Every year on August 11th, Lebanese memory recalls the tragedy of the Marjayoun convoy massacre, which occurred during the 2006 summer aggression, when Israeli occupation aircraft targeted thousands of civilians fleeing the inferno of shelling. The convoy, comprising about a thousand vehicles, had set off based on prior coordination and security guarantees provided by the international emergency forces 'UNIFIL', but the occupation reneged on its promises as usual.

The tragedy began when occupation tanks seized the joint security force barracks in Marjayoun a few days before the end of the war, prompting Lebanese forces to decide to withdraw. Hundreds of displaced families from Marjayoun and Arqoub villages joined the military convoy, seeking a safe passage towards the Western Bekaa, away from the raging front lines.

Field reports indicate that the convoy was delayed in setting off due to roads being damaged by previous raids, which necessitated the intervention of 'UNIFIL' bulldozers to clear the paths. The arduous journey began under the surveillance of Israeli reconnaissance aircraft that never left the skies, despite international assurances that the agreed-upon route was immune from military targeting.

Upon the convoy's arrival at the outskirts of Jub Jannin town in the Western Bekaa around 10 PM, warplanes suddenly attacked the displaced civilians with a series of concentrated missiles. The raids targeted the front, middle, and rear of the convoy simultaneously, leading to a state of extreme panic among thousands of civilians who were riding buses and civilian cars flying white flags.

This treacherous aggression resulted in the martyrdom of seven people, including a paramedic, and the injury of dozens with varying degrees of severity, with estimates ranging between 36 and 65 wounded. The road, which was supposed to be a passage to safety, turned into a scene of death and destruction, with many vehicles burned and the belongings of the displaced scattered across the area.

In an attempt to evade legal and moral responsibility, the occupation army quickly presented conflicting narratives about the reasons for the targeting. Hebrew sources at the time claimed that forces suspected the transport of weapons for Hezbollah inside the trucks, and also alleged that 'UNIFIL' had not obtained final permission for the movement of such a large number of vehicles.

'UNIFIL' forces firmly responded to these claims, with its commander at the time, General Alain Pellegrini, confirming that the Israeli side had explicitly given the green light for the operation. International sources clarified that the coordination included specifying the route and timing of the movement, making the Israeli targeting a deliberate violation of field understandings and the rules of international humanitarian law.

For its part, 'Human Rights Watch' refuted the Israeli narrative in a detailed report, describing the occupation's justifications as unbelievable and contradicting tangible facts. The organization stressed that the convoy was clearly visible to aircraft, and its size and the civilian nature of the vehicles within it warranted refraining from shelling under the laws of war.

This massacre is part of a broader context of the 2006 aggression, which lasted 34 days and left massive destruction in Lebanese infrastructure, including bridges, power stations, and airports. The economic cost of that war amounted to about seven billion dollars, under the scorched-earth policy adopted by the occupation to pressure the popular base of the resistance.

Historical sources confirm that the 'True Promise' operation carried out by Hezbollah in July 2006 aimed to liberate prisoners, but the Israeli response exceeded all military limits, directly targeting civilians. The Marjayoun massacre is a stark example of the policy of targeting displaced persons that was repeated in other locations such as Marwahin and Qana during the same war.

Living memory of this massacre still demands justice and truth, as survivors and the families of the martyrs insist on prosecuting those responsible for issuing the bombing orders. The issue is not just a historical event, but part of a long record of violations for which the occupation has not been held internationally accountable to this day.

Subsequent investigations proved that the convoy did not contain any military targets, and that all those on board were civilians and security personnel with light weapons, which were disarmed before departure. This reality places the international community before its responsibilities to protect civilians in armed conflicts, especially in light of the repetition of the same criminal patterns.

In conclusion, the Marjayoun convoy massacre remains a testament to the treachery of the occupation, which does not respect international conventions or the guarantees it provides through intermediaries. The stories of the survivors who witnessed the night of terror in the Western Bekaa continue to narrate chapters of Lebanese steadfastness in the face of a war machine that did not differentiate between a child, a paramedic, and a soldier.

Documenting these crimes aims to prevent the obliteration of the Palestinian and Lebanese narrative in the face of Israeli propaganda that always tries to distort facts. Massacres do not expire, and the right of victims to justice remains as long as collective memory preserves the details of that bloody night in August 2006.

Knowing that a large civilian convoy was heading north, and observing the white flags, should have been enough for the Israeli army not to carry out this raid.

International press reports have highlighted a new strategy pursued by the Israeli occupation authorities in cooperation with the United States, aimed at transforming the issue of Gaza Strip reconstruction into a tool for completing forced displacement plans. This vision relies on imposing urban plans from outside that reject any Palestinian participation, reinforcing the policy of 'urban genocide' that targets the erasure of the physical and moral presence of the indigenous population in the Strip.

Media sources quoted architect Eyal Weizman, founder of 'Forensic Architecture,' as saying that what is happening in Gaza goes beyond military destruction to systematic colonial urban planning. Weizman affirmed that the destruction of hospitals, water and sewage networks, and agricultural lands is not random, but rather a literal application of a slow killing strategy through the destruction of the essential foundations of life, which aligns with international definitions of genocide.

The report indicated that the systematic destruction has pushed Palestinians into narrow, overcrowded pockets that the occupation army describes as 'humanitarian areas,' while in reality they lack the most basic elements of housing and essential services. Heavy machinery and bulldozers have played a pivotal role in obliterating the features of entire cities and villages in Rafah, Beit Hanoun, and Jabalia, transforming vast areas into an uninhabitable environment due to chemical pollution and heavy metals.

Sources touched upon the concept of 'cultural genocide,' which has historically been absent from international agreements under pressure from colonial powers, and is now being applied in Gaza through the targeting of heritage sites, schools, and libraries. This destruction aims not only to eliminate the biological existence of Palestinians but also seeks to sever the social and historical continuity of the Palestinian national group and prevent it from reshaping its identity on its land.

Regarding the field reality, investigations revealed the division of the Gaza Strip into two areas separated by what is known as the 'Yellow Line,' with the occupation army currently controlling more than 54% of the Strip's area. Satellite images have monitored the construction of earthen dams and permanent military installations, in addition to extending electricity and lighting networks, indicating the occupation's intention to transform these points into permanent, not temporary, control centers.

Investigative reports clarified that the occupation has established seven new military sites, some of which were built over completely destroyed cemeteries, in a blatant violation of sanctities and human dignity. These field movements coincide with absolute control over the flow of humanitarian aid, which is used as a political and military pressure tool to push residents towards options of forced migration or facing slow death under the weight of epidemics and health collapse.

On the political front, suspicious real estate development projects have emerged, such as the 'Sunrise Project' proposed by Jared Kushner, which includes building luxury skyscrapers and industrial complexes over the ruins of destroyed cities. These engineering plans precisely follow the military routes carved by the army to divide the Strip, revealing an investment aspect of the displacement plan aimed at transforming Gaza into an investment zone devoid of its indigenous population.

Leaked documents also revealed a pilot project called 'Alternative Safe Communities' being implemented east of Rafah, aiming to cram tens of thousands of displaced people into compounds surrounded by walls and advanced biometric checkpoints. This surveillance system aims to turn Palestinian lives into a large prison, while offering material incentives and facilities to those who decide to 'voluntarily migrate' outside the Strip, in an attempt to empty the land through soft methods.

In contrast to these imposed plans, national Palestinian initiatives, such as the 'Phoenix Gaza Initiative' presented by the Association of Municipalities in cooperation with Palestinian experts and architects, have been completely excluded. The Palestinian vision relies on rebuilding neighborhoods and camps based on accurate property records to preserve the social fabric, which the occupation and its allies reject because it roots the residents in their land.

The report noted that the US administration's description of Gaza as a 'demolition site' reflects a premeditated intention to consider the Strip as empty land requiring radical 'development' that bypasses the existence of the landowners. This approach serves the Israeli vision that sees in the rubble an opportunity to reshape the geography of the Strip to ensure the security of the occupation and its settlement expansion at the expense of Palestinian national rights.

Displaced persons in areas under local administration live in catastrophic conditions, with waste accumulating and sewage flowing between overcrowded tents, portending an imminent environmental and health disaster. Sources confirm that the continued siege and prevention of essential building materials aim to drive the population to a state of absolute despair, making acceptance of external plans the only available 'option of necessity'.

The analytical reading of the scene concluded that the genocide in Gaza is passing through two integrated stages; the first is the comprehensive destruction of the national model through brutal military force, and the second is the imposition of colonial architectural projects. These projects do not aim for reconstruction in its humanitarian sense, but rather aim to legitimize the occupation and permanently change Palestinian demographics to serve the strategic interests of Israel and its allies.

The international community's insistence on ignoring Palestinian urban alternatives contributes to reinforcing the crime of genocide, as Gaza is treated as a laboratory for security and real estate experiments. Experts demand the necessity of empowering Palestinian institutions to lead the reconstruction process to ensure the return of displaced persons to their original homes and preserve the historical identity of the cities and camps that the occupation tried to erase from the map.

In conclusion, the struggle over the future 'shape of Gaza' remains the core of the current political battle, as Palestinians seek to rebuild their lives over the ruins, while the occupation seeks to transform those ruins into a platform for launching a new settlement project. Confronting these plans requires legal and international action that rejects the politicization of reconstruction and affirms the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination in their urban and political future.

Genocide continues in the Strip through a colonial urban planning strategy that implicitly aims to eradicate Palestinian life.

The Emir of the State of Qatar, Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani, held a bilateral meeting with US President Donald Trump on the sidelines of the G7 Summit in Evian, France. The meeting addressed a range of regional and international issues of common interest, foremost among them the developments in the Iranian nuclear file and the diplomatic efforts to enhance stability in the Middle East.

Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad described the US-Iranian agreement as a highly significant strategic step, while emphasizing that additional work still needs to be done to ensure the success of these paths. The Emir affirmed that this agreement serves the interests of both the region and Iran, expressing Doha's constant readiness to provide support and assistance whenever friends request it.

For his part, US President Donald Trump revealed that understandings with Tehran are about to move to a second, more advanced phase, praising the pivotal role played by the State of Qatar in bridging viewpoints. Trump explained that cooperation with the Qatari side has been very fruitful, describing them as strong partners who provided real assistance in managing the crisis with Iran.

In a related context, the US President reiterated that the United States will not inject any direct financial investments into Iran, stressing that the primary goal is to ensure that Tehran does not possess nuclear weapons. Trump warned that any Iranian attempt to cross these red lines would be met with a violent military response, describing a potential confrontation in such a case as a 'fierce war'.

Regarding the Lebanese file, Trump touched upon his relations with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, noting that it is an excellent relationship but requires a greater degree of responsibility. The US President conveyed a message about the necessity for Netanyahu to act more consciously regarding the escalation in Lebanon, to avoid the region sliding into broader confrontations with unpredictable outcomes.

In a striking proposal reflecting the US administration's vision for regional arrangements, Trump indicated that he suggested to the Israeli side that Syria take responsibility for dealing with the Lebanese Hezbollah file. This statement comes at a time when the Lebanese front is witnessing escalating tensions, indicating Washington's desire to find regional actors to limit the influence of armed groups.

The meeting concluded with both parties affirming the continuation of close coordination and consultation between Doha and Washington on various issues. The Emir of Qatar stressed that his country always seeks to achieve peace and end conflicts in the region, away from seeking narrow economic gains, emphasizing that regional stability is the top priority of Qatari policy.

The agreement with Iran will move to a second phase, and work with Qatar on mediation has been positive and excellent.

Dozens of residents of Nur Shams camp in Tulkarm city were able to enter the alleys of their camp and inspect their homes for the first time in a year and a half, following coordination that allowed Israeli occupation forces to permit residents to return temporarily for limited hours. Field sources reported that the occupation army imposed strict security measures at the entrances, including confiscating personal IDs and mobile phones and conducting thorough searches of women and the elderly, while a number of young men were arrested on the pretext of having previous security files.

Returnees described the scene inside the camp as shocking, as Israeli bulldozers not only demolished homes but also extended the destruction to infrastructure, water and electricity networks, and uprooted trees, which led to the obliteration of the geographical and social features of the place. Ms. Siham Abu Watfa confirmed that she could not recognize her residential neighborhood due to the accumulated rubble, noting that her home and her children's homes were completely razed to the ground in a clear attempt to erase the memory of refuge and resistance rooted in the camp.

For her part, Ms. Shurooq expressed the bitterness of returning to shattered streets and a completely burned home that the family had inherited from their ancestors since 1950, considering what happened a crime against history and humanity. Despite the magnitude of the tragedy, Shurooq stressed that the determination of the camp residents would not be broken, and that the insistence on staying and starting anew is the only response to the policies of forced displacement practiced by the occupation against the residents of Palestinian camps.

In another testimony, citizen Mohammed Sabri recounted the details of his journey, which he described as a 'journey of humiliation,' as he entered the camp hoping to retrieve some essential belongings such as electrical appliances to help his family in the displacement center, but he found his home empty and destroyed in a way that made it impossible to extract anything from under the rubble. Sabri explained that the risk of entering was great given the spread of snipers and military vehicles that turned the process of inspecting homes into a mission fraught with dangers and psychological intimidation.

Citizen Saif al-Din Hassan Saeed, who witnessed the destruction of his home's furniture and infrastructure, criticized the absence of an effective role for international relief agencies and official Palestinian institutions in supporting the distressed camp residents. Saeed pointed out that the displaced face suffocating financial crises and difficult living commitments amid salary cuts and high living costs, stressing that the aid provided does not rise to the level of the catastrophe that befell Nur Shams and Tulkarm camps in recent months.

In another corner of suffering, Ms. Umm Raja was able to retrieve some household utensils from her home, which partially survived demolition, expressing joy mixed with pain when she found a 'bottle of oil' and a can of olives that had remained intact for two years. Umm Raja considered these simple possessions to represent a symbol of steadfastness and attachment to the land, although she will return with them to the 'shelter' where she currently resides, awaiting a radical solution that will end their ongoing displacement tragedy.

Official estimates issued by local authorities indicate that Israeli military operations in Tulkarm camps have led to the complete demolition of 600 homes and the partial demolition of more than 2,500 homes since the beginning of the recent escalation. This systematic policy has resulted in the displacement of about 500 families and the displacement of approximately 25,000 people, creating a worsening humanitarian crisis that requires urgent international intervention for reconstruction and sheltering families who have become homeless.

The camp has turned into destruction upon destruction, and I could not identify the location of my home due to the uprooting of trees and stones and the complete alteration of the neighborhoods' features.

US President Donald Trump revealed his desire to refer the agreement concluded with Iran to the US Congress for review, pledging to read the full text of the document to the media. Trump explained during statements made on the sidelines of the G7 summit held in the French city of Evian that the idea of involving parliament in this process now appeals to him to ensure full transparency.

The American President affirmed that he will not only publish the text of the agreement but will also hold an extensive press conference to read its provisions verbatim to journalists. Trump aims by this step to ensure that media coverage will be accurate and comprehensive, away from any interpretations that might tarnish the content of the understandings reached with the Iranian side.

Regarding the signing ceremony, the Swiss Ministry of Foreign Affairs announced that the memorandum of understanding signing ceremony will take place next Friday, June 19. The ceremony will be held in a luxurious hotel located on Bürgenstock mountain overlooking Lake Lucerne, a location carefully chosen due to its ease of security and difficulty of access for intruders.

Swiss sources indicated that the selection of this strategic location was based on proposals from international mediators including Pakistan and Qatar, in addition to the approval of the United States and Iran. The Bürgenstock complex is one of the historical sites that previously hosted major international events, the last of which was the peace conference on Ukraine in 2024.

Procedurally, official reports stated that the memorandum of understanding has already been signed electronically in preparation for the official ceremony. The electronic signing included both President Trump and his deputy J.D. Vance, and from the Iranian side, the Speaker of the Shura Council, Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, who also serves as the chief negotiator in this round.

J.D. Vance is expected to lead his country's delegation in Switzerland, while Ghalibaf will head the Iranian delegation to complete the protocol ceremonies. Vance told international media that the current document is general in nature and consists of only one and a half pages, noting the possibility of Trump personally attending the ceremony despite his commitments at the G7 summit.

In the context of parallel international movements, Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi held a phone call with his Pakistani counterpart Ishaq Dar to discuss the latest developments of the agreement. Wang Yi warned that the next phase of negotiations will be more complex and difficult compared to the first phase that led to the current memorandum of understanding.

The Chinese minister stressed the need for the United Nations Security Council to play a more effective role in the coming stages to ensure a final and sustainable deal. Beijing considered the current consensus a new starting point, not the end, affirming its readiness to cooperate with Islamabad to support regional stability.

At its core, this memorandum seeks to end the ongoing conflict in the Middle East, which has directly affected the security of international navigation. The issue of the Strait of Hormuz stands out as one of the most important unresolved issues, where its partial closure by Iran and the corresponding American blockade caused a suffocating global energy crisis.

During their consultations, the Chinese and Pakistani sides agreed on the importance of joint action to open vital maritime passages for international trade. The Pakistani Ministry of Foreign Affairs affirmed that securing the Strait of Hormuz is a fundamental pillar for the stability of the global economy and energy security, which has been severely affected in recent months.

Reports indicate that China, as Iran's largest trading partner and a close ally of Pakistan, played a pivotal behind-the-scenes role in bridging viewpoints. The economic and diplomatic pressures exerted by Beijing contributed to pushing the parties towards the negotiating table in Switzerland to end the political stalemate.

Despite the cautious optimism surrounding Friday's ceremony, observers point out that the technical details of the agreement still require in-depth discussions. Experts believe that Trump's sending of the agreement to Congress may open a new chapter of internal debate in Washington about the nature of the concessions made by both sides.

All eyes remain on Bürgenstock mountain on Friday, where the features of a new era in US-Iran relations are expected to emerge. The text of the agreement that Trump promised to read publicly will be the decisive factor in determining the seriousness of the parties in ending military escalation and returning to the diplomatic path.

In conclusion, this step represents a significant shift in the Trump administration's policy towards the Iranian file, moving from a policy of maximum pressure to seeking negotiated solutions. The biggest challenge remains how to transform this general memorandum into a comprehensive agreement that meets the aspirations of regional and international powers and ensures lasting peace.

I will send the agreement to Congress, this idea appeals to me, and I will hold a press conference to read the text verbatim to you.

Washington Message

Washington – Said Arikat – 16/6/2026

The economic situation in the occupied West Bank is heading towards an unprecedented stage of deterioration that could lead to a comprehensive collapse, amidst continued strict Israeli restrictions and declining international interest in what is happening outside the circle of war in Gaza. In a striking warning, a new report by the “International Crisis Group” confirmed that the Palestinian economy is no longer facing merely a transient crisis, but is undergoing a process of “systematic dismantling” that affects the foundations upon which any future Palestinian state could be built.

The report paints a grim picture of the economic and social reality in the West Bank, where restrictions on movement and trade intersect with the withholding of tax revenues and the expansion of land control, which has led to the weakening of private companies, the depletion of Palestinian families, and pushed the Palestinian Authority to the brink of complete financial insolvency.

According to the report, Israeli measures are not limited to managing the occupation or imposing security considerations, but reflect a trend aimed at consolidating Israeli control and preventing the emergence of an independent Palestinian state. The report concludes that “the economic conditions necessary for any Palestinian future not based on permanent submission are being rapidly dismantled.”

The study was based on extensive interviews with Palestinian businessmen, mayors, and government officials, which revealed the extent of the pressures facing various economic sectors. Participants pointed to a sharp decline in commercial and investment activity, and increasing difficulties faced by companies in meeting their obligations to employees, suppliers, and contractors.

For decades, the Palestinian economy has suffered from the effects of military occupation and its accompanying barriers, checkpoints, and restrictions on the movement of people and goods. However, conditions have significantly worsened since the outbreak of the Israeli war on Gaza following the October 7, 2023 attack.

After the attack, Israel revoked work permits for most Palestinians who were working inside it, numbering nearly 200,000 workers. While Israeli authorities justified the decision on security grounds, the practical result was depriving the Palestinian economy of about $400 million per month, nearly a quarter of the West Bank's total economic output.

The data in the report indicates that the unemployment rate among Palestinians in the West Bank is about 30 percent, while the economy has experienced a sharp contraction over the past two years. Private sector activity has also declined by about 50 percent compared to before the war, due to strict movement restrictions, supply chain disruptions, and escalating uncertainty.

The report warns that Palestinian society is still resilient, but it lives in a continuous state of impoverishment and depletion. It emphasizes that continuing this path without real solutions will erode hope among the population and increase the likelihood of social explosion, escalating violence, and instability.

The Palestinian Authority is at the heart of this crisis as the largest employer and provider of public services in the West Bank. Government institutions have been forced to borrow increasingly to cover basic expenses, while employees suffer from delayed or reduced salaries, at a time when infrastructure and public services are deteriorating.

Lack of funding has led to a decline in hospitals' ability to provide necessary healthcare, and has also negatively impacted the education sector and municipal services. Water networks and roads are continuously deteriorating, in the absence of sufficient financial resources for maintenance and development.

The Palestinian Authority relies mainly on tax and customs revenues collected by Israel on its behalf, due to its control over crossings and borders. However, the government of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has continued to withhold billions of dollars from these revenues and impose unilateral deductions on them. According to the report, the Authority has not received any financial transfers since May 2025, exacerbating the liquidity crisis and threatening its ability to continue.

Joost Hiltermann, Special Advisor for the Middle East and North Africa at the International Crisis Group and author of the report, said in a press statement that the global focus on the war in Gaza over the past two years has obscured the profound transformations taking place in the West Bank. He added that these changes may have a greater impact on the future of Palestinian national aspirations than many of the ongoing military developments in the region.

Hiltermann noted that Israeli officials refused to participate in the preparation of the report, but he pointed out that there are disagreements within the Israeli government itself regarding how to deal with the Palestinian economy. While settler leaders push for more rigidity, some security agencies express concern about the complete collapse of the Palestinian Authority.

Israeli security officials believe that the collapse of the Palestinian Authority or economy will ultimately force Israel to bear the burden of directly administering the West Bank, including civil and economic services, a scenario that carries exorbitant political, security, and economic costs.

The danger of what is happening in the West Bank lies in the fact that the crisis is no longer merely a side effect of the political conflict, but has become a tool that directly affects the future of Palestinian society. When hundreds of thousands of people are deprived of job opportunities and income, and the ability of public institutions to provide basic services declines, this creates fertile ground for despair and social tension. More dangerously, these transformations are taking place amidst a clear decline in international attention, and the preoccupation of major capitals with other wars and crises, which gives the existing reality an opportunity to solidify and turn into a permanent situation that will be difficult to change in the future.

The report highlights a striking paradox: the international community continues to talk about a two-state solution, while the economic and administrative components necessary for a viable Palestinian state are eroding daily. States are not built on political slogans alone; they need a productive economy, capable institutions, and stable financial resources. When these elements are continuously undermined, talk of a political settlement becomes detached from reality. Hence, the current economic crisis not only threatens the Palestinian present but directly impacts the potential for any future political solution.

The crisis also reveals the limits of a purely security approach to managing the conflict. Historical experiences have shown that stability is not achieved through economic restrictions and mass impoverishment, but through providing a political horizon and economic development. With continued decline in living standards, rising unemployment, and deteriorating public services, the likelihood of popular resentment and loss of trust in existing institutions increases. If these trends continue without serious international intervention, the West Bank may face a period of profound instability whose effects will extend beyond Palestinian borders to impact the entire regional landscape.

As Washington and Tehran reach understandings to end the war, which may redraw the region's priorities, a fundamental question arises: Will ending the war on Gaza become part of the new stability arrangements, or will the Palestinian issue remain outside the equations of settlement despite its escalating presence in global consciousness?

Indicators are increasing that the US-Iranian understandings extend beyond the nuclear file to broader security and political arrangements related to the future and stability of the region. Although the details of these understandings have not yet fully crystallized, they raise a crucial question for Palestinians: Can they open the way for ending the war on Gaza, or will they lead to a rearrangement of the region's priorities without addressing the core of the Palestinian tragedy?

Over the past months, it seemed that various parties were betting on achieving additional gains before moving to the settlement phase. However, the continuation of the war, the expanding humanitarian cost, and the increasing political and diplomatic pressures on Israel are all factors that have pushed towards finding a way out that stops the fighting without any party appearing completely defeated.

In this context, the US-Iranian understandings may acquire special importance. Washington, which seeks to establish regional stability that allows it to focus on other international priorities, does not seem interested in keeping the region hostage to an open war that could erupt at any moment. Iran, if it succeeds in extracting understandings related to sanctions or its regional status, may also find an interest in stabilizing de-escalation on its various fronts.

Hence, the possibility arises that Gaza could transform from a stalled issue outside the understandings to one of their indirect beneficiaries, not because the concerned parties have found a solution to the Palestinian issue, but because ending the war may become a necessity to serve broader regional arrangements.

However, this possibility does not mean that Israel has abandoned its goals or changed its vision for the war. The Tel Aviv government still seeks to translate what it considers military achievements into long-term political and security realities, ensuring it the greatest possible control over the future of the Strip.

But the extended experience since the beginning of the war has also shown the limits of military power. Despite the enormous destruction and unprecedented human losses, Israel has not been able to impose a stable political vision for the day after.

Therefore, any ceasefire, whether it comes as a result of regional understandings, international pressure, or mutual attrition, will not resolve the fundamental questions related to the future of Gaza and its political and administrative identity.

Stopping the fighting may be closer than it was in previous months, but ending the war does not necessarily mean ending the crisis. The real dilemma begins with the day after.

Who will govern the Strip? What is the nature of the security arrangements? Which Palestinian entity will represent Gaza to the world and to donors? And how can a return to a new cycle of destruction and conflict be prevented?

These questions cannot be answered by the US-Iranian understandings, because they relate, first and foremost, to the internal Palestinian situation and the nature of the Palestinian political system and the future of its national representation.

This dilemma takes on double importance when discussing reconstruction. The extent of the destruction in Gaza far exceeds what was witnessed in previous wars, meaning that the reconstruction process will require enormous financial resources and a long-term Arab and international commitment.

However, Arab countries and donor agencies do not seem prepared to finance a new cycle of reconstruction in the absence of a clear political vision or a unified Palestinian authority capable of managing the process efficiently and transparently.

Therefore, the question is no longer just about the amount of money required, but about the existence of a stable political environment that ensures that reconstruction becomes a project for life and stability, not a temporary stop before a new round of destruction.

At a time when the Palestinian issue is witnessing an unprecedented expansion of global sympathy and support, Palestinians face one of their deepest internal crises. The ongoing division, the multiplicity of decision-making centers, and the erosion of the legitimacy of national institutions are all factors that limit the ability to capitalize on the ongoing transformations in the international arena.

Here, a special responsibility falls on both the Palestinian Authority and Hamas. The Authority is required to renew its legitimacy and rebuild its institutions on the basis of partnership and representation, away from domination and exclusion, while Hamas is required to undertake deep political reviews that open the door to a genuine national partnership that transcends the logic of exclusivity. Without restoring national unity, Palestinians will remain the weakest link in any future regional arrangements, no matter how much international sympathy their cause receives.

Even if the US-Iranian understandings succeed in lowering the level of regional tension and ending the war on Gaza, this will not change a fundamental truth: the roots of the conflict still exist.

The Palestinian issue is not just a humanitarian crisis, nor merely a manageable security file, but the cause of a people striving for freedom, self-determination, and an end to occupation. Past decades have proven that bypassing this truth or postponing it does not lead to the disappearance of the problem, but to its return in more complex and costly forms.

Therefore, any regional stability resulting from the new understandings will remain fragile unless it is accompanied by a serious political path that addresses Palestinian national rights and puts an end to the continued occupation, settlement, and policies of imposing facts on the ground.

However, the decisive factor in the future of the next phase will not only be what is agreed upon between Washington and Tehran, nor the limits of Israeli power or international pressure, but the ability of the Palestinians themselves to regain the initiative.

The real breakthrough begins with rebuilding the Palestinian political system on the foundations of partnership, democracy, and representation, and agreeing on a comprehensive program that balances national constants with the requirements of the phase, and makes the protection of Palestinian existence and steadfastness a central priority.

In this context, especially in light of the external and internal challenges facing the National Committee for the Administration of the Strip, there is an urgent need to form a non-factional national consensus government that enjoys a political mandate from all Palestinians, enabling it to act as a transitional authority to oversee the administration of the Strip's affairs, relief and reconstruction efforts, and to create the conditions for addressing the internal Palestinian impasse. Its primary mission should be to reunify Palestinian institutions and pave the way for general elections, presidential and legislative, as the main entry point for renewing the political system, restoring the unity of Palestinian representation and decision-making, and preventing Tel Aviv from tearing apart the national entity.

The US-Iranian understandings may contribute to opening a window towards ending the war, and may help prevent the region from sliding into a wider confrontation, but they alone will not be able to shape the future of Gaza or resolve the Palestinian issue. That will remain linked, above all else, to the ability of Palestinians to transform the steadfastness and sacrifices accumulated by their people, and the growing moral and political presence their cause has achieved in the world, into a unified national project capable of asserting itself as a partner in shaping the future, not merely a subject of others' decisions.

If regional understandings may open the door to ending the war, what will determine the shape of the next phase is whether Palestinians are able to cross this door united, or whether they will enter it still prisoners of the same division and crisis that has accompanied them throughout the past years, and hindered their ability to transform their people's sacrifices into sustainable political and national achievements.

Washington Message

Washington – Said Arikat – 16/6/2026

A new political battle is escalating within the US Congress over the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2027, after progressive Senator Bernie Sanders called for the removal of a controversial clause aimed at expanding military and technological integration between the United States and Israel, considering that this approach grants Tel Aviv privileges beyond what NATO countries enjoy.

Sanders said that a small percentage of Americans support the continued unrestricted arming of Israel, questioning the reasons for Congress's insistence on including a clause that grants it an unprecedented level of military integration with the United States. He stressed that "Section 219" of the defense budget bill must be completely removed from the final legislation.

This clause holds particular importance because it embodies a vision long advocated by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who on previous occasions considered it part of his strategic plan to reshape military relations between the two countries. This comes at a time when Netanyahu faces increasing international criticism and accusations of committing war crimes and crimes against humanity in Gaza.

Earlier, the House Armed Services Committee rejected an amendment proposed by Democratic Representative Ro Khanna to repeal the clause, before proceeding to approve the broader bill. The Senate Armed Services Committee also approved referring the bill to the next legislative stages.

In a notable development, Republican Representative Thomas Massie, known for his anti-foreign intervention stances, announced that he, in cooperation with Khanna, had submitted a new amendment to remove the clause. The proposal needs the support of a sufficient number of members of the House Rules Committee to be put to a vote.

The controversy is not limited to Section 219 alone, as the bill also includes Section 622, which provides for the expansion and enhancement of intelligence sharing between Washington and Tel Aviv. Proposed areas of cooperation include cybersecurity, counter-terrorism, monitoring missile threats, drones, and advanced military technology, in addition to exchanging information related to governmental and non-governmental entities in the region.

This clause, introduced by Republican Senator Tom Cotton, grants Israel broader access to US intelligence information, while reducing restrictions on the exchange of that information.

Opponents of the project believe that these clauses reflect a growing trend within Washington to redefine the relationship with Israel in a way that goes beyond traditional military aid towards a deep and lasting institutional partnership that is difficult to subject to political and popular oversight.

In this context, former CIA official Paul Pillar wrote that US support for Israel over the past decades has exceeded $300 billion, mostly in the form of military and economic aid. He pointed out that Netanyahu has sought in recent years to adapt to the decline in American public support for Israel by pushing for alternatives that are less visible to the public than direct aid, but are more entrenched and sustainable.

According to Pillar, the strategy of Israel and its allies within the United States is to replace clear financial aid with deeper forms of military, technological, and institutional integration, so that the relationship becomes less subject to public debate and more difficult to reverse in the future.

Section 219 provides for the establishment of a formal defense technology cooperation initiative between the United States and Israel, and obliges the US Secretary of Defense to appoint a senior official within the Pentagon to coordinate and expand defense and technology cooperation programs between the two sides.

These proposals acquire additional sensitivity in light of previous warnings issued by the US Department of Defense regarding the growing risks of espionage associated with Israel, which has a long record of intelligence activity within the United States. In recent months, accusations have also emerged against Israel of attempting to influence efforts to end the war with Iran, which has intensified the debate within American political and security circles.

The ongoing battle over Section 219 reveals a qualitative shift in the nature of the US-Israeli relationship. The dispute is no longer focused on the size or financial value of aid, but on a more strategic issue related to the extent of integration between the two military establishments. Critics of the project fear that this path will reduce the ability of future US administrations to re-evaluate the relationship with Israel according to changing US national interests, because a deep institutional link becomes more difficult to dismantle than traditional aid programs that Congress can amend or cancel by direct political decision.

Sanders', Massie's, and Khanna's positions also reflect a rare intersection between ideologically distant political currents. Progressives oppose the project because of the war in Gaza and its humanitarian consequences, while isolationist conservatives reject it based on considerations of national sovereignty and avoiding involvement in foreign conflicts. This unusual alliance indicates a growing trend within American politics that questions the traditional assumption that support for Israel should remain outside the scope of debate. It also reveals a widening gap between public sentiment and some political elites who unconditionally support Israel.

If these clauses are approved in their current form, they could establish a new phase of bilateral relations that goes beyond the concept of a traditional ally to a semi-integrated security partnership. However, this transformation carries political and strategic risks, as it may link the United States more closely to Israeli military options in the region, and increase the likelihood of its being drawn into crises in which it is not a direct party. It may also raise increasing questions about the limits of American decision-making independence, especially amid the ongoing internal debate about the cost of involvement in Middle East conflicts and US national security priorities.

International experts and analysts have unanimously agreed that the military confrontation witnessed in the Middle East over the past four months did not result in a clear winner in the traditional sense. Despite the weakening of Iran's military and economic structure, Tehran succeeded in thwarting the major strategic objectives that the United States and Israel had set their sights on at the outbreak of the conflict.

This assessment comes after the surprise signing of a memorandum of understanding between Washington and Tehran in Switzerland, a step that postponed the resolution of more complex issues and opened the door for sixty days of arduous negotiations. This agreement put Israel in a critical position on the sidelines, while the major powers try to rearrange their cards in the turbulent region.

Iran emerges from this conflict burdened with deep wounds, especially after the devastating blow it received on the first day of the war, which was the killing of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei. Despite the absence of his presumed successor, his son Mojtaba Khamenei, from the public scene so far, the power structure in Tehran showed unexpected cohesion in the face of intense airstrikes.

Researcher Ross Harrison believes that Iran achieved a 'survival victory,' as it prevented its adversaries from overthrowing the regime or definitively destroying its ballistic and nuclear capabilities. Harrison considered that Tehran was able to re-establish its deterrence concept, although this came at a very high cost in terms of human and material losses.

For her part, researcher Burcu Özçelik pointed out that Tehran's ability to threaten the Strait of Hormuz remained its strongest card throughout the conflict. She explained that the continuation of this threat will cast a shadow over regional security for many years, as Iran will use it as a pressure tool to extract major concessions during upcoming rounds of negotiations with the US administration.

The recent agreement included provisions that grant Iran significant economic breathing room, including the recovery of billions of dollars in frozen assets abroad and the suspension of sanctions imposed on the oil sector. In return, Tehran agreed to reopen the Strait of Hormuz to international navigation, while retaining the right to impose transit fees under a legal clause added at the last moments of the negotiations.

On the American side, President Donald Trump was quick to describe the agreement as a historic victory, coinciding with his 80th birthday celebration. Observers believe that Trump's primary motive was to lower global energy prices and secure oil flow, especially with the approaching congressional midterm elections, which represent a real test of his popularity and his party.

However, French analysts, including Bernard Hourcade, believe that what Trump achieved was a 'media victory' rather than a political one, emphasizing that the war proved the limits of American military power. Hourcade added that the United States lost a significant part of its international credibility after failing to resolve the conflict militarily and ultimately resorting to the negotiating table with a regime it sought to overthrow.

Major capitals such as Moscow and Beijing are closely monitoring the results of this conflict to draw lessons on how Washington manages its alliances and international crises. Security experts believe that the way the war ended will directly affect the shaping of future crises in other parts of the world, far from the borders of the Middle East.

In contrast, Israel appears to be the party most affected by this diplomatic path, described as the 'biggest loser' in this round. The postponement of a decision on the Iranian nuclear file dashed Israeli hopes of definitively ending this threat, and the momentum for normalization and strategic relations with countries in the region declined.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu faces immense internal pressure and criticism from his American ally himself, with Trump describing him as a 'tough guy.' The Israeli opposition accuses Netanyahu of failing to achieve any of the war's objectives, and even endangering Israel's security through military operations in Lebanon that nearly derailed the major negotiations.

Although the agreement stipulates a cessation of hostilities between Israel and Hezbollah, the roots of the conflict in Lebanon remain unresolved. Observers warn that continued Iranian support for armed factions will remain the main obstacle that could reignite the situation at any moment during the next sixty days.

The Iranian nuclear issue remains the 'ticking time bomb' that the current agreement has not directly touched, leaving it for anticipated marathon negotiations. Despite Trump's repeated assurances that Iran will not possess nuclear weapons, the reality on the ground indicates that Tehran is closer than ever to possessing the necessary technology.

In conclusion, it seems that the region has entered a phase of 'anxious truce,' where each party seeks to repair its losses and prepare for the next round of diplomatic conflict. While Washington celebrates the return of oil flow, and Tehran fortifies itself with its political gains, Israel remains in a state of anticipation and concern about an uncertain future that does not guarantee its national security as it had hoped.

Strategically and geopolitically, the only real winner in this phase is Iran, but it is a high-cost victory that Tehran paid to prevent its adversaries from achieving their goals.

Washington Message

Washington – Said Arikat – 6/16/2026

News Analysis

Forty-eight hours after US President Donald Trump announced a framework agreement with Iran to end the four-month confrontation, initial indications appear encouraging for supporters of the deal. So far, neither Washington nor Tehran has issued conflicting statements or taken field actions that would undermine the announced understandings, nor have public disagreements emerged over the basic terms that were agreed upon. In the world of diplomacy, where understandings often collapse in their early hours under the weight of political calculations or internal pressures, the passing of the first day without setbacks is an important indicator, though insufficient to judge the fate of the agreement.

This initial resilience gains double importance with the convening of the G7 summit, where the US-Iranian agreement has become one of the most prominent issues on the table for Western leaders. The understanding announced by Trump does not represent merely a ceasefire or a limited bilateral settlement; rather, it constitutes a test for the future of stability in the Middle East and for the American administration's ability to transform war outcomes into lasting political and diplomatic gains. It also places European allies before a new reality that differs greatly from the scenarios that were on the table weeks ago, when the region seemed closer to a widespread regional confrontation than to a negotiated settlement.

Under the memorandum of understanding announced by both parties, a roadmap has been established to end hostilities, gradually reopen the Strait of Hormuz to international navigation, and begin a sixty-day negotiation phase to address the most sensitive issues, foremost among them Iran's nuclear program, economic sanctions, and regional security arrangements. However, the importance of the agreement lies not only in its announced provisions but in the fact that it represents the first practical acknowledgment by both parties that the cost of continuing the war has become higher than the cost of returning to negotiations.

In this context, recent experience reveals once again that military force, no matter how intense, does not guarantee the achievement of stated political objectives. The war began under slogans related to stopping Iran's nuclear program and forcing Tehran to change its regional behavior, but it ended with both parties returning to the negotiating table. This outcome raises an old question about the limits of power in managing complex conflicts, where military confrontations often end in political settlements very similar to the proposals that were on the table before the outbreak of the conflict.

Despite the positive atmosphere surrounding the announcement, the agreement leaves the most complex issues open. Iran's nuclear program, which constituted the primary justification for the war according to the American narrative, has not yet been resolved; instead, it has been deferred to subsequent rounds of negotiations. Issues of uranium enrichment, ballistic missiles, Iran's relations with its regional allies, monitoring mechanisms, and the lifting of sanctions also remained outside the framework of a final solution.

It is likely that the coming weeks will witness more difficult negotiations than those that preceded the agreement's announcement. The deferred issues are not technical matters that can be easily settled; rather, they are directly linked to the balance of power in the Middle East and to the security and political considerations of both parties. If negotiations fail to make tangible progress, the agreement could turn into a temporary truce that prevents immediate explosion but does not address the real causes of the conflict.

The agreement also highlights the contradiction between political rhetoric and the actual outcomes of the war. The Trump administration presented the confrontation as a means to impose new conditions on Iran, but it ultimately found itself negotiating most of the same issues that were points of contention before the outbreak of fighting. This does not necessarily mean a failure of diplomacy, but rather indicates that political solutions might have been available from the beginning, and that the cost of resorting to force exceeded the gains ultimately achieved.

Diplomatic circles expect Iran to quickly leverage the agreement to improve its economic situation and recover some of its frozen funds, which could provide the Iranian leadership with important breathing room after months of pressure. However, the success of this path will remain contingent on Washington's readiness to fulfill its economic commitments, as any slowdown or retreat could revive the atmosphere of doubt and distrust that has characterized relations between the two countries for decades.

On the regional level, the agreement reflects a growing realization among various parties that continued confrontation threatens everyone's interests. The Strait of Hormuz crisis demonstrated the interconnectedness between regional security and global economic stability, and that any long-term disruption in the Gulf could directly impact energy markets and global supply chains. Therefore, economic calculations appear to have played a role no less important than military considerations in pushing the parties towards de-escalation.

Conversely, Israeli opposition to the agreement is not expected to cease. Rather, it is likely to escalate in the coming period, both within Israel and among influential circles in Washington. Many Israeli officials and commentators believe that the current settlement does not achieve the objectives that were discussed since the beginning of the war, which explains the increasing criticism faced by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu from various political parties who believe that the outcomes of the confrontation fell short of announced expectations.

It is also likely that the American political arena will witness increasing debate about the outcome of the war itself. While Trump will try to present the agreement as a historic achievement that ended the conflict and prevented the outbreak of a widespread regional war, his critics will argue that Washington ended up accepting a settlement similar to what could have been reached months before the fighting and losses.

The most important question remains concerning the future of the regional order after this war. If the agreement succeeds in holding up in the coming weeks, it could open the door to broader security arrangements in the Gulf and the Middle East, including navigation and energy security and regional de-escalation. However, this scenario will remain contingent on Washington's and Tehran's ability to build a minimum level of mutual trust, a task that does not seem easy in light of decades of conflict and mutual suspicions.

In conclusion, the passing of a full day since Trump's announcement of the agreement without clear signs of its collapse represents an encouraging development, but it is not enough to remove the doubts surrounding its future. The war has stopped, but its causes have not disappeared. The agreement has withstood its first test, but tougher tests still await it, whether at the negotiating table during the next sixty days or in the corridors of the G7 summit, where Western leaders seek to find out whether this settlement represents the beginning of a sustainable peace or merely a temporary respite in a long conflict whose final chapters have not yet been written.

Sergei Lebedev, an expert in international political affairs, highlighted a series of structural flaws in the American approach to the Iranian issue. In an article published by the Russian newspaper 'Izvestia', Lebedev noted that Washington is in a state of confusion between verbal escalation and promises of peaceful solutions. This contradiction is clearly evident in Donald Trump's statements threatening to control the Strait of Hormuz, coinciding with leaks about an imminent agreement in mid-June.

Reports from Tehran speak of a document being prepared that includes 14 clauses for a potential settlement, reflecting the complexity of the diplomatic scene between the two parties. Regardless of the outcome of these negotiations, the current conflict has revealed the limits of American strategic action in managing complex crises. Observers believe that America's ability to impose its political will is facing unprecedented challenges in light of recent technological developments.

The issue of American military bases spread across Iran's neighboring countries is one of the most prominent weaknesses that has recently surfaced. After these bases once symbolized strength and protection, they have practically become direct targets for Iranian missiles and drones. This shift has led regional allies to reconsider the utility of hosting these forces, which now attract threats instead of deterring them.

Sources reported that the discussion within Arab political circles has become more intense regarding the security risks associated with the American military presence. Iran has succeeded in proving that these bases are not immune, but rather 'magnets' for precise strikes targeting vital infrastructure. This reality places Washington in a strategic dilemma regarding how to protect its assets and allies simultaneously.

This strategic concern extends to other international theaters, especially in the event of a potential confrontation between the United States and China over Taiwan. If Iran has succeeded in turning American bases into a security burden, China possesses far greater capabilities to target the 'first island chain'. This places countries like Japan, South Korea, and the Philippines before extremely complex and dangerous security equations.

The Asian theater lacks a comprehensive alliance umbrella similar to NATO, making host countries for American bases more vulnerable. Despite bilateral agreements, the space for neutrality narrows for these countries in the event of a direct conflict between great powers. Japan's options, in particular, appear limited and complex given its organic link to the American defense system.

The conflict also revealed a surprising Iranian ability to cause 'partial blindness' to American intelligence and surveillance capabilities in the region. Iranian drones targeted at least ten sites containing highly advanced and sensitive radar systems. Among these systems are AN/TPY-2 radars, which are a fundamental pillar of the American missile defense system.

On the military field level, the United States has not succeeded in fully neutralizing Iranian firepower despite intensive strikes. Estimates indicate that Tehran retained sufficient capability to carry out effective strikes even after the destruction of part of its launch platforms. This resilience reflects the limits of traditional military superiority in the face of technological 'guerrilla warfare' strategies and flexible platforms.

International powers such as Russia and China adopt an 'anti-access/area denial' (A2/AD) doctrine to undermine the freedom of American military action. This approach aims to create prohibited zones that impose exorbitant costs on any hostile forces attempting to intervene or operate within them. What Iran is doing today is seen as a miniature model of what Washington might face in future major conflicts.

Historically, past decades have proven that the United States often excels on the military field but fails to achieve the desired political victory. The Iraqi model is a stark example of this inability to translate firepower into stability or sustainable political influence. In the Iranian case, it appears that Washington lost the political gamble early on before achieving any real military decisive action.

Washington long bet on the movement of the 'internal opposition' to overthrow the Iranian regime under the weight of economic and military pressures, but the results were counterproductive. External pressure led to the cohesion of Iranian society behind a national anti-American discourse, postponing internal disagreements. This cohesion thwarted the 'change from within' strategy that American diplomacy usually relies on.

Technological development has brought about a qualitative shift in the balance of power, where the weaker party is now able to employ low-cost tools to contain a major power. Drones and cruise missiles have changed the rules of engagement, making it difficult for traditional armies to protect vast areas of targets. This Iranian military innovation has forced Washington to conduct a comprehensive reassessment of the cost of any direct confrontation.

The deeper dilemma lies in the limits of American political capacity to bear the human and material costs of long conflicts domestically. Modern wars are not only decided by advanced technological systems from afar, but also require actual control on the ground and human power willing to engage. It seems that the American public is less willing to engage in 'forever wars' that do not serve direct national interests.

The analysis concluded that the Trump administration, despite its inclination towards compromises, clashes with hard geopolitical realities that require indivisible resolve. War, as political theorists described it, is either fought with full seriousness and clear objectives or not fought at all. The current American hesitation between escalation and de-escalation only serves to strengthen the position of adversaries and expose more weaknesses.

War must be fought with full seriousness, or not at all; and the United States always fails to translate its field superiority into political decisiveness.

Hebrew press sources revealed that the Israeli occupation authorities continue to detain a group of doctors from the Gaza Strip without trial or clear evidence of conviction against them. The case of Dr. Hussam Abu Safiya, director of Kamal Adwan Hospital, has come to the forefront following widespread international and human rights demands for his immediate release.

A recent photo of Dr. Abu Safiya, whose hospital in the northern Gaza Strip was completely destroyed by the occupation, sparked a wave of anger and human rights criticism. The doctor, who has been detained since December 2024, appeared in a deteriorating health condition and remarkably emaciated body, reflecting the extent of suffering inside prisons.

Sources observed clear signs of bruises and skin injuries on Abu Safiya's arms, which observers considered definitive indicators of the physical torture he is subjected to. This appearance occurred during a Supreme Court session held via video conference to consider a petition against his continued detention.

Data indicates that the occupation is holding Abu Safiya along with 13 other doctors from Gaza under the umbrella of the 'Unlawful Combatant' law. This legal framework allows the occupation to detain Palestinians for long periods without the need to file an indictment or conduct a regular criminal trial.

The detention of these medical personnel is periodically extended every six months by a decision of the Central Court in Beersheba. Reports confirm that these procedures lack the minimum standards of international justice and are based on secret files that the defense is not allowed to access.

In a serious development, testimonies from detainees reported the transfer of Dr. Abu Safiya from his cell in 'Ketziot' prison to solitary confinement in 'Nafha' prison. Human rights activists believe that this transfer was a direct punitive measure in response to his recourse to the judiciary and challenging the legality of his continued detention.

Human rights organizations confirmed that the policy of solitary confinement has become a common practice against prisoners who try to assert their legal rights. These steps are consistent with the escalation of violations inside Israeli prisons since the far-right took control of the Ministry of National Security.

Lawyers revealed that many detainees now prefer to waive their right to appear before the judiciary for fear of physical assaults. Prisoners are subjected to systematic abuse during their transfer from cells to video conference rooms or courtrooms.

Dr. Hussam Abu Safiya is considered one of the most prominent symbols of medical resilience in Gaza, as he continued to perform his professional duty despite the harsh conditions. He continued to manage Kamal Adwan Hospital despite the martyrdom of his son by occupation fire and his own injury in previous attacks.

International reports warned that the continued detention of doctors exacerbates the humanitarian catastrophe in the Gaza Strip, which is suffering from the collapse of its health system. The absence of these personnel deprives hundreds of thousands of citizens of necessary medical care amid the ongoing war of annihilation.

On the international level, the prestigious medical journal 'The Lancet' published a petition signed by dozens of international medical organizations. The petition calls for a boycott of the Israeli Medical Association due to its silence and failure to uphold professional ethics regarding what is happening in Gaza.

The petition accused doctors within the Israeli prison system of participating in or covering up the torture of Palestinian prisoners. The signatories demanded the need for international pressure to stop these blatant violations of international laws and medical norms.

The sources stressed that if the occupation possesses any evidence against Abu Safiya, it should present it publicly before the judiciary and provide clear charges. Continued arbitrary detention is a war crime that requires immediate intervention from UN institutions to release all medical staff.

It is worth noting that the last visual documentation of Dr. Abu Safiya before the last session was in February 2025, where he appeared shackled under heavy guard. The footage at the time showed him being abused and subjected to show interrogations by occupation intelligence officers inside one of the detention centers.

The continued detention of Abu Safiya and other doctors not only represents an injustice to them but also affects hundreds of thousands of Palestinians who need their medical services.

Politics, in its complexities, resembles natural sciences like nuclear and quantum physics, where systems and spaces intertwine in a way that understanding political phenomena requires multiple levels of interpretation. Just as the rules of mechanics alone are insufficient to explain atomic phenomena, political action demands analytical tools that transcend traditional linear logic.

Great powers often fall into the trap of using outdated thinking tools to confront the challenges of a new era, leading to a gap between changing reality and political decisions. This detachment from reality explains why empires fail to predict moments of popular uprising or radical shifts in non-material power balances.

The dilemma of imperial collapse lies in the realist school's inability to explain the erosion of power despite overwhelming material superiority, as this logic overlooks the role of legitimacy and popular acceptance. When a dominant power loses the consent of the governed, a silent erosion begins within its structure, unseen by eyes engrossed in calculations of weapons and money.

Dominant powers deny their new reality and, instead of adapting to it, insist on policies of elimination and monopolization, relying on past glories and tools that are no longer valid. This insistence generates accumulated grievances that, at a certain historical moment, lead to a sudden explosion that shatters linear interpretations of events.

What the world is witnessing today represents a profound shift in consciousness and will, the two most dangerous factors for any hegemonic system, as changing perceptions are the true key to historical change. Peoples have begun to transcend the patterns of thinking imposed by great powers, moving towards a new world based on challenge and rejection of subservience.

The importance of the current stage lies in the steady change in human thought's view of the United States and Israel, as their standing in people's hearts has changed unprecedentedly. The grievances of hegemony have accumulated in various arenas, whether through economic, intellectual, or political marginalization, creating a global environment that rejects the status quo.

Resistance communities have succeeded in delegitimizing the occupation and breaking the illusion of weakness that had overshadowed the region for decades, motivating peoples to reclaim their will. This actual resurgence began with faith in rights and freedom, and evolved into possessing the will to defend and sacrifice, deepening the justifications for a culture of resistance.

The historical steadfastness and field creativity that emerged since the 'Al-Aqsa Flood' events represent a major turning point that revealed the hidden truth behind the American and Israeli facade. According to analytical sources, the resistance front alone was able to repel the most severe attack in modern history thanks to the cohesion of political and military paths.

What the occupation and Washington promote as military achievements quickly turns out to be a strategic loss in the broader cognitive and social system of the world. The overall calculation of profit and loss cannot be confined to one angle, but requires a comprehensive vision that takes into account the surrounding systems of the action and their interactions.

What is required at this stage, as the confrontation approaches decisive stations, is steadfastness and continued will to challenge the most powerful hegemonic force known to history. Humanity today is transcending the tools of American administration, which have become completely exposed, while rising powers seek a foothold in a multipolar world.

The American administration is in a state of regurgitating past tools despite their limitations and the decline of its systemic creativity, which is clearly evident in its commitment to the agenda of the far-right in Israel. This agenda, based on spreading chaos and destabilizing nation-states, increases Washington's isolation even among its traditional allies.

The world today sees its interests lying in stability and construction, while the 'system of chaos' pursued by dominant powers poses a threat to the elements of trust necessary for international cooperation. The policy of destabilization abroad will not remain confined there, but will inevitably find its way into the troubled American interior.

American society suffers from internal conflicts and identity disputes, which makes the export of chaos abroad negatively rebound on its internal cohesion due to the intertwining of global systems. Betting on military force alone without moral or legal cover is a gamble with the future of the empire itself.

In conclusion, a reading of the depths of history confirms that popular consciousness is the rock upon which the illusions of absolute power are shattered, and that the next stage will witness further erosion in the influence of powers that refuse to recognize the legitimate rights of peoples, foremost among them the Palestinian people.

The most dangerous thing facing a hegemonic power is the loss of acceptance of its control, which the empire usually does not notice due to its immersion in the illusion of material power.

The intensity of political debate in the United States escalated with the unveiling of the preliminary agreement reached by President Donald Trump's administration with Tehran. Trump insists that his current formula is significantly superior to the nuclear deal concluded by Barack Obama in 2015. Trump claims that the previous agreement paved the way for Iran to acquire a nuclear arsenal, while his new agreement imposes strict restrictions that definitively prevent this path.

In contrast, former President Barack Obama questioned the validity of claims describing the new agreement as 'fundamentally different,' considering that the technical foundations for dealing with the Iranian nuclear file remain constant. These developments come as international circles await the official signing of the memorandum in Geneva, Switzerland, amidst hopes of ending decades of tension in the Middle East.

Looking at the details of the 2015 agreement, it primarily focused on the technical nuclear aspect, obliging Iran to a maximum uranium enrichment level not exceeding 3.67% for 15 years. The agreement also included a massive 98% reduction in enriched uranium stockpiles, ensuring that Iran's stockpile would not exceed 300 kilograms, which was considered sufficient to prevent armament at the time.

Obama's agreement also included reducing the number of centrifuges from 19,000 to only about 6,000 first-generation centrifuges, along with redesigning the Arak heavy water reactor. These steps aimed to prevent the production of military-grade plutonium, in exchange for a gradual lifting of international sanctions and the unfreezing of Iranian financial assets in global banks.

As for the features of Trump's 2026 agreement, they appear more comprehensive from a geopolitical perspective, as they include an immediate and comprehensive cessation of military operations on all fronts, including the Lebanese arena. The opening of the Strait of Hormuz stands out as one of the most important achievements, as the agreement aims to ensure freedom of navigation and global trade without restrictions or additional fees, which Trump sees as a historic achievement.

Reports indicate that Trump's agreement includes a temporary truce for 60 days, the deadline set for comprehensive negotiations on more complex issues that have not yet been resolved. During this period, the United States commits not to impose any new sanctions, with a pledge to lift oil sanctions for a specified period to allow Tehran to collect revenues from its crude sales.

Trump's financial vision includes the release of $25 billion in frozen Iranian assets through direct cash transfers and financial credit lines. Washington also pledges to coordinate with its regional allies to develop a comprehensive plan for reconstruction and development in Iran, representing a radical shift in strategy for dealing with the Iranian regime from maximum pressure to economic incentives.

Regarding the nuclear file, under Trump's memorandum, Iran agrees to completely refrain from producing or possessing nuclear weapons, while maintaining the current status of its program during the negotiation period. Mechanisms for dealing with Iran's current stockpile of highly enriched uranium, estimated at about 12 tons, are to be addressed in the final agreement to be concluded later.

Sources reported that Trump aims to make the Strait of Hormuz 'free forever,' considering that this agreement will protect the region and prevent the 'annihilation of Israel,' in his words. Trump sharply criticized some regional parties, accusing Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of attempting to obstruct the diplomatic path led by the White House.

The new vision also includes the idea of 'protection for payment,' where Trump proposes the principle of regional countries contributing financially in exchange for the American security umbrella that the new agreement will provide. Observers believe that this approach reflects Trump's business mindset in managing international affairs, transforming ideological conflicts into mutual economic and security deals.

The upcoming negotiations in Switzerland will also discuss imposing strict controls and immediate, unconditional inspection mechanisms for Iranian nuclear facilities to ensure full compliance. The final provisions are expected to include a suspension of uranium enrichment for long periods ranging from 15 to 20 years, which exceeds some provisions of the 2015 agreement in its strictness.

Sources indicated that the military operations witnessed last February were the primary driver that pushed Tehran to the negotiating table, according to US administration estimates. Trump indirectly praised international roles such as Russia and China in contributing to de-escalating tensions, which paved the way for these initial understandings.

The biggest challenge for Trump's agreement remains how to transform this memorandum into a permanent treaty accepted by legislative institutions and regional allies. While Trump focuses on economic aspects and opening waterways, concerns remain about Iran's ability to maneuver during the 60-day period allocated for final negotiations on outstanding issues.

In conclusion, the divergence between Obama's 'technical' approach and Trump's 'comprehensive' approach represents the peak of the political struggle in Washington over how to contain Iranian ambitions. Whether Trump succeeds in completing his 'grand deal' or not, the features of the current agreement redraw the map of balances in the Middle East, with a focus on economy and navigation as alternative tools to direct wars.

Trump: My current agreement is the complete opposite of Obama's agreement, which was an easy path to acquiring a nuclear weapon.

The railway project connecting Istanbul to Damascus and extending to the Hejaz is once again at the forefront of the region's strategic landscape, reviving Sultan Abdul Hamid II's vision aimed at strengthening ties between the center of the Caliphate and the Arab world. This project, which was aborted during World War I, now emerges as a geopolitical necessity that transcends mere commercial transport to forge strong regional alliances.

International and regional powers recognize that connecting Anatolia to the heart of the Arabian Peninsula represents a strategic step to bridge political and economic distances. Previous attempts to disrupt this line primarily aimed to deepen the division between Arab and Turkish components, which the new Saudi-Turkish initiative currently seeks to overcome.

This move has raised serious concerns among Israeli circles, with Hebrew press reports describing the agreement as laying stakes in a new regional system that will dominate the Middle East over the next decade. These circles view the Turkish-Saudi move as circumventing connectivity projects that Israel had hoped to be central to.

'Yedioth Ahronoth' newspaper considered that Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan succeeded in transforming successive regional crises into strategic opportunities that enabled him to break international isolation. The newspaper indicated that Turkey is no longer merely a player on the scene, but has become the scene itself where major interests intersect due to this diplomatic acumen.

While military powers in the region were depleting their forces on multiple fronts, Ankara focused on strengthening its presence through cross-border infrastructure projects. This approach ensures that Turkey will not be an excluded party in any future arrangements of the regional order, but rather an active element and a driver of events.

The benefits of this railway line are not limited to the Turkish side alone, but extend to all countries through which it passes, foremost among them the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. The project gives Riyadh a golden opportunity to diversify its oil and product export routes away from the routes that Israel is trying to impose via the port of Haifa.

This approach represents a liberation for the Kingdom from economic and political pressures it has faced for many years, especially in light of the major transformations the region is witnessing. This cooperation comes to reinforce the positive stances Saudi Arabia has recently taken towards central Arab and Islamic issues.

Turkish foreign policy has demonstrated a remarkable ability to balance bearing the repercussions of international crises and seizing opportunities to achieve massive national interests. This approach has enabled the Turkish leadership to regain its popular momentum and overcome internal challenges by commanding the respect of international powers for its country's regional standing.

Success in strengthening regional presence requires more than just internal military power; it needs an economic vision that connects the common interests of peoples. And Turkey, despite the historical upheavals it has experienced, is still treated based on its heritage, which dictates a leading role in its surroundings.

The railway project is viewed from a broad perspective as a tool to reshape the geopolitical and social map of the region's peoples. Historically, the railway was a lifeline connecting the periphery to the center, which the current project aims to achieve again.

Calls are increasing for the necessity of protecting this project from attempts at obstruction or abortion that may be led by parties that do not want stability or renaissance for this nation. The challenges that faced the project a century ago still exist in different forms and shapes in the modern era.

Perhaps the completion of this railway connection will open the door to a comprehensive economic renaissance that will lift the peoples of the region out of their state of distress and dependence on external forces. Economic integration is the only way to confront the successive crises that have plagued the Arab world in recent years.

Arab peoples have suffered from repeated cycles of setbacks, and whenever a glimmer of hope appeared on the horizon, external factors intervened to thwart it. The train project represents a real test of the will of the region's countries to shape their future away from interventions aimed at maintaining dependency.

Amidst the bleak landscape surrounding many regional issues, the Istanbul-Jeddah railway project stands out as a potential new chapter. Will the shared political will succeed in transforming this historical dream into a tangible reality that changes the face of the Middle East?

Erdogan has not only returned to the scene, but has become the scene itself by transforming regional disasters into strategic gains.

British press reports have revealed intriguing details about a secret intelligence unit operating under the supervision of the Home Office, aimed at controlling citizens' reactions to hate crimes and racially motivated incidents. This unit is known as the 'Research, Information and Communications Unit,' a bureaucratic designation described as a cover for complex operations designed to engineer public consciousness and direct media narratives to serve the stability of the authorities.

The report indicated that this unit, which includes spies, experts, and soldiers, was actively involved during the recent anti-immigration protests and violence in Belfast. The unit operates covertly to control social tensions through various tools, ranging from disseminating directed news to using field agents to influence public sentiment at hot spots.

The unit's roots trace back to 2007, when it was founded by former British intelligence officer Charles Farr, as part of the 'Prevent' counter-terrorism strategy. Although its initial goal was to counter the propaganda of extremist organizations like Al-Qaeda, its influence expanded to include intervention in shaping official discourse and controlling how sensitive issues related to multiculturalism are addressed.

Among the controversial methods employed by the unit, undercover agents place flowers at the sites of terrorist attacks to create an atmosphere of sorrow and prevent the escalation of public anger. Sources also revealed that the unit secretly funded musical groups to perform anti-extremism songs in schools, in an attempt to indirectly influence the intellectual convictions of young people.

In the recent events in Northern Ireland, the unit provided technical advice to the police on how to 'control the narrative' and portray protesters as advocates of violence undeserving of public sympathy. The unit works in coordination with police intelligence to identify online instigators and draft media statements aimed at defusing tensions arising from stabbings or killings linked to immigrants.

The unit faces sharp criticism from within the British government, with some officials describing it as 'out of control' and threatening freedom of expression values. This was evident in its pressure to record 'non-criminal hate incidents,' a measure that prevented individuals from expressing their views on issues of race and religion, before the government was forced to cancel it under political pressure.

Documents indicate that the unit intervened directly after the London Bridge attacks in 2017, where its agents distributed flowers to foster solidarity and prevent retaliatory reactions against Muslim communities. The unit also used similar methods after the execution of aid worker Alan Henning, by promoting symbolic images in the media aimed at strengthening a shared national identity in the face of extremism.

In another incident, the unit funded a public relations agency to highlight the role of the Finsbury Park Mosque imam in protecting an extremist attacker from an angry crowd in 2017. This type of intervention aims to highlight positive role models that contribute to calming the streets, but it raises questions about the ethics of intelligence intervention in news production.

The unit is also behind extensive campaigns on social media platforms such as the #WeStandTogether hashtag, in which senior politicians and security officials participated without disclosing the campaign's true source. The unit uses these platforms to infiltrate discussions within targeted communities and change the course of public discourse in line with the state's security objectives.

Sir William Shawcross, in a 2023 review of the 'Prevent' program, criticized the unit's approach, considering that it focuses its efforts on pursuing the far-right more than its concern for threats from extremist Islamist groups. This disparity in targeting angered conservative politicians who believed that resources were being wasted on pursuing political opponents instead of criminals.

For his part, former minister Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg accused the unit of deviating from its professional path and focusing on monitoring and directing the behavior of elected politicians. Critics believe that the continued operation of this unit in the shadows grants it power not subject to legal or parliamentary accountability, making it a tool for imposing soft censorship on British society.

Despite these accusations, the unit insists that its role is vital in protecting the social fabric from right-wing groups that exploit sensitive issues, such as sexual exploitation gangs, to incite hatred. The unit claims that its interventions are necessary to prevent a slide into civil war or widespread ethnic unrest that could threaten the national security of the United Kingdom.

In a brief official response, a Home Office spokesperson stated that the unit provides strategic analyses of how extremists exploit the internet to spread their destructive propaganda. The spokesperson declined to comment on the details of the secret operations or field methods employed by the unit, emphasizing that its work falls within the general framework of counter-terrorism.

The debate continues regarding the boundaries between protecting national security and manipulating collective consciousness and restricting public freedoms, amidst the increasing reliance on intelligence 'soft power.' These leaks reveal the depth of security penetration into the daily lives of British citizens, and how 'national consensus' is manufactured through closed rooms in Westminster.

The unit's bureaucratic name is merely part of a camouflage operation that conceals the nature of its work, which is based on deception and misinformation to deal with the challenges of multiculturalism.

International press sources revealed details of the agreement announced by US President Donald Trump with the Iranian leadership, confirming that it put an end to a costly war that lasted for several weeks. Despite the cessation of military operations, the agreement kept the Iranian regime in power, leaving the most complex issues, especially the nuclear program, for future negotiation rounds whose final features have not yet been clarified.

Trump announced the end of the military campaign against Tehran with a sharply economic message, calling for the reopening of global trade routes and energy supply lines. The US President called on the world's ships to resume their activity and pump oil again into global markets, a clear indication of his desire to end the state of confusion that afflicted the international economy due to the confrontation.

According to reports, the end of the fighting restored the field conditions to what they were before the outbreak of the American-Israeli confrontation against Iran on February 28th. This retreat comes despite the fact that the declared goals at the beginning of the conflict sought to bring about a radical change in the structure of Iranian rule and support the internal protests that Washington had bet on.

The first hours of the war witnessed the killing of Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, which Western circles at the time considered a golden opportunity for the collapse of the regime. However, the popular uprising that the White House expected did not materialize on the ground; instead, Tehran showed military resilience and the ability to close the strategic Strait of Hormuz, which put immense pressure on the American administration.

The sources explained that the current agreement includes an initial Iranian commitment not to seek to acquire nuclear weapons, but officials in Tehran link the actual start of enrichment negotiations to the lifting of the comprehensive US naval blockade. Corridors of the US administration speak of a proposal to hand over Iran's enriched uranium stockpile to the United States to ensure its complete destruction.

In a remarkable shift in political discourse, Trump affirmed in press statements that he never sought to change the regime in Iran, describing the current group he is negotiating with as 'the most rational.' This change reflects Washington's realization of the difficulty of military options and their exorbitant cost to regional stability and the interests of allies.

For his part, US Vice President J.D. Vance defended the agreement, considering it a strategic shift that will change the face of the Middle East for the next fifty years. Vance indicated that Iran's commitment to the terms of the agreement will end the state of chaos that the region has suffered from for decades, stressing that the war achieved military objectives by destroying naval capabilities and high-ranking leaders.

In contrast, skepticism prevails among experts and analysts, with researchers believing that the agreement maintains a regime that possesses all tools of regional threat, from ballistic missiles to drones. Experts warned that Tehran succeeded in transforming the Strait of Hormuz from a theoretical bargaining chip into a real tool of influence that imposed its conditions on the international table.

On the domestic American front, Trump faced criticism from his Republican allies, with Senator Lindsey Graham demanding that any nuclear agreement be presented to Congress for review and vote. Conservative media figures also expressed their dissatisfaction with the non-publication of the memorandum of understanding, warning of significant gaps between the American and Iranian narratives of the agreement's content.

Leaked information indicates that the agreement includes a 60-day truce to negotiate thorny issues, with the release of approximately $25 billion in frozen Iranian assets. These steps come at a time when Iran possesses a huge stockpile of highly enriched uranium estimated at 12 tons, which makes the upcoming negotiations extremely sensitive.

On the Israeli side, former officials such as Moshe Ya'alon warned of political and security collapses resulting from the failure of the strategy adopted against Iran. Ya'alon considered that current policies are leading to a dead end, given the dissatisfaction of the head of the occupation government, Benjamin Netanyahu, with any understandings that might threaten his political future or give Tehran a chance to catch its breath.

Through this agreement, Tehran seeks to obtain billions of dollars needed to rebuild what the aggression destroyed, while maintaining its regional influence in Lebanon, Iraq, and Yemen. Observers believe that Iran has proven its ability to withstand the long war losses, which forced Washington to retreat from its high demands announced at the beginning of the conflict.

The official signing of the agreement is expected next Friday, amid strict measures to prevent the leakage of details before they are fully matured. This secrecy aims to protect the understandings from external and internal political pressures that could lead to the failure of negotiations at the last minute, especially concerning the future of centrifuges.

The question remains about the extent to which this 'fragile' agreement will withstand field and political challenges, especially with regional parties that see it as a threat to their interests. The coming days will reveal whether Trump has indeed succeeded in achieving 'historic peace' or if it is merely a postponement of a major confrontation to come, given Iran's continued possession of nuclear power capabilities.

Oh ships of the world, start your engines, let the oil flow; the war is over and the regime remains.

Palestinian youth in the Gaza Strip defied the harsh war conditions and the continuous deprivation for years, to express their strong support for the Egyptian national team at the start of its journey in the 2026 World Cup against its Belgian counterpart. Dozens gathered in one of the tents that the locals had set up to be a simple cafe, where they sat on modest chairs in front of a single television screen to follow the anticipated football match amidst an atmosphere of enthusiasm.

Egyptian flags were raised above the tent's roof and throughout its corners, while a group of young people wrapped themselves in the Egyptian flag, expressing the unity of blood and destiny with their brethren. Sources reported that the scene reflected a strong will to live, as cameras captured war wounded sitting in wheelchairs following the match with great interest, cheering for the 'Pharaohs' warmly despite the physical and psychological pain left by the ongoing war.

These scenes come at a time when the Palestinian sports sector is suffering from complete paralysis, due to the war that erupted in October 2023 and led to more than 120,000 injured and the destruction of all stadiums and sports facilities. Palestinian sports also lost dozens of cadres and players who were martyred during the bombing, as part of a systematic destruction policy that affected all aspects of life and entertainment in the besieged Strip.

Throughout history, Palestinians in Gaza have consistently shown their absolute support for Arab national teams in international forums, which was clearly evident in previous World Cup editions. Arab participation in the World Cup is a long-standing legacy that Egypt began in 1934, leading to the historic achievement of the Moroccan national team in Qatar 2022 when it ranked fourth globally, which raised the ceiling of public aspirations.

The current edition of the 2026 tournament is witnessing a remarkable expansion with the increase in the number of teams to 48, which has given Arab football greater opportunities for representation and competition across the continents of Asia and Africa. The public in the Palestinian territories and the Arab region is keen to follow these matches closely, as live broadcast times and kickoff are coordinated according to Doha time, with hopes of achieving honorable results.

Despite all the hardships and sorrows they suffer, this did not prevent Gazans from expressing their support for the Egyptian national team, affirming the strong ties that bind them to the Arab peoples.

The cultural and historical legacy in the Gaza Strip faces unprecedented existential challenges, three years after military operations turned cultural landmarks into piles of rubble. Field sources reported that archaeological artifacts dating back thousands of years are either lost or damaged as a result of direct shelling, threatening the loss of an irreplaceable visual and historical memory for future generations.

Al-Qarara Museum is one of the most prominent testimonies to this tragedy, with estimates indicating that more than 3,500 rare artifacts are still buried under the rubble of the destroyed building. The damage was not limited to private museums but extended to the historic 'Pasha's Palace,' dating back to the Mamluk era, which lost about 70% of its contents that formed the core of the National Museum since its official opening in 2010.

For his part, Dr. Hamouda Al-Dehdar, Director of the Department of Sites and Excavation at the Ministry of Tourism and Antiquities, explained that the occupation deliberately targeted tangible and intangible cultural heritage systematically from the first days of the war. Al-Dehdar pointed out that the shelling affected ancient historical neighborhoods such as Shujaiya and Tuffah, in addition to specialized museums like Al-Aqqad Museum, causing the loss of priceless archaeological finds belonging to the Byzantine and Roman eras.

Official statistics indicate that the Pasha's Palace Museum was a major tourist and educational destination, receiving approximately 70,000 visitors annually before the outbreak of confrontations. Experts in antiquities believe that the speed of targeting these sites a few days after the start of the war reflects a clear desire to obliterate Palestinian identity and erase the material evidence that proves the historical rootedness of the Palestinian people in their land.

Despite the harsh conditions and forced displacement of specialized cadres, Palestinian academic initiatives have begun to move to save what can be saved from under the rubble. These teams work in complex security conditions to document the damage and archive the remaining pieces, considering this mission to transcend professional work to become a national battle to protect Palestinian existence from attempts at cultural annihilation.

At the conclusion of these efforts, those in charge of the restoration operations affirm that rebuilding the destroyed museums is a promise they have made to themselves despite the horror of the destruction that befell the old city. Digital archiving and field documentation remain the last line of defense, proving that Palestinian identity, deeply rooted in history, is stronger than to perish under the weight of shelling or be erased from human memory.

Targeting museums is an attempt to break Palestinian dignity by erasing its historical evidence, but preserving them is an integral part of our struggle for survival.

US Vice President J.D. Vance made important statements revealing that the recently signed memorandum of understanding between the United States and Iran is a very brief and general document. Vance clarified that the precise and final details of this agreement will be drafted during rounds of technical negotiations scheduled for later stages, noting that the current goal is to lay the groundwork for ending the conflict.

Washington and Tehran, mediated by Pakistan, announced earlier this week that they had reached an agreement to end the war that erupted on February 28th. This development comes after months of military escalation that included multiple fronts, with both parties now seeking through this memorandum to transition from direct confrontation to a diplomatic path.

In an interview with international media, Vance confirmed that the document does not exceed one and a half pages, and is limited to defining the basic principles that will govern the future relationship between the two countries. He stressed that this general framework ensures Iran will receive economic and political benefits if it fully adheres to the provisions contained in the memorandum, especially regarding regional security.

The US Vice President indicated that the first paragraph of the agreement primarily focuses on Tehran's commitment to 'regional peace and stability'. He explained that this commitment necessarily includes Iran ceasing to fund organizations that Washington considers terrorist groups, which is a fundamental condition for continuing to operate under these new understandings.

For his part, US President Donald Trump announced that the agreement has already been signed, confirming that the strategic Strait of Hormuz will return to full operation for international navigation starting next Friday. This announcement represents a major breakthrough in the global energy crisis, which has been severely affected by military tensions in vital waterways.

In contrast, Tehran confirmed that the official signing ceremony of the memorandum will take place in Geneva, Switzerland, next Friday. Iranian sources described this step as the beginning of a new phase of negotiations that will last for 60 days, focusing particularly on the issues of lifting economic sanctions and Iran's nuclear program.

Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian commented on the agreement, saying that it represents an 'honorable document' for the Islamic Republic if all its provisions are implemented faithfully and accurately. Pezeshkian noted in a post that the understanding received the support of the vast majority of members of Iran's Supreme National Security Council, giving it strong legal and political cover within the country.

Pezeshkian expressed his gratitude to the Iranian negotiating team, praising the efforts of Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf and Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi. He considered what has been achieved a fundamental step towards stopping the bloodshed of war and initiating serious dialogue, despite his affirmation that the final comprehensive agreement has not yet fully materialized.

Additional reports indicate that the agreement includes 14 clauses covering an immediate and comprehensive cessation of hostilities on all fronts, including the Lebanese arena. Leaks also speak of financial arrangements including the release of approximately $12 billion in frozen Iranian assets as a gesture of goodwill, with the possibility of the amount reaching $24 billion later.

On the ground, the naval blockade imposed on Iranian ports since mid-April is expected to be lifted, coinciding with the withdrawal of US forces from areas surrounding Iran. Tehran will manage the arrangements for reopening the Strait of Hormuz in cooperation with the Sultanate of Oman, with fees imposed on maritime services provided to passing ships.

Regarding the nuclear file, sources quoted President Trump as saying that an agreement could be reached to suspend uranium enrichment in Iran for a period ranging from 15 to 20 years. However, Iranian media reports indicate that the ballistic missile program and support for resistance factions in the region were not included in the agenda of the current negotiations.

The agreement has been widely welcomed by Arab and international countries and organizations, with Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Egypt, the UAE, and Jordan praising the mediation efforts made by Pakistan and Turkey. These countries called for the necessity of building on this understanding to achieve sustainable stability in the Middle East and end the state of tension that has plagued the region throughout the past months.

It is worth noting that this conflict began in February 2026 with military attacks launched by the United States and Israel against Iranian targets, to which Tehran responded with strikes targeting American interests. Intensive diplomatic efforts succeeded in reaching a temporary ceasefire last April, before these efforts culminated in the current memorandum of understanding.

The memorandum of understanding does not exceed one and a half pages, and it establishes a framework that ensures Iranians benefit from the agreement in exchange for fulfilling their obligations.

The administration of US President Donald Trump is considering a strategic proposal that includes allowing the establishment of a massive investment fund worth up to $300 billion dedicated to Iran. This approach comes within the framework of seeking a final and comprehensive settlement that ends the state of animosity between Washington and Tehran, and puts an end to tensions related to the Iranian nuclear program, which raises widespread international concern.

Informed sources stated that Washington has seriously discussed the possibility of easing economic sanctions imposed on Tehran in parallel with the launch of this fund dedicated to the country's reconstruction. The sources indicated that these major financial incentives will be closely linked to the extent of the Iranian side's commitment to the terms of the memorandum of understanding expected to be officially signed in Switzerland next Friday.

The US administration is setting strict conditions for activating this fund, most notably reaching a final settlement within the framework of the proposed memorandum, and extending the ceasefire agreement for an additional 60 days. US requirements also include guaranteeing freedom of navigation and the full reopening of the Strait of Hormuz, with technical negotiations continuing on the nuclear file to ensure its peaceful nature.

Regarding the structural details of the fund, officials explained that the money will not be paid from government budgets or taxpayers, but will rely entirely on investments from private companies wishing to enter the Iranian market. Iran represents an attractive market for investment privileges due to its population of nearly 90 million people, in addition to its vast reserves of energy resources and natural gas.

A wide range of international companies, especially from Europe, South Korea, and Japan, as well as major American companies, have shown initial interest in investing in vital Iranian sectors. However, the legal and administrative mechanism that will govern the operation of this fund and its organizational structure is still under discussion to ensure that funds are not leaked to unintended parties.

For his part, US Vice President J.D. Vance stated that this fund represents both a pressure tool and an incentive, emphasizing that it is one of the privileges available to Iran if it proves its seriousness. Vance stressed that access to these huge sums is entirely contingent on Tehran fulfilling all its obligations under the anticipated agreement, without any leniency in security standards.

This plan faces internal political challenges in Washington, as Trump seeks to balance offering economic incentives with avoiding criticism that might accuse him of rewarding the Iranian regime. This step recalls the sharp criticism Trump previously directed at the 2015 agreement, where he accused the previous administration at the time of providing cash financial facilities without obtaining sufficient guarantees.

Based on the new approach, any easing of sanctions or release of frozen Iranian assets in international banks will be carried out according to a strict timeline and in multiple stages. Each stage of funding will remain linked to tangible progress in nuclear negotiations, where Washington may resort to providing limited financial steps initially as a gesture to build trust between the two parties.

Regarding the technical nuclear aspect, Washington and Tehran have agreed on a mechanism for dealing with enriched uranium stockpiles, which includes reducing the quantities within Iranian territory. Reports indicate that Iran currently possesses more than 9,000 kilograms of uranium, including about 440 kilograms that have reached critical enrichment levels approaching the requirements for producing a nuclear weapon, which will be placed under close international supervision.

The reconstruction fund represents one of the privileges that Iran can obtain as long as it adheres to its part of the agreement.

Groups of settlers, on Monday, destroyed the main and only water pipeline that supplies the village of Umm Safa, located in the central occupied West Bank, with its basic needs. This step comes amidst a frantic escalation of attacks targeting agricultural lands and Palestinian infrastructure, with the aim of pressuring residents and forcing them into displacement.

Local sources reported that the act of sabotage coincided with settlers carrying out extensive bulldozing operations in citizens' lands and paving a new settlement road in the vital 'Al-Harash' area. This newly constructed road connects Umm Safa village with the neighboring Deir Sudan village, threatening to confiscate vast areas of agricultural land that residents depend on.

For his part, Marwan Sabah, head of the Umm Safa Village Council, warned that the village is subjected to a real and systematic displacement project implemented by the occupation authorities and their settlers. Sabah explained that the village is now surrounded by settlement outposts from all sides, making it dangerous for farmers to access their fields due to repeated attacks.

In a related context, Hebrew press reports revealed the intention of Benjamin Netanyahu's government to allocate a huge budget to support the extremist right-wing 'Hilltop Youth' movement. According to leaked information, the allocated amount reaches about 5.5 million shekels, equivalent to approximately 1.89 million US dollars, which will be disbursed from the official state budget.

The 'Hilltop Youth' movement is known as an extremist settlement organization whose members are active in the random outposts scattered over the hills of the West Bank. This group is accused of being responsible for a long series of terrorist attacks that targeted Palestinian villages, including burning homes and mosques and vandalizing private property under the protection of the occupation army.

Data indicates that these groups are led by extremist Zionist figures, most notably Avri Ran and Meir Bartler, and are formed by elements originating from settlements and major cities. These individuals are not affiliated with a traditional party framework, but rather are united by a hardline right-wing ideology based on absolute hostility to the Palestinian presence in the region.

The head of the Palestinian National Council, Ruhi Fattouh, condemned this Israeli government approach, considering it conclusive evidence of the official establishment's involvement in sponsoring organized terrorism. Fattouh stressed that pumping funds to these groups grants them legal and political immunity to continue their crimes against unarmed civilians and their property.

Fattouh also emphasized that the international community's silence regarding these public fundings encourages the occupation to commit more blatant violations of international law. He called on international institutions to take urgent action to hold accountable those responsible for funding these gangs that wreak havoc and destruction in villages adjacent to settlements.

Various areas of the West Bank are witnessing a state of severe tension due to the continued burning and bulldozing operations and preventing farmers from accessing their lands. Field sources confirm that these attacks are often carried out with the direct support of occupation soldiers, who provide security cover for settlers during their attacks on Palestinian villages.

The decision to fund the 'Hilltop Youth' provides political, legal, and financial cover for settler gangs that carry out organized crimes against Palestinians.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky announced a new diplomatic initiative aimed at breaking the stalemate in the years-long war, proposing a direct meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin on American soil. This announcement followed telephone consultations between Zelensky and US President Donald Trump, during which they discussed ways to advance the peace process.

In a video address broadcast across social media platforms, Zelensky explained that Sunday's discussions with Trump focused on drafting a framework for this anticipated meeting. The Ukrainian president indicated that the proposed format for the meeting in the United States was carefully designed to be an offer that would be difficult for the Kremlin to ignore or reject at this time.

For his part, US President Donald Trump expressed notable optimism during his presence at the G7 summit in France, affirming his serious efforts to end the fighting in Ukraine and Lebanon. Trump stated that he had constructive talks with both Zelensky and Putin, expressing his belief that both parties are showing unprecedented openness to reaching a settlement that would end the armed conflict.

Despite this optimism, the Russian position remains cautious, as Putin had previously stated the futility of direct meetings without a clear draft peace agreement. Sources in the Ukrainian presidency indicate that the latest proposal was passed through multiple intelligence and diplomatic channels, but Moscow has not provided an official or clear response to date.

These moves come at a time when the international arena is witnessing increasing pressure to end the war, which has exceeded its fourth year, with Putin recently ignoring calls to attend the G7 summit in France. Through this initiative, Zelensky seeks to embarrass the Russian position internationally or push it towards the negotiating table under direct Washington patronage.

In the context of European support, the leaders of Britain, France, and Germany announced in a joint statement issued from London their full endorsement of Zelensky's proposals aimed at a ceasefire. The European leaders affirmed their countries' commitment to playing a pivotal role in any political process that leads to the restoration of stability on the old continent and the end of humanitarian suffering.

This diplomatic activity coincided with the US President's praise for another preliminary agreement concerning the Iranian file, reflecting the US administration's desire to resolve major international crises. Observers believe that Washington's entry as a host for the Putin-Zelensky meeting could shift the balance of power in the negotiating process, which has repeatedly faltered in the past.

Anticipation remains the order of the day, awaiting official reactions from the Kremlin to the American-backed Ukrainian offer in the coming days. International circles hope that this initiative will constitute a real turning point, ending Europe's longest military conflict in the 21st century.

I discussed with President Trump the possibility of organizing a meeting in the United States in a format that would be very difficult for Putin to refuse.

The American company ConocoPhillips, a leader in oil and gas production, is moving towards concluding a strategic agreement with the new Syrian government aimed at resuming gas production operations in the country. Informed sources stated that this move comes within the framework of a comprehensive plan to revive the energy sector, which suffered from near-complete paralysis as a result of long years of armed conflicts and severe international sanctions.

The new contract is expected to include close cooperation between ConocoPhillips and Novaterra Energy to develop existing gas fields, in addition to initiating extensive exploration operations to search for new gas reserves. These operations will be carried out under an official agreement with the state-owned Syrian Petroleum Company, paving the way for the return of massive Western investments to the Syrian market.

Expectations indicate that the final signing of this agreement will take place this week, based on initial understandings and a memorandum of understanding reached last November. This development represents a radical shift in the Syrian economic landscape, as the new authorities seek to build reliable partnerships with major international energy companies to ensure the country's fuel needs are met and surpluses are exported.

In a related context, major companies such as France's TotalEnergies and QatarEnergy had joined ConocoPhillips earlier in May to launch a comprehensive technical review of offshore Block 3 located off the coast of Latakia. This review aims to assess the commercial potential for exploration in the Mediterranean, reflecting a growing international desire to explore the hidden wealth in Syrian territorial waters.

This fierce competition among international energy companies for Syrian projects comes in the wake of major political changes witnessed by the country and the overthrow of the former regime in late 2024. The current government considers attracting foreign investments in the hydrocarbon sector as the cornerstone for reconstruction and achieving the desired economic stability after decades of stagnation and destruction.

The anticipated agreement is part of the new Syrian government's efforts to attract foreign investments and rehabilitate the energy sector, which was destroyed by years of war.

The announcement of a preliminary memorandum of understanding between the United States and the Islamic Republic of Iran has sparked widespread debate in political circles in Washington. The memorandum, described as a preliminary step, includes reopening the Strait of Hormuz to international navigation and launching an intensive sixty-day round of nuclear negotiations.

Despite the ambiguity surrounding some of the document's provisions, global financial markets responded positively and quickly to the announcement. Oil prices saw a significant decline, with Brent crude falling by more than 4%, driven by expectations of stable energy supplies through vital waterways.

The official signing of this memorandum is scheduled for next Friday, while American officials confirmed that technical discussions will begin immediately, led by Vice President J.D. Vance. This path aims to establish clear timelines for mutual commitments between the two parties during the upcoming transitional phase.

US President Donald Trump indicated that the full details of the agreement would be revealed later after the official signing ceremony. This approach comes amid internal pressures demanding transparency about the nature of concessions Washington may have made to ensure oil flow and de-escalate military tensions.

On the Iranian side, Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf led the negotiating team that digitally signed the memorandum with the American side. Sources confirm that Tehran provided initial assurances not to seek nuclear weapons, although the issue of enriched uranium stockpiles remains unresolved pending technical negotiations.

Previous reports indicate that Iran currently possesses a massive stockpile of highly enriched uranium, amounting to approximately 12 tons. Dealing with this stockpile, whether through dilution or transfer, will be the cornerstone of any final agreement aimed at preventing Tehran from acquiring a nuclear bomb.

Domestically, the agreement faced reservations from Republican leaders, with Senator Lindsey Graham expressing concern about a gap in interpretations between the two parties. Graham warned that Tehran's view of commitments might differ radically from what the Trump administration's negotiating team is promoting.

For his part, Senate Republican Majority Leader John Thune demanded access to verification mechanisms for Iranian compliance before proceeding. Thune stressed that economic incentives must be linked to tangible and measurable steps on the ground to ensure that past mistakes are not repeated.

Economically, the memorandum provides Iran with breathing room by suspending sanctions on its oil exports throughout the negotiation period. This measure aims to encourage Tehran to engage seriously in the diplomatic process, with the possibility of releasing frozen assets estimated at $25 billion in later stages.

Regarding the Strait of Hormuz, informed sources announced that navigation would return to normal with joint management of navigational services between Iran and Oman. The US administration affirmed that the goal is to ensure the strait remains permanently open without imposing any additional fees on passing vessels.

Regionally, the memorandum included references to establishing a ceasefire in Lebanon, but it did not obligate Israel to a full withdrawal from border areas. Sources clarified that Tel Aviv reserves the right to respond in the event of any attacks by Hezbollah, which keeps the field situation fragile and prone to escalation.

Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, for his part, confirmed that Israeli forces would not currently withdraw from some strategic locations in southern Lebanon. Gallant indicated that any direct threat from Iranian territory would be met with a decisive military response, regardless of the ongoing diplomatic paths in Washington.

These developments bring to mind comparisons with the 2015 nuclear deal, from which Trump previously withdrew. While critics see the new agreement as potentially similar to its predecessor in offering financial benefits to Tehran, the current administration insists that the new terms are stricter and better serve American interests.

In conclusion, the international community awaits the tangible results of the next sixty days regarding the nuclear issue. The question remains whether the Trump administration can transform this preliminary memorandum into a comprehensive agreement that ends decades of hostility and tension in the Middle East.

Either Iran refuses to cooperate and remains under pressure, or it complies and receives economic benefits; in both cases, this represents a gain for the United States.

International political circles are awaiting the official signing of the Memorandum of Understanding between Iran and the United States on June 19, an agreement aimed at ending four months of military escalation that has affected the entire Middle East region. Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi confirmed that the full details will not be officially announced until after the signing ceremony, noting that this agreement paves the way for a new phase of supplementary negotiations.

Leaked information indicates that the agreement consists of 14 basic articles, prioritizing the immediate and permanent cessation of all hostilities on all fronts, including the Lebanese arena. This article aims to ensure regional stability, allowing both parties to engage in complex technical and political negotiations on long-standing issues.

Regarding the economic aspect, the draft included provisions for lifting the naval blockade imposed by Washington on Iranian ports since mid-April, in addition to the withdrawal of American forces from areas surrounding Iran. The memorandum also notes the suspension of sanctions imposed on oil and petrochemical exports, providing a vital lifeline for the Iranian economy.

The issue of frozen funds is one of Tehran's most prominent gains in this agreement, as media sources revealed a move to release approximately $24 billion during the final negotiation period, which will extend for sixty days. Iran is expected to receive half of this amount as a gesture of goodwill before the actual start of the scheduled negotiation rounds on the nuclear program.

Regarding the Strait of Hormuz, there was a divergence in statements between Washington and Tehran; while US President Donald Trump announced that the strait would be open without fees, Iranian sources confirmed that reopening would occur within a month according to special sovereign arrangements. The sources clarified that Tehran added a clause guaranteeing its right to impose maritime service fees in cooperation with the Sultanate of Oman.

The Iranian Foreign Minister stressed that his country has made a decisive decision that the management of the strategic waterway will not return to its former state, considering it a strategic deterrent. Araqchi pointed out that imposing transit fees might conflict with international law, but service fees are a sovereign right that will be exercised to ensure the security and safety of navigation under Iranian supervision.

Following the signing, intensive negotiations are scheduled to begin for 60 days, focusing primarily on Iran's nuclear program and uranium enrichment levels. These sessions will discuss the fate of Iran's stockpile of highly enriched uranium and the international mechanisms that ensure the nuclear program does not shift towards military purposes in the future.

In press statements, the US President hinted that negotiations might lead to a suspension of uranium enrichment in Iran for a period ranging from 15 to 20 years. Trump affirmed that the primary goal is to ensure that Iran's enrichment capabilities do not exceed internationally permissible peaceful levels, which represents the core of Western concern regarding Tehran's nuclear activities.

For his part, Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Kazem Gharibabadi clarified that the negotiations will not be limited to the nuclear aspect but will also include post-war reconstruction and economic development files. Through these discussions, Tehran seeks to establish an international mechanism that ensures all parties adhere to the terms of the agreement and prevents Washington from reneging on it in the future, as happened in previous experiences.

Despite the comprehensiveness of the agreement, sensitive issues remain outside the scope of the initial understanding, most notably Iran's ballistic missile program. Media reports indicated that Tehran succeeded in excluding the missile file and its support for its allies in the region from the agenda of the current negotiations, which may raise widespread reservations among other regional parties.

Observers believe that the exclusion of the 'Axis of Resistance' and the missile program from the memorandum represents a diplomatic victory for Iran, which insists that these files are related to national security and are not open to negotiation. In contrast, the current US administration focuses on neutralizing the nuclear threat as a top priority to ensure that the region does not slide into an uncontrolled nuclear arms race.

Sources indicate that the coming days will witness intensive diplomatic movements to finalize the drafting of the technical provisions before the June 19 deadline. Both parties aim, through this secrecy surrounding the details, to avoid internal political pressures and opposition that may emerge from hardline factions in both countries.

The success of this memorandum in transforming into a permanent agreement largely depends on the extent of Washington's commitment to actually and tangibly lifting financial and banking restrictions on Tehran. Iran links any progress in the nuclear file to its ability to access its frozen funds abroad and restore its natural share in the global oil market without obstacles.

In conclusion, this anticipated agreement represents a fundamental turning point in the course of Iranian-American relations, and if successful, it could lead to the formulation of a new security system in the region. However, challenges remain regarding how to reconcile Israeli security demands with the terms of the agreement, which seem to have granted Tehran wide leeway in its defensive and regional files.

The management of the Strait of Hormuz will not return to what it was, and the passage will remain a deterrent tool in the hands of the Islamic Republic.

The American administration is racing against time with wide-ranging diplomatic moves to contain the looming military explosion between Iran and Israel. US President Donald Trump is leading these efforts to prevent Tehran from carrying out an imminent military response that could lead to the collapse of the understandings being formulated between Washington and the Iranian capital.

Media sources reported that the current American moves come in the wake of the Israeli army's attack on the southern suburbs of Beirut. This field development has put the region on the brink of a comprehensive confrontation, especially after Iran hinted at a direct missile response against Israeli targets.

Leaked information indicates that Tehran is currently considering postponing its military response for an indefinite period. This Iranian step aims to give sufficient opportunity for the diplomatic efforts led by the United States to reach a comprehensive framework agreement in the coming hours.

In the context of regional efforts, Qatari mediation stands out as a pivotal player in the ongoing communications between the various concerned parties. Qatari mediators are seeking to establish a temporary calm that prevents the situation from sliding into an open confrontation whose repercussions cannot be controlled.

President Trump's administration is considering offering a package of additional incentives to the Iranian side in exchange for abandoning the option of a military attack. These incentives include accelerating procedures to ease restrictions on Iranian maritime navigation and its movement in the strategic Strait of Hormuz, instead of the previous gradual scheduling.

Intelligence estimates had indicated the possibility of an Iranian missile attack in the past hours, as happened in previous rounds of escalation. However, the intensity of American communications and diplomatic pressure has so far succeeded in postponing this step more than once, pending the outcome of the negotiations.

The US President sent direct and firm messages to officials in Tehran, warning that any new attack would trigger a series of reciprocal responses. Trump affirmed in his messages that entering the cycle of response and counter-response would mean the inevitable end of the current diplomatic negotiation process.

In contrast, Trump shows unprecedented flexibility towards some Iranian demands in an attempt to achieve the agreement he promised during his campaign. Observers believe that this flexibility reflects the White House's desire to close the regional escalation file as quickly as possible to avoid a widespread war.

Security sources reported that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was betting that targeting the southern suburbs would hinder the American-Iranian rapprochement. However, the results were completely contrary to his expectations, as it increased Washington's determination to move forward with the path of de-escalation and agreement.

The recent Israeli attack increased Trump's conviction of the need to accelerate the pace of the framework agreement with Iran to avoid sliding into a regional war. This conviction was directly reflected in the quality and size of the incentives that Washington is now prepared to offer the Iranian side at this stage.

Relations between Trump and Netanyahu witnessed a noticeable tension against the backdrop of these developments, as the US President directed harsh criticism at the Israeli Prime Minister. Trump expressed his strong anger during a direct phone call, considering the recent Israeli military actions to be ill-considered.

The US President reiterated his criticism in media statements, describing the decision to launch the attack on the southern suburbs as lacking a sense of political responsibility. He indicated that such steps threaten to undermine all efforts made by his administration to reach sustainable understandings with Tehran.

Trump explicitly demanded that Netanyahu stop any additional military operations targeting Hezbollah in Lebanon. This American request aims to ensure that the understandings being matured with Iran are not exposed to any risks that could lead to their failure at the last minute.

These developments reflect the immense pressure Washington faces in its attempt to balance protecting the security of its allies and maintaining the negotiation process. The region remains in a state of cautious anticipation, as the outcome of events depends on the success or failure of these intensive diplomatic efforts.

The attack on the southern suburbs lacks a sense of responsibility and threatens to undermine efforts to reach an agreement with Iran.

The Tunisian political scene raises profound questions about the utility of the Islamist current coming to power after the Arab Spring revolutions in 2011. Observers believe that this experience, which began as a harbinger of democracy, has turned into a heavy burden on the country and on the movement itself, placing it in direct confrontation with internal and international forces that reject the exercise of sovereignty outside established frameworks.

This situation brings to mind the experience of the Hamas movement in the Gaza Strip after its victory in the 2006 elections, where facts proved that the democracy that brings Islamists to power makes them a constant target. It appears that there is an undeclared international 'recipe' that prevents any political entity with an Islamic background from investing in democratic tools to achieve a liberation project free from global hegemony.

Islamists were long seen as guardians of identity and struggling victims who linked ethics with political action, making them a dream for broad sectors. However, their involvement in the corridors of power revealed carefully laid traps to entangle them in complex social, security, and moral crises, which they failed to effectively confront for a decade.

Over the past ten years, Ennahda movement leaders have fought battles in multiple and overlapping arenas, but they found themselves unable to prove their innocence from the suspicions and accusations that pursued them. With the exacerbation of living crises, the public no longer paid attention to facts as much as it observed the authority's inability to control chaos and address the ongoing economic collapse.

This inability led to what can be described as 'shattering the mirror,' where the image of Islamists was distorted in people's consciousness, paving the way for their isolation and imprisonment. Ideological media exploited this situation to incite public opinion, awaiting the preparation of legal files that legitimize their complete exclusion from the political scene.

In this context, clear pressures emerged on the judiciary, manifested in official statements warning judges against acquitting the accused, considering anyone who acquits them as their partner. These atmospheres led to the issuance of rulings described as severe in controversial cases such as the 'secret apparatus' case, which combined life imprisonment with additional years in prison and administrative surveillance.

These judicial rulings, according to analyses, do not occur randomly in the world of politics, but rather are subject to precise estimations involving experts in psychology and politics. It seems that the goal has shifted from distorting the movement's mental image to breaking the will and resilience that Islamist leaders were known for in facing previous adversities.

These legal procedures are considered part of a systematic 'political burial' process, aimed at pushing leaders to offer apologies or seek pardon from the current authority. It is an attempt to impose a new reality in which everyone declares their inability to bear a crisis that everyone participated in producing, but one party is intended to pay the full price under the weight of the 'logic of dominance.'

Nevertheless, politics remains governed by the laws of history that are not slow to manifest in the form of logical equations linking premises and conclusions. Political history proves that attempts at forced exclusion may lead to counterproductive results if crises are not addressed with a human essence and a cool head, far from impulses of revenge and settling scores.

Tunisia's current situation reflects a bitter struggle to control the scene, where force is resorted to instead of political rationality. In light of this deadlock, it seems that finding a 'way out' requires more than just patience; it requires sensing opportunities for breakthroughs that may appear on the horizon of intractable crises.

Analysts believe that the continuation of the current approach in dealing with the political opposition may further complicate the internal Tunisian scene. A state suffering from suffocating economic crises needs participatory approaches instead of 'breaking pride' policies that may increase societal and political division.

The bet on the disappearance of the Islamist current through judicial rulings may be a risky bet, given the social roots that this current possesses. Historical experiences indicate that excessive pressure generates unexpected explosions, or leads to transformations in the structure of political movements towards more radical paths.

Ultimately, the question remains about the Tunisian state's ability to restore its democratic balance away from the logic of exclusion. The country's political future largely depends on the ability of all parties to overcome the moment of confrontation and search for common ground that ensures institutional stability and the protection of rights and freedoms.

What is happening today in Tunisia is a real test of the values of justice and politics, where personal impulses intertwine with the requirements of governance. The light of hope will remain dependent on the ability of Tunisian society to produce political alternatives that respect pluralism and end the era of zero-sum conflicts that have drained the country's energies for many years.

The 'recipe' for dealing with Ennahda movement leaders has moved from 'shattering the mirror' to break the image in people's eyes to 'shattering the will.'

The International Crisis Group issued a detailed report titled "The Choking Grip," in which it monitored the radical transformations that have swept through the Palestinian economy since late 2023. The report confirmed that financial and banking tools have become direct means of pressure exercised by the occupation authorities to influence the daily lives of Palestinians in the West Bank.

The study considered that the current crisis is not merely an accidental product of military tensions, but rather a deliberate strategy aimed at turning the economy into a confrontation arena. Researchers believe that what is currently happening represents a dangerous transition from a state of traditional economic dependence to a stage of direct and systematic strangulation of all vital sectors.

The roots of this crisis date back to the Paris Economic Protocol signed in 1994, which kept the keys to control over borders, crossings, and the monetary system in Israel's hands. Although the agreement was supposed to be transitional, it entrenched the Palestinian Authority's reliance on clearance revenues, the transfer pace of which is controlled by the occupation.

The report stressed that the events of October 2023 constituted a pivotal turning point, as the influence of right-wing currents in the Israeli government, which seeks to annex the West Bank, escalated. This trend was reflected in the statements of Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich, who openly linked the tightening of financial restrictions to preventing the establishment of any independent Palestinian entity.

The banking relationship between Palestinian and Israeli banks is one of the most dangerous weaknesses exploited by the occupation to destabilize stability. The continuous threat of severing ties with correspondent banks places the Palestinian financial system in a constant state of uncertainty, hindering investment movement and long-term economic planning.

Regarding clearance funds, the report indicated that repeated Israeli deductions have led to the Authority's inability to meet its obligations towards employees and suppliers. This financial imbalance did not stop at the official institutions but extended to all aspects of the local market, which suffers from a sharp decline in purchasing power.

A complex technical problem also emerged, represented by the accumulation of huge quantities of "shekel" currency within Palestinian banks due to restrictions on cash shipment to Israel. This accumulation raises insurance and transportation costs and forces some traders to resort to unofficial financial channels, which weakens general financial oversight.

Regarding movement and mobility, the West Bank has turned into something akin to "isolated islands" due to the intensification of military checkpoints and iron gates between cities. These measures not only hindered the movement of individuals but also dramatically increased transportation and distribution costs, making internal commercial activity a risky and economically unfeasible process.

Thousands of Palestinian families lost their primary source of income after workers were prevented from accessing their workplaces within the Green Line since the start of the war. This double loss led to a drying up of liquidity sources in local markets and contributed to raising poverty and unemployment rates to unprecedented levels in the history of the West Bank.

The report touched upon the situation of Area C, which represents the strategic depth for Palestinian development with its natural resources and agricultural lands. It explained that preventing Palestinians from investing in these areas deprives the economy of enormous growth opportunities and confines economic activity to narrow and crowded enclaves.

The data contained in the report paints a bleak picture of the future of livelihoods, as the economy suffers from a sharp contraction and a continuous decline in individual income levels. The Crisis Group warned that the continuation of these pressures could lead to the collapse of service institutions and municipalities that are currently struggling to survive.

The report proposed a set of urgent solutions, starting with ensuring the regular flow of clearance funds and immediately lifting restrictions on the movement of workers and goods. However, experts stressed that these palliatives will not end the crisis unless international mechanisms are sought to reduce structural dependence on the Israeli financial system.

The international group called for the necessity of internal Palestinian reforms to enhance transparency, in parallel with international pressure to stop using the economy as a tool for collective punishment. The continuation of the current situation portends an imminent social and political explosion whose effects may not be limited to the Palestinian territories alone but will extend to the entire region.

The report concluded that understanding the future of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict necessarily passes through understanding the economic policies pursued by Israel in the West Bank. The economy is not just numbers and statistics, but it is the essential pillar of the Palestinian society's steadfastness and its ability to remain on its land in the face of silent displacement policies.

The Palestinian economy is no longer merely a تابع, but has become an arena of confrontation in which Israel uses financial policies as tools for political subjugation.

On another front of confrontation, and in light of the steadfastness and deep-rootedness of Palestinians in their land and their insistence on life despite all the suffering they endure due to Israeli measures, which were not limited to killing, torture, displacement, and detention, the Israeli government has opened another front to retaliate against Palestinians through economic warfare in all its manifestations: fragmenting Palestinian cities and towns, imposing closures and sieges through checkpoints and gates exceeding (1000) checkpoints and gates spread at the entrances to Palestinian cities and towns in the West Bank, in addition to depriving thousands of workers from returning to their jobs inside Israel and withholding Palestinian clearance funds. Rather, it launched a new chapter of crime and a desperate attempt to triumph through economic legislation to control land and plunder natural resources to create an environment that expels Palestinians from their land and homeland. In contrast, the Israeli government provides financial, economic, and tax incentives and facilities to settlements in the West Bank to strengthen colonial control, because historically, economic control constitutes a fundamental pillar for enhancing Jewish demographic presence and solidifying influence on the ground. Successive Israeli governments have used economic pressure on Palestinians as an effective means to create imbalances in the economic and social structure of Palestinian Arab society, which has reflected on its stability and ability to withstand challenges. To solidify this Israeli economic policy, the Israeli Knesset approved, at dawn on Thursday, June 4, 2026, in its second and third readings, a bill that grants settlers in the West Bank an unprecedented package of financial and tax privileges, retroactively, starting from January 2026, and remains valid until December 31, 2027. The Minister of Finance, with the approval of the Finance Committee, may extend the validity of the law after its ratification for additional periods in the future as support for settlers in the West Bank, as this law grants the privilege of tax exemptions, in addition to special features for settler students, and travel to and from settlements in armored vehicles belonging to the Israeli Ministry of Defense. The law grants every settler residing in the West Bank the right to obtain a tax exemption, according to the percentage and maximum stipulated in the Income Tax Law, with the possibility of choosing between this exemption and another exemption if they are entitled to more than one exemption, as this law was approved by a majority of (32) members and opposed by (23) members. The law also stipulated granting residents of 58 settlements tax incentives in the form of income tax reductions of up to 7%, with a maximum of 10,000 shekels annually per individual. At the same time, the annual cost of these privileges is estimated at about 130 million shekels, which reflects the extent of financial support allocated by the Israeli government to strengthen settlement and provide economic advantages to settlements, and this constitutes a strong indicator of the use of financial and tax tools in consolidating the settlement presence and encouraging demographic expansion within the settlements established in the West Bank. Dedicating the Legal and Administrative Separation of the Occupation This law was approved within an integrated system of legal, administrative, and financial policies and procedures adopted by the Israeli government with the aim of strengthening the settlement project in the West Bank and consolidating its demographic and economic components in line with the trends aimed at consecrating the de facto annexation of Palestinian territories by expanding the privileges granted to settlers. These policies raise broad legal and political problems, given their contradiction with the rules of international law and resolutions of international legitimacy, which affirm the illegitimacy of Israeli settlement in the Palestinian territories. Historically, after Israel tightened its control over the West Bank in the 1967 war, it found itself facing a dilemma that was not in its calculations. The land it sought to annex included about one million Palestinians, which made any step towards full annexation fraught with complex demographic, political, and security challenges. It imposed a system based on legal and administrative separation between Palestinians and Israelis, while consecrating unequal relations between the two parties at various levels. A system of laws and security and administrative procedures was employed to control the Palestinian population and manage their presence in line with the demographic and political considerations of the state and impose a new reality where control over land and resources on the one hand, and maintaining Israeli demographic and political superiority on the other, were combined in an equation that still casts its shadow over the Palestinian-Israeli scene to this day. Settlement Context within the Project of Judaizing the West Bank Settlement is considered one of the basic pillars upon which the Zionist project was built, as it constituted a central tool for achieving the political project aimed at establishing a Jewish state in Palestine. It began by encouraging Jewish immigration and establishing and expanding settlement colonies, Judaizing the land, and tightening control over economic resources, in order to consolidate the settlement presence and strengthen its political and economic components. This law came to grant settlers special tax advantages similar to those enjoyed by residents of Israeli cities and towns, in a sign of consecrating the de facto annexation of settlements, within the context of the silent annexation implemented by the most fascist and extremist Israeli government in the history of the State of Israel. This law works to reshape the economic structure through legal, military, and bureaucratic tools and is employed as a system for domination and control over lands and resources in the West Bank. A Political Electoral Tool in Winning Settler Votes The approval of this law, submitted by Knesset member Zvi Sukkot of the Religious Zionist Party, at a time when Israeli elections are approaching and opinion polls show that the Religious Zionist Party will not cross the electoral threshold, comes within the framework of a party strategy aimed at strengthening the support of the Religious Zionist Party's electoral base among the settler public and gaining votes in the electoral race. At the same time, the approval of this law is not separate from ideological considerations and internal political calculations, as it is seen as aligning with the trends aimed at expanding and deepening settlement activity in the West Bank.