners, including 360 children and 95 female prisoners, living in conditions described as the most tragic in decades. Reports confirm that prisoners are subjected to systematic torture and starvation, in addition to medical negligence, which has recently led to the martyrdom of dozens of detainees due to the lack of necessary healthcare.

Continued policies of deliberate medical negligence constitute a blatant violation of international humanitarian law and directly threaten the lives of thousands of prisoners.

Israeli occupation forces continue to implement a systematic plan to expand their field control over the lands of the Gaza Strip, in what has become known as the 'Yellow Line'. These rapid movements have led to the seizure of about 70% of the total area of the Strip, which is 360 square kilometers, unprecedentedly tightening the noose on residents and displaced persons.

Field data indicate that the occupation, which controlled about 53% of the Strip's area in previous stages, has exceeded these percentages by annexing new neighborhoods and areas to the Yellow Line. This expansion has pushed tens of thousands of Palestinians towards a very narrow coastal strip, lacking the most basic necessities of life and suffering from massive overcrowding amid the faltering arrival of humanitarian aid.

In the northern part of the Strip, the Yellow Line extends from the western roundabout of Beit Lahia city eastward along Sheikh Zayed roundabout road, to include most of the city's neighborhoods except for the 'Al-Mashrou'' area and the vicinity of Al-Qassam Mosque. Displaced families in those remaining pockets move with extreme caution, due to their direct exposure to the fire control of the occupation army, which also besieges Izbat Beit Hanoun.

The Yellow Line penetrated deep into Jabalia refugee camp, passing Salah al-Din Street and Al-Sikka Street to reach the central Al-Houja and Al-Tarns areas. Jabalia البلد (Jabalia Town) was also divided into two parts, with the line extending south to the outskirts of Al-Tuffah and Al-Shuja'iyya neighborhoods, with yellow cubes marking permanent Israeli control points in those vital areas.

As for the central region, sources reported that control extended to include large parts of Al-Bureij and Al-Maghazi camps, which are located east of Salah al-Din Street. Military movements also included Al-Masdar village and Wadi Al-Salqa area east of Deir al-Balah, areas that were crowded with displaced people before turning into closed military operation zones.

Moving to the south, the Yellow Line is clearly visible at Bani Suheila roundabout in Khan Yunis, where the occupation army placed its construction markers before heading towards Abu Hamid roundabout. The path then curves to include the 'Al-Batan Al-Samin' and Jawrat Al-Lout areas, reaching the sea coast along the administrative borders of Rafah city, isolating large areas from their geographical surroundings.

Field maps confirm that most of the border city of Rafah is now effectively within the direct Israeli control within this line. Only a narrow coastal strip remains for Palestinians in the Mawasi Rafah area, which has become the last refuge for hundreds of thousands of displaced people facing catastrophic humanitarian conditions as a result of the complete siege.

The occupation expanded the 'Yellow Line' to include new neighborhoods, displacing tens of thousands towards a narrow coastal strip suffering from severe overcrowding.

US President Donald Trump expressed cautious optimism regarding the situation in the Gaza Strip, praising what he described as 'discipline' shown by the Hamas movement recently. Trump clarified, in a speech delivered on Wednesday on the sidelines of his participation in the G7 summit, that the US administration places the issue of disarmament in Gaza at the top of its priorities for the next phase, to ensure long-term stability.

The White House chief indicated that the ongoing shifts in negotiations with Iran might pave the way for broader peace agreements covering the entire Middle East region. He drew attention to the recent absence of major military operations by the movement, stating: 'Look at what we've achieved there, Hamas has remained silent and is no longer making headlines with hostile actions, and we are now making diligent efforts to strip them of their military capabilities.'

In his assessment of the nature of fighters in Gaza, Trump described the field challenge as complex due to the military upbringing of entire generations there, considering that changing this reality requires exceptional effort. He added that the movement has started to behave 'well' compared to its historical pattern, emphasizing that the diplomatic path seeks to change the reality imposed on the region for decades.

They grew up with guns in their hands... I believe that from birth they were born with guns in their hands, so it's not easy.

The Israeli occupation army revealed an updated map of what it calls the 'security zone' in Lebanese territories, clarifying that its forces intend to be stationed and deployed up to ten kilometers deep inside the borders. This step comes amidst the occupation's efforts to impose a new reality on the ground aimed at eliminating what it described as military threats and securing northern settlements, disregarding the terms of the recently signed memorandum of understanding between Washington and Tehran, which calls for a cessation of hostilities.

Field sources reported that the new map showed the inclusion of towns and geographical areas that were not under direct Israeli control two weeks ago, most notably the town of Majdal Zoun in the western sector. Occupation forces had carried out incursions into this town before the previous ceasefire agreements faltered, using it as a starting point to move towards areas north of the occupied town of Al-Bayada to strengthen their influence on that front.

In the eastern sector, the occupation expanded its control to include the town of Kafr Tibnit and the strategic Ali Al-Taher heights, areas that have been targets of intense military operations in recent days. This expansion indicates an Israeli desire to control the commanding hills and vital corridors that overlook vast areas of southern Lebanon, complicating efforts to return to the pre-escalation lines.

The area covered by the Israeli map extended to regions north of the Litani River, in addition to a significant expansion in the central sector stretching from the city of Bint Jbeil to the outskirts of the town of Tibnin. These areas witnessed violent airstrikes targeting the towns of Hadatha, Haris, and Beit Yahoun, in an attempt to impose a security belt that prevents any military or civilian presence threatening the security of the occupation's northern borders.

On the political front, media reports revealed increasing American pressure on Tel Aviv to force it to withdraw from the areas it infiltrated in southern Lebanon. Informed sources describe the ongoing negotiations between the two sides as 'stubborn and arduous,' as the occupation attempts to extract long-term security guarantees in exchange for any step towards withdrawal or redeployment away from Lebanese border villages.

Media sources quoted Israeli Channel 12 as saying that the military establishment categorically rejects the principle of 'linking fronts' that international memoranda of understanding might include, and instead seeks to conclude quick bilateral agreements with the Lebanese side. In a related context, the Israeli Broadcasting Corporation stated that the withdrawal issue will be the focus of upcoming talks in Washington next week, where technical details and the proposed timeline will be discussed.

On the ground, military escalation has not stopped despite diplomatic activity, as an Israeli drone targeted a civilian car at the Kafr Tibnit roundabout in the Nabatieh area, resulting in one martyr and one injured. The same town was subjected to renewed artillery shelling, causing severe material damage, while two people were injured after a drone dropped a bomb on the town of Yahoun, in a continuation of the policy of direct targeting of field movements.

In contrast, signs of a gradual return to life have begun in some villages, as residents of the town of Hadatha in the Bint Jbeil district started returning to their homes in coordination with units of the Lebanese army and ambulance teams. This return comes after a harsh period of forced displacement due to intensive raids and military operations that turned large parts of the town into uninhabitable areas in recent weeks.

Lebanese army units, in cooperation with the Al-Risala Association and the Health Authority, are working to open closed roads and remove rubble and obstacles left by the continuous Israeli shelling. Specialized teams have also begun operations to retrieve the bodies of martyrs from the vicinity of the affected towns, under complex security conditions due to the continued intensive overflight of occupation drones over southern skies.

Occupation forces will deploy in this area up to ten kilometers deep inside Lebanese territory to remove threats and enhance northern protection.

The Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor announced today the official closure of its field office in the Gaza Strip, thus ending nearly 15 years of continuous work in documenting human rights violations. Ramy Abdu, Chairman of the Monitor, explained that this difficult decision came as a necessary precautionary step to protect the working staff in light of the escalating direct threats and punitive measures imposed by the Israeli authorities against the organization.

Human rights sources confirmed that the decision aims primarily to avoid direct targeting of field workers, especially after widespread incitement campaigns launched by official Israeli bodies and officials were observed. These pressures come against the backdrop of the active role played by the Monitor in exposing crimes committed against Palestinians and providing international bodies with documented data on grave violations.

Recent weeks have witnessed an unprecedented escalation in Israeli rhetoric against the Monitor, especially after it published detailed reports documenting systematic sexual violence crimes against Palestinian prisoners and detainees in Israeli prisons. The organization considered that this systematic campaign aims to tarnish its reputation and link its independent human rights work to false political claims that lack any legal or factual basis.

Ramy Abdu pointed out that the threats sometimes reached the point of hinting at killing key members of the work team, due to their involvement in documenting acts described as falling within the framework of genocide. He added that the current environment has become extremely dangerous, which necessitated taking decisive decisions to ensure the safety of employees and volunteers who face real risks while performing their duties.

At the end of last May, the Israeli authorities imposed severe punitive measures that included restrictions on the movement of 40 members of the Monitor's staff, including members of the board of directors, employees, and international partners. The Monitor considered that these restrictions fall within the policy of silencing and preventing the truth from reaching international forums that have become fed up with continuous Israeli violations.

The Monitor's administration stressed that the closure of the physical office in Gaza does not in any way mean the cessation of human rights work or a retreat from ethical obligations towards the victims. It affirmed that documentation will continue through alternative mechanisms that ensure the continuity of information and reports flowing to the judicial and international bodies concerned with holding perpetrators of crimes accountable.

The Monitor held the Israeli authorities fully responsible for the safety of all its team members, considering that targeting human rights defenders is part of a broader pattern of intimidating witnesses and silencing voices that convey the suffering of civilians. It described these practices as a desperate attempt to cover up the overwhelming evidence that condemns Israeli military and security conduct in the occupied territories.

The roots of the recent official campaign go back to a report published by American writer Nicholas Kristof in the 'New York Times', in which he relied on data provided by the Monitor regarding rape crimes in prisons. This report sparked widespread anger among the Israeli government, which prompted Benjamin Netanyahu to threaten to take legal action against the newspaper and the writer on charges of defamation.

The Israeli Ministry of Diaspora Affairs accused the Euro-Mediterranean Monitor of being the main driver of the Palestinian narrative in international forums, claiming that it operates an integrated network for media and legal pressure. The ministry claimed that the Monitor's activity goes beyond human rights documentation to the extent of international incitement and contributing to placing Israeli forces under international sanctions.

In April, the Monitor issued a shocking report revealing brutal patterns of sexual torture, including the use of trained dogs and electric shocks in sensitive areas of detainees. Documented testimonies confirmed that these practices in some cases led to death under torture or caused permanent disabilities, which strengthened the files for international legal prosecution.

These reports intersected with the results of UN investigations that concluded that sexual violence is being used as a weapon of war by Israeli forces, which led to their inclusion on the UN blacklist. This agreement between independent human rights reports and UN findings increased the intensity of the Israeli attack on the institutions that were the source of this information.

It is worth noting that the Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor began its work in 2011 as a human rights initiative to confront oppression in the region, taking the city of Geneva, Switzerland, as its main headquarters. The Monitor has a wide network of regional offices, and its work is overseen by a board of trustees that includes prominent international figures in the field of international law and human rights.

The Monitor's board of trustees is chaired by Richard Falk, the former UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories, which gives the organization's reports significant international weight. This strong legal background has made the Monitor a constant target of Israeli incitement that seeks to undermine the credibility of its reports before the international community.

In conclusion of its statement, the organization renewed its commitment to continue working for justice and accountability, noting that the closure of offices will not obscure the truth that has become clear to the whole world. It called on international institutions to provide protection for human rights defenders in the Palestinian territories who face an oppressive machine aimed at isolating them from the world.

The closure of the Gaza office is an emergency measure imposed by legitimate concerns for the lives of workers, and does not mean a retreat from our professional responsibilities.

International press reports have revealed a real estate scandal in the British capital, London, where an exhibition was held last Sunday promoting settlement projects built on occupied Palestinian lands. Sources clarified that the event, held in North London, included offers for properties in settlement outposts located deep within the occupied West Bank and Jerusalem, representing a blatant challenge to international laws.

Documents and publications obtained from inside the exhibition showed promotion for projects in major settlements such as 'Ma'ale Adumim,' 'Givat Ze'ev,' and 'Kfar Eldad,' in addition to settlement neighborhoods in occupied Jerusalem. This move comes at a time when international warnings are escalating against the expansion of the settlement project, which undermines peace prospects in the region.

The exhibition sparked a wave of widespread anger in British political circles, with over a hundred lawmakers, along with human rights organizations, calling on the government to intervene to prevent the event. Signatories to the protest petitions considered that allowing such activities contradicts the United Kingdom's obligations under international law and economic guidelines regarding settlements.

For his part, MP Andy McDonald, co-chair of the British-Palestinian Parliamentary Group, confirmed initial evidence proving the promotion of land in illegal settlements. McDonald stressed that this activity represents a clear violation of the law, demanding executive authorities take deterrent legal action against the organizers and involved companies.

London Mayor Sadiq Khan entered the crisis, expressing his grave concern before the event, as he contacted the Metropolitan Police to assess the situation. Sources reported that the police received criminal allegations related to the illegal sale of properties and are in the process of evaluating this material to open a formal investigation into the circumstances of the incident.

The London event is part of an international promotional tour that included major cities such as Toronto and New York, where organizing companies sought to attract buyers under the slogan 'Dream Home.' Organizers used promotional language inviting exploration of British-style neighborhoods within settlements that the British government itself considers illegal.

In an attempt to absorb the anger, organizers initially claimed that the exhibition was limited to properties within the 'Green Line,' describing the accusations as 'ridiculous.' However, they later retracted and apologized for what they described as an 'error' in the promotional brochures that included names of settlements in the occupied territories, which observers considered an attempt to evade legal responsibility.

Sessions of the British House of Commons witnessed sharp debates on the issue, with MP Ellie Chowns directing scathing criticism at Foreign Secretary Yvette Cooper. Chowns questioned the government's inability to prevent the marketing of illegal properties on its soil, considering the failure to take concrete action as a green light for the continuation of these violations.

The British government, for its part, referred the file to the Advertising Standards Authority to investigate evidence related to the promotion of settlements. Minister of State Hamish Falconer stressed the necessity of adhering to British legal standards, noting that the ministry is following the matter very seriously to ensure that such transgressions are not repeated.

Amnesty International strongly criticized the government's stance, describing the referral of the case to the Advertising Standards Authority as an 'insufficient ploy.' The organization believed that this measure ignores the human suffering and destruction that settlements inflict on the daily lives of Palestinians, demanding more decisive political and judicial decisions.

MP McDonald compared the stance on Israeli settlements to other international crises, noting that the government would never accept the promotion of occupied lands in Ukraine. He added that this contradiction in the application of international law angers the British public and causes citizens to lose confidence in the current political leadership.

The exhibition coincided with an unprecedented escalation in settler violence in the West Bank, which prompted Western countries, including Britain, to impose sanctions on settlement entities. Despite these sanctions, there is still widespread parliamentary pressure to completely ban trade with illegal settlements to ensure non-complicity in war crimes.

On the ground, the vicinity of the exhibition witnessed massive protests involving anti-Zionist Jewish activists, leading to the arrest of 14 people by the police. Participants in the protests affirmed that verbal condemnations from the government are no longer sufficient, and what is required is the imposition of concrete sanctions to stop the settlement project.

In conclusion of the developments, the Charity Commission began assessing the regulatory role of the synagogue that hosted the event, after reports of serious incidents. While the synagogue defends its position by claiming that the properties on display were legal under third-party checks, the issue remains open to the possibility of prosecution.

There is evidence indicating the advertising of land in illegal settlements, which is against the law, and the government must act immediately.

The intensity of political tension between Taiwan and China has escalated to include the sports arena, as the Taiwanese government strongly criticized an offer made by Beijing to fans on the island to watch the 2026 World Cup matches. Authorities in Taipei clarified that its citizens do not need to resort to Chinese platforms, asserting that the matches will be readily available through local channels and media outlets within Taiwan.

The Taiwan Affairs Office in the Chinese capital, Beijing, had sparked controversy by announcing that China holds the full broadcasting rights for the global tournament. The office urged residents of the island to use Chinese digital websites and applications, or even travel to the mainland to watch the competitions directly from there, which Taipei considered an attempt to interfere in matters not related to the basic tasks of the Chinese office.

For his part, the spokesperson for the Chinese office, Chen Binhua, stated during an official press conference that his country welcomes all Taiwanese citizens who wish to enjoy the football festival through Beijing's digital platforms. He indicated that facilities are available for those who wish to attend in person to watch the matches, a move observers see as an attempt to enhance China's soft power towards the island's residents.

In response, Taiwan's Mainland Affairs Council issued a firm statement, describing the Chinese claims as completely misleading and baseless. The Council stressed that Taiwanese media companies have already obtained all legal rights to broadcast the tournament, which obviates the need for viewers to use any applications or websites subject to Chinese censorship or management.

The Taiwanese statement accused the Taiwan Affairs Office in Beijing of being preoccupied with marginal issues outside its jurisdiction, criticizing the entanglement of the sports file in the ongoing political conflict. This debate comes at a time when relations between the two sides are experiencing continuous tension, as Beijing insists on its sovereignty over the island, while Taipei adheres to its people's right to self-determination.

On the sports front, both the Chinese and Taiwanese national teams will be absent from the 2026 World Cup finals after failing to qualify during the qualifiers. However, this absence did not prevent Taiwan from showing its interest in the tournament, as it officially announced its support for the national teams of Paraguay and Haiti, which represent a few of the countries that still maintain full diplomatic relations with Taipei.

In a symbolic move, Taiwanese Foreign Minister Lin Chia-lung posted a video on his social media accounts, in which he was seen waving the flags of allied countries participating in the World Cup. The minister expressed his pride in seeing Taiwan's international partners in this largest sporting event, clearly reflecting how football has become a new arena for expressing diplomatic and political stances.

Chinese claims about Taiwanese people's inability to watch World Cup matches are absolutely incorrect, and broadcasting rights are available locally.

International media reports have revealed extensive leaks from the internal records of a mysterious secret society known as 'Dialogue,' which is believed to have been co-founded by the renowned businessman Peter Thiel, a co-founder of Palantir. The roots of this entity trace back to 2006 when it was established by a Swiss cyber activist, and since then, it has operated away from the public eye through a strict membership system based exclusively on personal invitations extended to elites.

Informed sources stated that the leaked data included personal information of approximately 222 members who had registered to participate in the society's upcoming annual meeting, scheduled to take place in the Irish capital, Dublin, next August. These lists reveal a complex network of relationships connecting high-ranking government officials, military leaders, and executives from major global technology and finance companies.

Heavyweight names topped the leaked attendance list, including the Supreme Commander of NATO forces in Europe, Alexis Grenkevich, and US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, in addition to senators such as Ted Cruz and Cory Booker. The list also included billionaire Elon Musk, LinkedIn founder Reid Hoffman, and Kaya Kallas, the EU's High Representative for Foreign Affairs, reflecting the extent of influence enjoyed by this gathering.

The leaked meeting agendas raise profound questions about the nature of the objectives pursued by this society, as session titles included unconventional and alarming topics such as 'World War III' and 'Founding a Cult.' Participants also discuss issues related to 'establishing political parties' and 'modern battlefield technologies,' alongside philosophical and economic discussions about the return to nuclear energy and whether money can buy happiness.

According to the reports, the activities of the 'Dialogue' society are not limited to political and strategic discussions but also extend to the private social aspects of its members. The society has a closed electronic application aimed at building emotional relationships and facilitating introductions among unmarried members, reinforcing the idea of it being a closed society seeking to build an integrated social and political fabric among the global elites.

These leaks shed light on the growing power of secret societies that combine money, power, and technology in shaping visions that could affect international policies. Although meetings are held behind closed doors, the public release of this data places these leaders under public scrutiny regarding the nature of understandings reached away from official institutions and democratic transparency.

The meeting agenda includes controversial sessions on World War III and the possibility of establishing new cults and political parties.

The international arena witnessed a dramatic development with the signing of a historic memorandum of understanding by US President Donald Trump and his Iranian counterpart Masoud Pezeshkian, separately, aimed at ending ongoing military conflicts. The signing ceremony for the American side took place at the Palace of Versailles in France on the sidelines of a formal dinner hosted by French President Emmanuel Macron, and in the presence of Secretary of State Marco Rubio. At the same time, official Iranian sources confirmed that President Pezeshkian signed the memorandum from Tehran, opening the door to an entirely new phase in the strained relations between the two countries.

The signed memorandum immediately puts an end to all hostilities on various active fronts, with a special focus on ending the war in the Lebanese arena, which has suffered from continuous escalation. The agreement also stipulated the necessity of the full and unconditional resumption of maritime navigation in the strategic Strait of Hormuz, to ensure global energy flow and secure international waterways. This step is considered a fundamental pillar in the new understandings to ensure regional stability and prevent any future military friction in vital passages.

On the economic front, the agreement included fundamental provisions, including the complete and immediate lifting of the American blockade imposed on Iranian ports. Washington also pledged to cancel the series of economic sanctions that have suffocated the Iranian economy for years, in addition to releasing all frozen financial assets in international banks. These steps aim to enable Tehran to return to the global financial system and restore its ability to export its natural resources without restrictions.

In a massive economic initiative, the memorandum revealed the launch of a comprehensive rehabilitation plan for the Iranian economy worth up to 300 billion US dollars. This plan aims to modernize dilapidated infrastructure and support productive sectors in Iran to ensure long-term internal stability. This financial support is seen as part of the incentive package provided by the US administration to ensure Tehran's commitment to the provisions of the comprehensive agreement and to direct its resources towards economic development instead of military escalation.

Regarding the thorny nuclear issue, Iran renewed its strict commitment not to develop or possess nuclear weapons, a position that the memorandum affirmed Tehran's adherence to as a strategic choice. These security guarantees provide Washington and its allies with the necessary reassurance to move forward with normalizing diplomatic and economic relations. This clause is a cornerstone in building mutual trust, as both parties seek to close this file, which has been a major cause of international tensions over the past decades.

As a result of this rapid development, sources in the Iranian Foreign Ministry announced the suspension of talks that were scheduled to be held in Switzerland between the delegations of the two countries. The Foreign Ministry spokesman explained that the direct signing by the heads of state made the previously scheduled technical meetings unnecessary at this time. This suspension indicates that the agreement has bypassed traditional diplomatic channels to reach the summit level, which enhances the chances of its immediate implementation on the ground.

The memorandum of understanding includes an immediate end to the war on various fronts, including the Lebanese arena, along with a full resumption of maritime navigation in the Strait of Hormuz.

A state of frustration and anger prevailed within political and security circles in Israel, following the revelation of details of a memorandum of understanding signed by the United States with Iran. This memorandum aims to de-escalate regional tensions and open a new negotiation path, but it included clauses obliging the parties to maintain calm in several arenas, foremost among them the Lebanese front.

Informed sources reported that the American administration began exerting actual pressure on Tel Aviv to push it towards withdrawing from five strategic points in southern Lebanon. American demands also included the necessity of withdrawing from the parts of the Syrian Mount Hermon that the Israeli army had controlled since early 2024, to ensure that the political process with Tehran is not obstructed.

Reports quoted an Israeli official close to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu describing the ongoing negotiations with Washington as 'difficult and complex.' The official affirmed that Israel still shows reluctance to retreat from its current military positioning in southern Lebanon, despite firm American messages.

Washington is threatening to take practical measures against Israel if it continues to reject withdrawal demands, with these measures potentially including delaying vital arms shipments. Israeli sources indicated that the pressure could escalate to imposing security and military restrictions similar to an undeclared ban on the supply of combat equipment.

Through these pressures, the American administration seeks to extract a formal commitment from Netanyahu to withdraw, to present it as a prominent political achievement for the American president. This comes at a time when Israel believes that the memorandum does not serve its supreme security interests, especially since it ignores the issue of Iranian ballistic missiles.

On the ground, military sources revealed a near-complete halt to the advance of Israeli forces towards the depths of Lebanese territory in recent hours. It appears that the Israeli army has begun to reposition itself in line with the charged political atmosphere, despite its public demand to retain freedom of military movement.

Press reports stated that Israeli units that crossed the Litani River are currently stationed in exposed areas, making them vulnerable to targeting risks. Accordingly, strict military instructions were issued to the forces to entrench themselves inside buildings and dig defensive trenches to reduce human losses in the event of sudden confrontations.

Concerns are growing among the Northern Command of the Israeli army about Hezbollah's success in accurately identifying the positions of the stationed forces during the current period of stagnation. Military commanders believe that keeping the forces in a defensive posture without advancing increases the likelihood of them being subjected to missile attacks or precise sniper operations.

For its part, diplomatic sources confirmed that Lebanon was mentioned three times in the text of the American-Iranian memorandum of understanding, which confirms its centrality to the agreement. The spokesperson for the Iranian Foreign Ministry considered that this presence reflects the parties' commitment to de-escalating the northern front of Israel as part of a broader regional deal.

Israeli concerns are not limited to the temporary sixty-day cooling-off period but extend to what the final negotiations will yield. Security circles in Tel Aviv fear the imposition of permanent ground realities that will limit the army's ability to confront Hezbollah's threats in the future.

Political circles in Israel are discussing various scenarios for dealing with the American demand, ranging from withdrawal to a narrow 'security zone' or complete withdrawal. The option of complete withdrawal is one of the most sensitive options, due to its internal political repercussions that could threaten the stability of the ruling coalition.

Amidst this anticipation, the question remains about Netanyahu's ability to maneuver politically to obstruct any agreement that imposes restrictions on Israeli military action. Israeli circles are awaiting the results of upcoming negotiation rounds to determine the path of confrontation or de-escalation on the northern border.

Israel is conducting difficult negotiations with Washington regarding the continued deployment of its forces, and there is no intention to retreat from our positions in southern Lebanon.

The United States and Iran have entered a new and critical phase of negotiations following the signing of a memorandum of understanding in Switzerland, aiming to establish a 60-day timeframe for reaching a comprehensive agreement. Although this step has eased military tensions, observers doubt the ability of both parties to overcome the thorny issues inherited from years of conflict and recent aggression.

The nuclear file stands out as the biggest challenge facing President Donald Trump's administration, with the dispute centering on Iran's stockpile of highly enriched uranium. While Washington insists on destroying this stockpile or transferring it out of the country, Tehran shows only limited flexibility in reducing concentration levels without giving up the material itself.

Tehran adheres to what it describes as its 'sovereign right' to enrich uranium in the future, which the United States rejects, having previously demanded a complete halt to enrichment operations. Sources indicate that current discussions may lead to a temporary halt ranging from 5 to 20 years, but reaching a final formula remains elusive.

The issue of international oversight represents another knot, as the question arises about Iran's acceptance of the return of strict inspection levels stipulated in the 2015 agreement. Trump had withdrawn from that agreement in 2018, creating a significant trust gap between the International Atomic Energy Agency and Iranian authorities.

On the economic and navigational front, the memorandum of understanding stipulates the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz to global shipping traffic after a period of de facto closure. This passage is vital for global energy supplies, with about one-fifth of internationally consumed oil passing through it, making its reopening a top priority to calm markets.

Iran demands a fundamental role in managing the strategic waterway, leveraging the influence it gained during the recent conflict. In contrast, the United States insists that passage be free and without fees, amid extreme caution from global shipping companies awaiting tangible security guarantees.

Frozen Iranian funds abroad represent an additional stumbling block, as Tehran seeks an immediate lifting of sanctions and access to billions of dollars. The US administration believes that sanctions relief must be gradual and linked to Iran's full compliance with the terms of the final agreement, which irritates hardliners on both sides.

President Trump faces internal pressures due to rising fuel prices and the decline of the US strategic reserve to its lowest levels since 1983. The war in the Middle East consumed about 172 million barrels of oil, making the acceleration of the memorandum's signing an economic necessity for his administration before the upcoming elections or political deadlines.

In contrast, the Israeli position emerges as an external obstructive factor, with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu insisting that Tel Aviv is not bound by any understandings between Washington and Tehran. Netanyahu affirms that military operations in Lebanon and the region will continue separately from the path of nuclear or political negotiations.

Iran stipulates that a comprehensive de-escalation requires the agreement to include a ceasefire in Lebanon, which Israel has so far rejected. Washington is pressuring Tel Aviv to withdraw from Lebanese territories to ensure the success of the memorandum of understanding, but any new field escalation could completely undermine diplomatic efforts.

The negotiation styles between the two teams differ radically, with Trump's team, including J.D. Vance and Jared Kushner, tending to seek quick and impressive results. Meanwhile, Iranian negotiators are known for their high ability to prolong complex technical discussions, making the 60-day deadline seem very short.

The crisis of trust casts a shadow over the negotiating table, especially after the mutual military attacks over the past year. Washington views with caution the tendencies of the new Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei, who took power under tragic family circumstances following an airstrike, and is known for his more radical stances towards the West.

Trump's aides warn against Tehran resorting to a stalling strategy to gain time and alleviate economic pressures without making substantial concessions. At the same time, the Iranian side fears Trump's fluctuating positions or his succumbing to pressure from hardliners in Washington who oppose any rapprochement with the 'axis of resistance'.

The possibility of failure remains if the language of violent threats returns to dominate the scene again, or if interpretations of the memorandum of understanding conflict. If a comprehensive settlement is not reached, both parties may settle for a limited agreement that prevents a slide into all-out war, with the fuse of tension remaining lit in the region.

The fate of the Iranian nuclear program is the factor that carries the greatest risk for the final negotiations.

Sources familiar with the ongoing negotiations between Tehran and Washington revealed that the Gaza Strip issue represents a fundamental pillar in the spirit of the current understandings between the two parties. The sources clarified that any continuation of the escalation policy pursued by the Israeli occupation, whether in Gaza or on the Lebanese front, would undermine the foundations upon which the potential political agreement was built. This warning comes amid Iranian emphasis that regional stability cannot be fragmented, and that signing papers is not a sufficient guarantee without actual implementation.

For his part, US Vice President JD Vance outlined a broader framework for this agreement, indicating that it extends beyond bilateral relations to include arrangements concerning Lebanon and the Gulf states, in addition to the occupying state. Vance described this path as aiming to achieve comprehensive regional peace, reflecting the US administration's desire to calm inflamed fronts through major deals that ensure all parties' commitment to long-term de-escalation.

In the context of parallel diplomatic efforts, Iranian Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, during coordination with his Lebanese counterpart Nabih Berri, stressed the necessity for Washington to exert real pressure to compel the occupation to cease its aggression. Both sides affirmed that ending the war on Lebanon is a top priority to ensure the success of any political path in the region, considering that the American role must shift from mediation to actual guarantee of a ceasefire.

On the procedural level, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi affirmed that the withdrawal of the occupation army forces from Lebanese territories is not merely a demand, but a clause clearly included in the draft memorandum of understanding with the United States. Araghchi indicated that Tehran is seriously monitoring the seriousness of other parties in implementing these clauses, considering that the true measure of diplomatic success lies in tangible change on the ground and a complete cessation of military operations.

The arenas are interconnected, and what happens in Gaza affects the entire region, and commitment on the ground is the measure of success for any agreement.

The suffering of the Palestinian people did not begin with the war of extermination that the Gaza Strip has been subjected to since October 2023; rather, its roots go back more than a century, since colonial powers began paving the way for the Zionist project in Palestine. With the Balfour Declaration in 1917, followed by the imposition of the British Mandate over Palestine, the doors to Jewish immigration were opened, settlements were established, and armed gangs were formed that carried out acts of killing and displacement against the Palestinian population. In 1948, the great Nakba occurred, during which more than 750,000 Palestinians were displaced from their cities and villages, and more than 500 Palestinian villages were destroyed, turning an entire people into refugees in their homeland and in neighboring countries. Since that date, the cycles of suffering have not stopped, whether in refugee camps or under the occupation that expanded to include what remained of Palestine after the 1967 war. Despite the signing of the Oslo Accords in 1993 and the establishment of the Palestinian Authority, Israel continued its policies of settlement, land confiscation, and the Judaization of Jerusalem, while the dream of an independent Palestinian state receded in the face of the intransigence of Israeli governments and widespread Western support for them. The recent Gaza war revealed the cruelest face of this project. Since its outbreak, the Strip has been subjected to widespread destruction operations that included residential neighborhoods, hospitals, schools, universities, and water and electricity facilities. Estimates indicate that more than a quarter of a million people have been killed, injured, or are missing, including tens of thousands of children and women, in addition to the displacement of more than two million Palestinians within the Gaza Strip, in one of the largest waves of forced displacement in contemporary Palestinian history. The tragedy was not limited to killing and destruction, but also included siege, starvation, prevention of humanitarian aid, and targeting of shelters and tents where civilians sought refuge. Health and educational institutions also suffered massive destruction, leading to a near-complete collapse of basic services, in flagrant violation of the principles of international humanitarian law and the Geneva Conventions, which guarantee the protection of civilians during armed conflicts. In displacement camps, Palestinians live in extremely harsh conditions; families search daily for food, water, medicine, and shelter, while the suffering of the sick, wounded, children, women, and the elderly worsens. With the continued siege, the closure of crossings, and the restriction of the work of relief organizations, life seems like a daily struggle for survival. What is happening in Gaza cannot be separated from a broader political context that seeks to reshape the Palestinian demographic reality by pressuring the population and pushing them towards forced migration. Many leaders of the Israeli far-right have expressed visions based on reducing the Palestinian presence and imposing new realities on the ground, which threatens the future of the entire Palestinian issue. In the face of these plans, Palestinians have once again demonstrated their attachment to their land and their rejection of displacement, despite the extent of sacrifices and suffering. However, steadfastness alone is not enough unless it is accompanied by real Arab, Islamic, and international support that strengthens people's ability to remain on their land. Therefore, the priority today must be to ensure the continuous flow of humanitarian aid, rebuild what the war destroyed, support the health and education sectors, and enable international institutions, foremost among them the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees (UNRWA), to perform their humanitarian role away from political pressures. It also requires more effective international legal and diplomatic action to hold accountable those responsible for war crimes and grave violations suffered by civilians. Palestinians have lived for more than seventy-seven years between refuge, occupation, and wars, but they have remained committed to their right to survival, freedom, and return. Therefore, the real battle today is not only to stop the war, but to protect the Palestinian human being, strengthen their steadfastness, and thwart all projects of forced displacement and ethnic cleansing, so that Palestine remains for its people, and its people remain a living witness that the will to survive is stronger than all attempts at uprooting and extermination. =============================== In the face of these plans, Palestinians have once again demonstrated their attachment to their land and their rejection of displacement, despite the extent of sacrifices and suffering. However, steadfastness alone is not enough unless it is accompanied by real Arab, Islamic, and international support that strengthens people's ability to remain on their land.

The Palestinian Peace Alliance, in partnership with the Principles of Peace organization, organized a conference at the Carmel Hotel in Ramallah, with the participation of a number of diplomats and representatives of the governments of Switzerland, Belgium, Ireland, the Netherlands, and the European Union.

In his opening speech, the Director-General of the Palestinian Peace Alliance, Nidal Foqaha, said that the war in the Gaza Strip and the regional escalation associated with the Iranian war, along with the displacement of Palestinians in the West Bank, have placed Palestinians before significant and multi-dimensional challenges.

Foqaha added that the absence of a political process is not the only challenge at the current stage, warning that the two-state solution faces a real danger as a result of settlement expansion and the escalation of settler attacks. He stressed that the international community is currently witnessing increasing recognition of the State of Palestine, pointing to the diplomatic efforts led by France, which affirm that achieving lasting stability cannot be done without a just political solution. He said: "We are facing an important strategic opportunity, which is to move from the stage of recognizing the State of Palestine to working on translating this recognition into a tangible reality on the ground."

A number of politicians and academics participated in the conference, along with dozens of young men and women and political activists. Participants discussed a range of current political issues, including the prospects for the establishment of a Palestinian state, regional and international calculations in the aftermath of the Iranian war, the changing positions and calculations of the European Union and the United States, in addition to the continuous deterioration of conditions in the West Bank.

For her part, the Director of the Principles of Peace organization in Geneva, Switzerland, Hiba Al-Qassas, said that achieving security, peace, and stability in the region can only be achieved through resolving the Palestinian-Israeli conflict and enabling the Palestinian people to exercise their right to self-determination. She added: "There is no doubt that we are going through a dangerous moment in the West Bank, but the Israeli and Palestinian elections are around the corner, and on the Israeli side, many serious developments may occur before the elections, but that does not necessarily mean that the scene will be ideal after they are held." Al-Qassas indicated that clear political messages have recently been issued regarding the upcoming Israeli government, noting the possibility of taking steps that would alleviate restrictions imposed on Palestinian tax funds and some other restrictions, which could contribute to improving existing conditions and opening the door for new political opportunities.

The conference sessions also addressed issues of political renewal through elections and governance, and anticipating the future political horizon in light of local, regional, and international changes.

The conference witnessed a discussion on the elections of the Fatah Central Committee and the Revolutionary Council elections, with the presence of Dr. Dalal Erekat, Professor of Diplomacy and Conflict Resolution at the Arab American University and a member of the Fatah Revolutionary Council. Participants emphasized during the discussion the importance of holding legislative council elections and presidential elections as a fundamental step towards enhancing political participation and renewing Palestinian democratic legitimacy.

If Gaza is once again allowed to be under the bombardment of Israel and the terror of Hamas, then the ceasefire will officially come to an end and Hamas will control the territory.

With the war with Iran hopefully coming to an end, President Donald Trump and the Board of Peace must now return their full attention to Gaza. The danger is clear: If Gaza is once again allowed to be under the bombardment of Israel and the terror of Hamas, if implementation is delayed until every political issue is resolved, then the ceasefire will officially come to an end, Hamas will try to control larger parts of the territory, Israel will remain inside Gaza, and the people of Gaza will continue to live without security, shelter, dignity, or hope.  The central unresolved issue remains Hamas’s disarmament. Hamas has refused to discuss disarmament until Israel complies with the terms of the ceasefire, including a full withdrawal from Gaza and international guarantees that hostilities will not resume. Therefore, Hamas has not yet formally accepted the plan placed before it.  But the people of Gaza cannot be held hostage to hesitation or endless negotiations. Even without a final Hamas agreement, the Board of Peace must begin now with concrete, visible, irreversible steps on the ground.  The first step should be the immediate entry of the National Committee for the Administration of Gaza – the NCAG – into the Green Zone, which is presently under Israeli control and constitutes between 60%-70% of Gaza.  Gaza needs a legitimate Palestinian civilian authority that can begin to govern, organize services, restore basic public administration, and demonstrate to the people that there is an alternative to Hamas rule and Israeli military control. The NCAG should not remain a name on paper or a committee waiting outside Gaza. It must be functioning inside Gaza.  In parallel to the formal NCAG governance in Gaza, the process of moving the two million Gazans who are not Hamas militants or members of other armed groups into the Green Zone should begin under the authority of NCAG.  The only Gazans left in the Yellow Zone controlled by Hamas should be Hamas militants and other armed persons. Eventually, they will either disarm themselves or someone else will disarm them and take their weapons. Gaza will be demilitarized, and Israel will be forced to completely withdraw – these two steps go hand in hand.  Alongside the NCAG, the new Palestinian police force must be deployed immediately in the Green Zone. Law and order cannot be postponed until the end of the political process; it is the beginning of the process. Gazans need to see uniformed Palestinian police protecting civilians, managing traffic, preventing looting, securing humanitarian facilities, and enforcing public order under the authority of the NCAG. A Gaza without functioning police will be a Gaza ruled by fear, armed clans, criminal networks, and Hamas intimidation. At the same time, the International Stabilization Force should deploy along the Yellow Line, on the Green Zone side. The ISF and the Palestinian police must take up positions that make a practical and staged Israeli withdrawal from Gaza possible. This is not only a security requirement; it is a political necessity.  Israel will not withdraw while a vacuum of authority exists. Palestinians and the international community, including the Board of Peace, will not accept a future of permanent Israeli military presence. The bridge between these two realities is a credible security arrangement: Palestinian police inside the Green Zone, the ISF along the Yellow Line, and a clear timetable for further Israeli withdrawal as stability expands.  The Board of Peace should now define this as the operational logic of the next phase: create secure Palestinian-administered areas, move civilians into them voluntarily and safely, provide services and employment, expand the Green Zone, and shrink the space controlled by Hamas and occupied by Israel.

Humanitarian zones must be established immediately inside the Green Zone. These cannot be merely tent cities. They must be planned temporary communities with shelter, water, sanitation, electricity, health clinics, schools, welfare centers, food distribution points, and safe public spaces.

Gaza’s people have suffered too much to be moved from one form of misery to another. The Green Zone must represent the beginning of a new Gaza: orderly, protected, administered by Palestinians, and connected to a larger political future.  Employment centers should be created at once. Every Gazan who is vetted and moves from the Hamas-controlled areas into the Green Zone should be offered work. There is an enormous amount to do: clearing rubble, building temporary housing, repairing roads where possible and constructing new roads where needed, restoring water networks, reopening schools, staffing clinics, distributing aid, and rebuilding local administration.

Work is not only about income. Work is dignity. Work is stability. Work is also one of the strongest tools for weakening Hamas’s grip over society.  Hundreds of thousands of Gazans should be given a choice: remain trapped in areas controlled by Hamas and exposed to continued conflict, or move into a Palestinian-administered zone where there is security, food, shelter, schools, medical care, and employment. This movement must be voluntary, organized, and protected, and not look like forced displacement. The message must be simple: The future of Gaza is being built here, under Palestinian civilian authority, with international protection and support.  As the NCAG begins to function, it must focus on four immediate priorities: law and order, humanitarian stabilization, employment, and economic recovery. Gaza cannot wait for a perfect political agreement before garbage is collected, schools are reopened, police are deployed, food is distributed, and salaries are paid. Governance begins with the basic things that allow people to live.  The Board of Peace must also mobilize money quickly and transparently. Donors will not invest seriously in Gaza if there is no credible authority, no security framework, and no mechanism to ensure that funds do not end up in the hands of Hamas or corrupt networks. The NCAG, backed by the Board of Peace, should establish transparent financial systems from day one. Every dollar, euro, shekel, dinar, or cryptocurrency spent in Gaza should be traceable. The people of Gaza, the donors, and the international community must be able to see where the money goes.  Over time, difficult issues of land ownership will have to be addressed. Temporary housing cannot become another permanent injustice. Property rights, destroyed homes, family claims, municipal land, public land, and reconstruction planning will all require a fair legal and administrative process.  This cannot be improvised. The NCAG should begin preparing the mechanisms now: land registries, claims procedures, compensation frameworks, and independent review bodies. Rebuilding Gaza must not create new grievances that will explode later.  This must all be connected to the broader Palestinian political horizon. The goal is not to create a separate Gaza disconnected from the Palestinian national movement. The goal is to stabilize Gaza as part of the path toward legitimate Palestinian representation and national renewal. That is why the target of Palestinian national elections on November 1, 2026, is so important. Everything done now in Gaza should point toward that date. Elections are not a slogan. They require security, freedom of movement, voter registration, political pluralism, media access, and public confidence. If Gaza remains divided between Hamas control, Israeli military presence, and administrative chaos, elections will be meaningless. But if the Green Zone becomes a functioning Palestinian-administered space, protected by the ISF, served by Palestinian police, and connected to the NCAG, Gaza can begin to rejoin the Palestinian political process.

Trump has unusual leverage with Israel. The Board of Peace has international legitimacy. Arab states, Europe, and the wider international community have an interest in preventing Gaza from returning to war. But leverage and legitimacy mean little unless they are translated into action. The next phase cannot be another diplomatic document. It must be trucks, shelters, police stations, clinics, schools, jobs, and security arrangements on the ground.

Hamas must be pressed to accept full disarmament and the principle of one authority and one gun. There can be no sovereign Palestinian future if armed factions hold the power to decide war and peace. Hamas’s refusal has paralyzed Gaza for too long, and it cannot be allowed to continue paralyzing every step. The Board of Peace should now move where it can move, build where it can build, govern where it can govern, and expand the space of Palestinian civilian authority every day. The people of Gaza need proof that a different future is possible. Israel needs proof that withdrawal will not mean the return of October 7. Palestinians need proof that Gaza will not remain under siege, occupation, or militia rule. The region needs proof that diplomacy can produce more than pauses between wars. That proof must begin now in the Green Zone.

Gaza cannot wait for perfect conditions, which will never come. Conditions are created by action. The Board of Peace, the NCAG, the Palestinian police, the ISF, the US, Israel, Arab states, and the international community must now act together to build the first secure, functioning, Palestinian-administered space in Gaza.

From there, the Green Zone controlled by Palestinians must expand, Hamas’s control must shrink, Israel’s army must withdraw in stages, and the path must open toward Palestinian national elections on November 1, 2026.

This is the urgent task. Not another plan. Not another conference. Not another round of statements. Implementation must begin now.

French President Emmanuel Macron announced on Wednesday that G7 leaders have reached a comprehensive consensus to support the agreement between the United States and Iran. Macron explained in a press conference in Evian that the summit succeeded in formulating a unified vision aimed at ending the regional instability that has affected the international arena recently.

The French President revealed an ambitious plan to finance alternative routes and pathways for energy supplies, with the aim of reducing total reliance on the Strait of Hormuz as a sole artery. He affirmed that this step is taken to ensure the flow of global trade away from any geopolitical tensions that might hinder navigation in the vital region.

Regarding navigation security, the leaders stressed the necessity of keeping the Strait of Hormuz open to ship traffic without any obstacles or additional fees, considering this a fundamental pillar of the agreement. Macron expressed the readiness of France and the United Kingdom, along with 20 other countries, to intervene directly to protect ships and secure the waterway if necessary.

Concerning the Palestinian issue, the group's leaders called for strengthening and accelerating the urgent delivery of humanitarian aid to the Gaza Strip to address the escalating crisis. The summit's final statement also emphasized the need for an immediate cessation of all forms of violence in the West Bank, and the creation of political and security conditions for the start of reconstruction operations.

Discussions touched upon the Lebanese file, where the leaders affirmed the necessity of reaching a stable and permanent ceasefire that preserves Lebanon's unity and national sovereignty. Macron indicated that Lebanon's stability is a top priority for the international community in light of the current challenges facing the Middle East region.

The summit witnessed high-level Arab participation with the presence of the Emir of Qatar, Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad, Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, and UAE President Sheikh Mohamed bin Zayed. Macron explained that discussions with Arab leaders were fruitful and contributed to coordinating positions on thorny regional issues, especially concerning nuclear and ballistic stability.

Regarding the Ukrainian file, the G7 reiterated its commitment to continuing financial and military support for Kyiv in the face of ongoing Russian intervention. The leaders agreed to provide the Ukrainian army with advanced air defense systems and long-range missile capabilities, while emphasizing the importance of mobilizing defense industries to achieve this goal.

The French President indicated that the summit granted Ukraine the necessary licenses to produce weapons on its territory, a step aimed at accelerating the pace of armament and saving time. A plan was also approved to support Ukraine's energy infrastructure to ensure its ability to meet the demands of the upcoming winter in light of the targeting of vital facilities.

Macron considered that the international stance towards Moscow has become clearer, as the group agreed to continue economic pressure and impose additional sanctions. He affirmed that coordination will continue to monitor oil and gas prices and ensure they are not exploited to finance military operations, noting the Russian forces' retreat on the ground in the face of Ukrainian advances.

In addition to political issues, the summit adopted 9 consensus statements related to international health cooperation, particularly in combating cancer and reducing the spread of the Ebola virus. These initiatives aim to build strong international partnerships that support health systems in developing countries and address cross-border epidemic threats.

The decisions also included strengthening global supply chains, especially in the strategic metals sector, to ensure balanced and sustainable economic growth. The leaders emphasized the importance of combating organized crime, including human trafficking and drug trafficking, and providing a safe digital environment that protects youth from increasing cyber risks.

It is worth noting that the Evian summit lasted for three days and witnessed French attempts to expand the group's scope by inviting rising international powers such as Brazil and India. The G7, founded in 1975, is an informal forum comprising major industrialized nations, seeking to coordinate global economic and security policies.

The agreement reached by President Trump with Iran puts an end to the instability felt by all peoples.

A large-scale technical leak has exposed the internal data of the secret 'Dialog' Society, an organization comprising some of the most influential figures in US politics, finance, and technology. This breach revealed the identities of participants and sensitive personal details that the society had pledged to protect and ensure absolute confidentiality since its inception.

Founded in 2006 by billionaire and renowned technology investor Peter Thiel, this society operates on an invitation-only basis. The organization holds closed annual gatherings that bring together American and foreign government officials with Silicon Valley executives, away from any media coverage or public scrutiny.

The details of the case began to emerge after Swiss activist and hacker 'Maya Arsone Cremo' detected a hidden digital clue within the source code of the society's website. Journalistic sources were able to obtain the complete registration list for the 2026 gathering, which includes 222 individuals meticulously categorized by membership rank and attendance type.

The upcoming gathering is scheduled to take place in mid-August of next year at a luxurious resort near the Irish capital, Dublin. The leaked agenda reveals suspicious topics, topped by sessions on how to manage the course of World War III and develop advanced technologies for future battlefields.

The agenda was not limited to military and political affairs but extended to include strange discussions on how to establish new religious sects and political parties. The sessions also included deep personal inquiries related to the private lives of participants, raising questions about the objectives of these elite gatherings.

The leaked documents show the notable participation of General Alexios Grinkevich, the Supreme Commander of NATO in Europe, who has been regularly attending these meetings for years. This high-level military presence in a private society raises concerns about the overlap of interests between military leaders and major technology companies.

The list also included prominent names from the current US administration, including Senator Ted Cruz and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent. It is noted that these officials directly oversee sensitive committees related to digital privacy and financial data regulations, making their presence with surveillance technology magnates a controversial matter.

The data revealed that participating government officials deliberately avoided using their official email for society-related correspondence. Instead, they relied on personal and business accounts to evade oversight systems and freedom of information laws that mandate transparency of public records.

Prominent names on the lists included founders of companies specializing in identity and location data collection, such as Oren Hoffman and Joe Lonsdale, co-founder of 'Palantir'. These companies are major suppliers of intelligence systems and the Pentagon, reinforcing the hypothesis of the collapse of the wall between power and private corporations.

The registration forms showed a collective obsession among members with topics of artificial intelligence and human life extension, along with pessimistic predictions for the future of societies. Participants believe that AI will reshape wars, religions, and education within a few years, warning of terrorist attacks that could target data centers.

The biggest surprise was the revelation of a secret dating app managed by the society to connect 'exceptional individuals' with each other. This app collects highly sensitive details, including political leanings and emotional orientations, data that was fully leaked despite firm promises not to share it with any party.

Despite the strict rules imposed by the society to prevent the display of influence within its rooms, the technical failure in protecting its data was egregious. The member directory was accessible to anyone viewing the source code of the website's homepage, which experts described as a primitive security vulnerability unworthy of an organization comprising technology geniuses.

'Dialog' is likened in elite circles to the famous 'Bilderberg' forum, but with a more modern and secretive technological flavor. With officials and executives of the society remaining silent on commenting, these leaks remain a rare window into observing how global policies are shaped behind closed doors and through coordination between money and power.

The documents show an unusual and alarming overlap between the executive and legislative branches on one hand, and influential figures in the technology and data sector on the other.

US President Donald Trump announced that the United States has successfully reached a formal memorandum of understanding with the Islamic Republic of Iran, considering this step a cornerstone of what he described as the anticipated 'major deal' in the Middle East. Trump clarified that his country has achieved its strategic goals and ended the current conflict, noting that positive statements from Tehran were immediately and tangibly reflected in the stability of global financial and stock markets.

The US President revealed a strict timeline within the memorandum, granting the parties a period not exceeding 60 days to reach a final and comprehensive settlement for all outstanding issues. Trump warned in a stern tone that the military option remains on the table, emphasizing the possibility of returning to bombing operations if negotiations fail to reach a final agreement within the specified timeframe.

In the context of regional coordination, Trump affirmed that the Israeli government received a full copy of the memorandum of understanding to review its provisions, stressing that Washington would not act independently of its allies. He added that the US administration intends to work closely with Arab Gulf states through a parallel diplomatic and security track, primarily aimed at addressing the ballistic missile and non-nuclear weapons issues that concern the region.

Regarding the issue of frozen Iranian funds, Trump acknowledged that the United States had previously confiscated large sums of Iranian assets, and that Washington would have to return them at a certain time as part of the understandings. However, the US President preempted speculation about direct support, affirming that his country would not provide any financial grants or make direct investments within Iranian territory at this time.

A senior White House official stated that the meeting scheduled to be held in Switzerland at the end of this week will be a crucial stage for assessing the seriousness and progress of direct talks with the Iranian side. The official explained that the memorandum explicitly stipulates the immediate lifting of the US naval blockade on Iran upon official signing, paving the way for the restoration of normal maritime trade.

As part of mutual commitments, Tehran pledged under the memorandum to ensure safe and free passage for all commercial vessels through the strategic Strait of Hormuz without imposing any fees for 60 days. Iran will also engage in consultations with the Sultanate of Oman and other Gulf states to draft a long-term security and navigation agreement to ensure the stability of navigation in the strait, which is a global energy lifeline.

On the Iranian side, Foreign Ministry spokesman Ismail Baghaei affirmed that the option of signing a direct memorandum of understanding between the presidents of the two countries is strongly on the table for diplomatic discussions. Baghaei indicated that Iran's plans for the anticipated meeting in Geneva have not changed, reflecting Tehran's desire to move forward with the negotiation process to end its international isolation.

Tehran places the issue of recovering frozen funds at the top of its priorities at this stage, not only demanding the release of assets but also insisting on technical guarantees that allow their transfer and utilization domestically. Informed sources reported that the total value of these funds could reach 100 billion dollars, with reports indicating the possibility of releasing approximately 24 billion dollars as a first installment within the next two months.

In addition to the financial file, Iranian negotiations focus on lifting customs restrictions and obstacles imposed on the maritime transport sector, seeking to enable Iranian shipping institutions to provide their services to passing vessels. Tehran aspires to transform these services into a sustainable source of income by collecting fees related to environmental services and ensuring the safety of international waterways in the region.

In Washington, caution prevails regarding the final drafts of the circulated documents, with sources reporting that no full official recognition of all leaked provisions has been issued by either party so far. Nevertheless, attention is largely focused on a clause revealed by media reports concerning the establishment of an international fund for the rehabilitation and reconstruction of Iran with massive funding that could reach 300 billion dollars.

Technical and executive committees are scheduled to discuss the precise details of establishing this funding fund during the first sixty days, which are described as the transitional phase. This fund, if approved, aims to modernize Iran's dilapidated infrastructure resulting from years of sanctions, in exchange for strict Iranian commitments on security and nuclear issues that concern the international community.

In conclusion, observers believe that these moves represent a dramatic shift in the Trump administration's policy towards Tehran, moving from 'maximum pressure' to 'direct negotiation.' The coming weeks will reveal the extent to which the two parties can overcome the deep trust deficit and transform the initial memorandum of understanding into a sustainable peace agreement that changes the balance of power in the Middle East.

This memorandum is the beginning of a major deal in the Middle East, and we have achieved our goals and ended the current conflict, but we may return to bombing if we do not reach a settlement within 60 days.

The villages of Ramallah governorate experienced a difficult night following a series of terrorist attacks carried out by groups of settlers, directly targeting places of worship and mosques. In the village of Jaljulia, residents woke up to the sound of a massive fire set by settlers in the Grand Mosque, which almost caused a humanitarian catastrophe were it not for the vigilance of the mosque's imam and his family who live on the ground floor.

Local sources reported that settlers threw about 15 burning tires inside the second floor of the mosque, which led to the complete destruction of the ablution area and the shattering of glass and walls due to the intense heat. The attackers left behind racist slogans calling for 'burning mosques' and inciting further violence against Palestinians and their properties in the West Bank.

The assault was not limited to Jaljulia but extended at the same time to include a mosque in the neighboring village of Mazari al-Nubani. Osama Asaad, head of the Jaljulia village council, confirmed that the swift intervention of the residents and the support of neighboring villages prevented the fire from spreading to the main prayer hall and other parts of the mosque, noting that the village is subjected to continuous harassment from surrounding settlement outposts.

In a related context, the Palestinian Ministry of Endowments and Religious Affairs revealed shocking statistics, documenting more than 50 attacks on mosques and religious shrines since the beginning of 2025. The ministry considered these attacks part of a systematic plan aimed at terrorizing Palestinian citizens and striking religious and national symbols in the region.

Recent days have witnessed a similar escalation in the villages east of Ramallah, where settlers attacked the mosque of Burqa village before the evening prayer with incendiary materials. Despite the presence of worshipers inside the mosque, the attackers did not hesitate to set fires, which led to the burning of a vehicle belonging to one of the worshipers and damage to parts of the first floor of the mosque before residents confronted them.

Reports indicate that the extremist group 'Hilltop Youth' is behind these organized operations, with its members moving in small groups to carry out swift attacks. Observers believe that these groups aim, through the policy of intimidation by burning, to push Palestinian residents to leave their lands and villages to facilitate settlement expansion.

For his part, Ahmed Al-Rifai, an official in the Ministry of Endowments, affirmed that the occupation army provides cover for these attacks by being lenient with settlers and not prosecuting them. Al-Rifai pointed to the existence of declared official financial support for some of these extremist groups, which enhances their ability to carry out daily attacks affecting people, stones, and holy sites.

In occupied Jerusalem, Al-Aqsa Mosque continues to be subjected to intensive daily incursions, with more than 100 settlers storming its courtyards on Wednesday under heavy police protection. These incursions coincide with strict measures preventing Palestinian worshipers from accessing the mosque, in an attempt to impose a new reality in the place.

Researchers in Israeli affairs link the field attacks by settlers to the official policies adopted by the current Israeli government. Statements issued by extremist ministers regarding preventing the call to prayer or restricting freedom of worship give settlers the green light to carry out their attacks on the ground without fear of accountability.

The villages of the West Bank suffer from a suffocating siege imposed by military checkpoints, which hinders the access of civil defense teams in emergencies such as mosque fires. This complex security environment gives settlers a greater opportunity to move freely and carry out their attacks in areas legally classified under the control of the Palestinian Authority.

Sources reported that settlers are now using more dangerous methods, such as using highly flammable materials and tires covered with gasoline to ensure the greatest possible destruction. These tactics show a clear desire to inflict heavy human and material losses on unarmed Palestinian civilians.

Targeting mosques carries religious dimensions aimed at transforming the political conflict into a comprehensive religious confrontation, according to specialists. Settlers understand the symbolic and spiritual value of mosques to Palestinians and use their burning as a means to break the morale of the steadfast residents in their lands.

Despite these repeated attacks, the residents of Ramallah and Nablus villages show great attachment to their holy sites, with damaged mosques being quickly restored through self-efforts. Residents affirm that these attacks will only increase their determination to stay and protect their places of worship from plans of Judaization and forced displacement.

In conclusion, Palestinian and international demands for the necessity of providing international protection for the Palestinian people and their holy sites remain in the absence of any legal deterrent for settlers. The scene in the West Bank remains open to further escalation as long as the policy of impunity and official support for extremist settlement groups continues.

I woke up to the sounds of nearby explosions, and were it not for God's care, I would now be a burned corpse, along with my wife and young daughter.

Leading sources in the Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas) reported positive results and broad agreements during recent discussions with international mediators and representatives of the International Peace Council. These moves come within the framework of seeking to complete the terms of the ceasefire agreement in the Gaza Strip and to pave the way for the actual transition to the second phase of the proposed plan.

The movement's spokesman, Hazem Qassem, confirmed that the recent discussions were characterized by seriousness and significant convergence of views on outstanding issues. He explained that the discussions aim to establish a practical framework and a precise timetable that ensures the implementation of mutual commitments between the concerned parties under international supervision.

The intensive meetings addressed complex and sensitive issues, foremost among them the mechanism for the national committee to enter the Gaza Strip to begin its administrative tasks. The discussions also touched upon the proposed international forces to be deployed, in addition to formulating a logical and acceptable approach for all parties regarding the Palestinian weapons file.

Qassem indicated that the movement continues its consultations with mediators, including the international envoy Nikolay Mladenov, to ensure reaching final understandings. He stressed that the primary goal of these meetings is to formulate an integrated strategy that ends the remaining requirements of the first phase and opens the door for the second phase.

The movement expressed its hope that the positive results of the discussions will be tangibly reflected in the upcoming field and political meetings. Hamas affirmed that it shows high flexibility in dealing with the proposals put forward, provided that the interests of the Palestinian people in the Gaza Strip and their basic rights are at the forefront of priorities.

Through this negotiating path, Hamas seeks to ensure a comprehensive halt to what it described as the 'genocidal war' that the Strip has been subjected to for many months. The movement also insists on the necessity of a real and sufficient flow of relief aid, and the immediate start of reconstruction operations for what the occupation has destroyed.

The movement had previously submitted the Palestinian factions' response to the 'roadmap' presented by Mladenov, which is based on an international vision for a solution. The factions adhere to the necessity of a complete Israeli withdrawal from all areas of the Gaza Strip as a basic condition for the sustainability of any future agreement.

The proposed roadmap includes 15 detailed clauses covering mechanisms for reconstruction, disarmament, and the activation of an international stabilization force. The plan also focuses on rebuilding the Palestinian police force, ensuring the operation of vital crossings, and providing fuel and shelter for displaced persons who lost their homes during the war.

These developments complete the plan announced by the American side in September 2025, which aims to end the conflict through multiple stages. Although the first phase came into effect last October, mutual accusations of violations still hinder the smooth transition to the subsequent stages.

Israeli military withdrawal and the formation of a national technocratic government are among the main points of contention that mediators are currently trying to overcome. Sources stress that adherence to the humanitarian measures contained in the Sharm El Sheikh understandings is a fundamental criterion for the seriousness of the parties in moving forward towards peace.

It is worth noting that the Gaza Strip is suffering from an unprecedented humanitarian catastrophe as a result of the aggression that began in October 2023, which resulted in tens of thousands of martyrs and wounded. The destruction has affected about 90% of vital and civilian facilities, making the file of reconstruction and establishing a ceasefire an urgent necessity that cannot be postponed.

The discussions witnessed significant convergence regarding the implementation of the remaining parts of the first phase, and the discussion of the second phase files, foremost among them the national committee and international forces.

The Libyan crisis has returned to the forefront of international attention with the US administration unveiling a new roadmap aimed at ending the years-long institutional division. Masood Boulos, the US President's advisor for Middle East and African affairs, explained that the American vision seeks to integrate rival institutions under a single authority, while simultaneously opening broad prospects for American oil companies to strengthen their presence in the Libyan energy sector.\n\nAccording to Boulos' statements to the Financial Times, the American plan is based on forming a unified government that represents all parties and national institutions. This step aims to provide a stable environment that supports UN efforts to organize parliamentary and presidential elections, with this arrangement seen as a short transitional period preceding the move to the ballot boxes.\n\nIn controversial details regarding the proposed power structure, reports indicated that the plan includes placing Saddam Haftar, son of the commander of the Libyan National Army, at the head of an executive presidential council. In return, the proposal stipulates that the head of the Government of National Unity, Abdul Hamid Dbeibeh, remains in his position, with a national security portfolio assigned to a close associate, in an attempt to create a balance between the dominant forces on the ground.\n\nThe American advisor considered that there are positive indicators supporting these moves, including the agreement concluded last November to finance development projects across the country. He also pointed to the approval of the first unified national budget last April as a historic step that had not occurred in over a decade, in addition to increasing military cooperation through Libya's participation in the Flintlock exercises under the supervision of the US Africa Command.\n\nEconomically, Washington is throwing its weight behind major energy companies such as ConocoPhillips and Chevron, which have already signed strategic agreements with the Libyan side this year. The American plan aims to double Libyan oil production to three million barrels per day within four years, which would return Libya to the list of major global producers.\n\nDespite American ambitions, diplomats and observers of Libyan affairs expressed skepticism about the ability of these deals to withstand the complexities of the Libyan internal situation. They believe that the current American approach relies heavily on the logic of deals and investments, an approach that may clash with the roots of the crisis related to the distribution of wealth and power among different regions.\n\nThe prospects for comprehensive reconciliation face severe challenges amid the continued division between the eastern and western governments, and the escalating rhetoric of mutual distrust among political rivals. Previous international initiatives have always clashed with the narrow interests of local parties, which has reinforced the political stalemate and weakened the trust of the Libyan street in any proposed external solutions.\n\nIn a new field development, nine municipalities announced the establishment of what they called the "Central Region Province," in a move officially aimed at activating administrative decentralization and achieving economic integration. However, this announcement was met with widespread fears that it could be a prelude to new regional entities that further complicate the political scene and open the door to the possibility of the actual division of the country.\n\nFor his part, Nasser Abu Dheeb, Secretary-General of the Libya Al-Ummah Party, ruled out an imminent breakthrough towards full political unity, suggesting the continuation of the current power-sharing reality. He indicated in media statements that what some propose about economic regions does not have clear constitutional cover, as political regions require legislation that precisely defines their powers.\n\nAbu Dheeb explained that the current Libyan reality is imposed by de facto powers that possess money and weapons in both the East and the West. This military and financial balance has rendered international and regional missions unable to impose a radical solution, especially in light of the deep disagreements within legislative institutions regarding the laws governing the electoral process.\n\nAbu Dheeb questioned the usefulness of the American initiative if it is based solely on arrangements for sharing wealth and power among influential figures. He considered that such deals might provide temporary superficial stability, but they do not represent a real entry point for building a unified and stable state that meets the aspirations of the Libyan people for democratic change.\n\nObservers questioned the guarantees Washington could offer to make this roadmap successful, especially since American policy in the region is often governed by oil and security interests. The question remains about the extent to which active Libyan parties will accept relinquishing their current gains in favor of a shared governance formula that may not guarantee their continued presence on the scene in the future.\n\nAmid official silence from the central government in Tripoli regarding some regional movements, fears of the erosion of state authority in favor of regional alliances are growing. This reality puts the American initiative to a real test: either it succeeds in bridging the gap between rivals, or it turns into just another attempt added to the record of initiatives that have not addressed the core of the conflict.\n\nThe Libyan scene is now awaiting official reactions from the active forces in Benghazi and Tripoli to the leaked American proposals. With continued external interventions and conflicting interests, a comprehensive and sustainable settlement remains an elusive goal, awaiting a real breakthrough to end the state of anticipation and caution that hangs over the country.\n\nThe plan is based on forming a unified government representing all institutions of the country, and may constitute a short-term transitional arrangement preceding the electoral entitlements.