CONDEMNING SETTLER VIOLENCE IS NOT ENOUGH....

 

Now and then, there’s an episode of settler violence in the West Bank that’s so grotesque that it kind of breaks through a little bit in American media. I mean, settler violence—again, especially under this government, especially since October 7th—is so pervasive that generally, it’s just kind of noise for the American media. It doesn’t really get picked up very much, or in the American Jewish community. But occasionally something is so terrible that it breaks through, and it’s interesting to watch the way that Israel’s defenders in the United States tend to respond to this.

Generally, you find that there’s a kind of condemnation of settler violence, and people say this is really terrible. And this is not, you know, this is not who Israel is, this is not who Israel should be. That kind of thing. It’s a little bit similar sometimes to the way those same people talk about Itamar Ben-Gvir. When they have to talk about Itamar Ben-Gvir, they’ll say, Itamar Ben-Gvir is an extremist, he’s a radical, you know, he’s not a good guy, he’s not like those other mainstream Israeli politicians.

I want to suggest that there’s something fundamentally incoherent about this response. That just as Itamar Ben-Gavir can’t be disassociated from Israeli politics as a whole, given that his rise was facilitated by Benjamin Netanyahu, who needed to help broker the deal with him and the other national religious parties in order to bring him into the government to create a coalition. So, he’s not a rogue actor. He’s actually a very critical ally, someone who’s been very critical to Benjamin Netanyahu’s continuing in power.

Settler violence is also not a rogue activity. It’s not something that happens separate from the Israeli state, or the Israeli mainstream. And I want to quote from a report that B’Tselem, the Israeli human rights organization, did, which was called, Settler Violence = State Violence. And they write: ‘the state takes over land openly.’ They’re talking about Israeli state taking over land in the West Bank from Palestinian land. They’re saying:

‘The state takes over land openly using official methods sanctioned by legal advisors and judges, while the settlers, who are also interested in taking over land to further their agenda, initiate violence against Palestinians for their own reasons. Yet in truth, there is only one track. Settler violence against Palestinians is part of the strategy employed by Israel’s apartheid regime, which seeks to take over more and more West Bank land. The state fully supports and assists these acts of violence, and its agents sometimes participate in them directly. As such, settler violence is a form of government policy aided and abetted by official state authorities with their active participation.’

Now, that’s not to say there aren’t Israeli officials who might be genuinely upset or even appalled by things that settlers do. They may think it’s terrible PR. They may even think that they’re morally wrong.

Again, to use a kind of crude analogy, we can imagine a situation in the Jim Crow South where there were things that the Ku Klux Klan did that segregationist leaders wished they hadn’t done. It was a bad reputation. It just wasn’t the way they wanted to do business. But the general thrust of the policy, right, in the Jim Crow South was to keep Black people down, to deny them their basic rights, their basic freedom, through a whole mechanism of violence, some state-sanctioned and some outside of the state, but which could not take place—the Ku Klux Klan could not have operated without the fact that the white-controlled judicial system gave them, you know, almost total impunity.

Similarly, settlers can only do what they do, the settlements require government support to exist in the first place, and the settlers could not continue to act this way against Palestinians without the base large-scale impunity that they exist in a political system in which the people who they are victimizing don’t have citizenship, don’t have the right to vote, are not truly represented by the state, and therefore can’t take meaningful legal action against them, except in the rarest of circumstances.

So, Israel’s defenders who say, this settler violence is terrible. I’m opposed to it. They may genuinely think it’s terrible. They may genuinely think they are opposed to it. But they’re not really opposed to it unless they’re willing to do something that would make it stop. And the thing that would make it stop would be to change U.S. policy towards Israel, right? The only thing that would make it stop would be if there were severe consequences for the Israeli government for allowing it to continue, right?

And so, the question I think one should ask any defender of Israel, whether it’s a, you know, Jewish official, or a politician, or a kind of someone in the media who says, I’m against settler violence, is, would you be willing to condition American military aid—all of it, or even some of American military aid on Israel stopping this settler violence? Would you be willing to support a process in international legal institutions to punish Israel for allowing the settler violence that terrorizes Palestinians?

Overwhelmingly, the answer to that question will be, no, we are not willing to support that. Because although we say we oppose settler violence, our most fundamental commitment is unconditional U.S. military, economic, and diplomatic support for Israel. And so, because of that, we will say we oppose settler violence, but we’re not actually willing to support any of the tangible consequences by which the U.S. could use its substantial leverage over Israel to actually end the status of impunity that allows Israel to do this.

And that’s why I think the claim by supporters of Israel and the United States that they oppose settler violence is fundamentally hollow. Again, they may believe they oppose settler violence, but there’s often a difference between what people believe and what their actions actually do, right? We can tell what people’s truest belief systems are by the actions they pursue, right? And if the actions you pursue is unconditional U.S. support for Israel period, then you’re not actually opposed to settler violence, because you don’t want your government, the United States government, to do the things that might actually stop settler violence.

 1 Billion for Settlement Expansion: This week, the Israeli government decided to fast-track 1 billion shekels (over $300 million) to build dozens of new settlements in the occupied West Bank – a massive win for far-right minister Bezalel Smotrich and the settler terrorists he emboldens.

• “Israeli security and Palestinian freedom are intertwined. As long as the Netanyahu government continues to implement a radical, expansionist agenda, there will never be a path to safety, freedom and dignity for either people,”

Actually it's a continuation of a previous article under the title" A good analysis"  again from the very interesting site by Peter Beinart, I divided the article into two parts to better fit our blog, the other part will appear soon on our blog, the subjects are sort of related, as they deal with Israel and its occupation and behavior towards its Palestinian population by its present political regime. Again this article will shed more light to the sad and tragic situation over there. 

My many thanks to all.  

POPE LEO XIV......

 

The Pope may have just published the most radically humanist text of the year.

With Magnifica Humanitas, the first American pope penned a text on digital colonialism, the new religion of Silicon Valley, and the extreme concentration of tech power. It focuses on those who own the data, the machines, the available minds. On this new elite that no longer owns just the factories (as in the 19th century), but also the flow of attention, the algorithms, and the markets of truth.

Leo XIV wasn't named Leo by chance… In 1891, Leo XIII published "Rerum Novarum," the Church's famous social doctrine. Faced with the industrial revolution, he dared to say that the worker was not a machine part, that capital could not devour human dignity. In 2026, Leo XIV picks up the thread. Faced with the digital revolution, he essentially says: the human being is not a given, not a resource, not a variable for optimization.

What strikes me first is the political power of the text. Leo XIV speaks of slavery. He acknowledges the delay with which the Church and society condemned this scourge. He speaks of a "wound in Christian memory." And he asks for "forgiveness" in the name of the Church. This is rare. It is immense. Because this sentence forces everyone, believers or not, to confront a truth: great institutions sometimes err for centuries when they take the side of the oppressed too late.

Then, as a lawyer, I am struck by the sheer number of references to the major institutions of international law: the UN, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Refugee Convention, and even environmental texts. And Leo XIV adds this weighty sentence: “Moral conquests almost always take the form of a long and arduous path, also marked by setbacks: think of interrupted peace processes or slow implementation of environmental commitments.” One inevitably thinks of Gaza. Of climate change denial. Of everything our era is methodically dismantling, while cynics explain that international law is naive and that force has once again become the only language of the world.

And most impressively, Leo XIV cites the Civil Rights Movement in the United States, Martin Luther King Jr., Nelson Mandela, and the fight against apartheid. He even invokes Hannah Arendt, for the first time in an encyclical, to remind us of this chilling truth: totalitarianism does not triumph simply when people believe lies. It triumphs when they can no longer distinguish truth from falsehood. When facts become opinions. When the press is replaced by noise. When fake news becomes an industry. When everyone is trapped in their own bubble, fed by an algorithm that seeks not truth, but attention.

This is precisely our era. We believe we are free because we scroll. But we are tracked, measured, predicted, and guided. We believe we choose, when in fact our preferences are calculated. We believe we speak, when invisible structures decide what will be seen, amplified, rewarded, or buried. Attention capitalism doesn't just want our money. It wants our time, our anger, our solitude, our inner availability.

And Leo XIV goes even further. He doesn't just criticize the excesses of the market. He attacks the root cause. GDP doesn't measure dignity. Growth doesn't guarantee justice. Inequality isn't simply a problem of redistribution after the fact, once wealth has already been captured. It begins earlier, in the allocation of resources, technologies, know-how, and infrastructure. In other words: if a few giants control the tools of production in the digital world, then they also control a part of our shared future.

This is why the Pope wants to "disarm" AI. He calls for strong public regulation, a decentralization of tech giants, and more open, democratic, and humane governance. Simply put: AI cannot be left to a few private companies that alone decide what we see, what we know, what we desire, and perhaps tomorrow, what we are allowed to become.

Perhaps this is the most relevant lesson of Magnifica Humanitas: the new social question is no longer played out solely in mines and factories. It is played out in data centers, social networks, AI models, attention markets, surveillance systems, confirmation bubbles, and information warfare.

In 1891, the Church asked who would protect the worker from industrial capital. In 2026, Leo XIV asks who will protect humanity from algorithmic capital.

This question concerns all those who refuse to allow the world to become a vast machine for classifying human beings, capturing their desires, predicting their behavior, and selling off their freedom piece by piece.

Human dignity is not an exploitable commodity.

Got this very interesting Pope Leo XIV message by email in French, I'm not sure who the author is or the publisher, translated and arranged to fit our blog for better understanding of these modern times dilemmas facing our entire world population.

As always, my many thanks to all.  

HIDDEN MONEY IS HIDDEN INFLUENCE ....

 
Democratic primaries are increasingly shaped by billionaire-backed dark money — funds routed through PACs and opaque organizations that hide who is paying, who benefits, and what outcomes they are seeking. Recent reporting describes a coordinated network operating behind the scenes of the Democratic Party, quietly influencing which candidates rise and which ideas never gain traction.

That secrecy is intentional. When billionaires conceal their political spending, they can exert secret influence, backing candidates who will protect their financial interests while avoiding public scrutiny. One of the clearest stakes is tax policy: hidden money can help block or dilute efforts to tax extreme wealth more fairly before those ideas ever reach a real vote.

This “party within the party” moves millions through layered entities to shape races in ways voters can’t easily detect. Candidates who might challenge concentrated wealth can be sidelined early, while those aligned with maintaining the status quo receive unheralded but powerful support. The result is a political field tilted long before voters cast a ballot.

That’s why it’s essential to follow the money. When funding is hidden, so are the motives — like preserving and expanding tax advantages that benefit the wealthiest Americans. Dark money doesn’t just influence elections; it shapes the policy agenda by determining which candidates are viable in the first place.

Voters’ trust depends on transparency. Voters can’t identify corruption unless they know who gave the money.

Staying invisible is dark money’s super power. Once its sources, its pathways, and its goals are exposed, it can no longer shape outcomes in secrecy. Voters deserve to follow the money, understand who is influencing their elections, and ensure that policies like fair taxation are decided in the open, not blocked in the shadows.

Few short lines, by the brilliant Robert Reich, on his site "Inequality media" explaining and exposing a major problem nowadays in American politics, and influencing American politicians and legislators, it's becoming an open affair playing most if not all local and national elections and their outcomes. I'm forwarding the article for a better understanding of this old/new phenomenon reigning over America, as well as many other parts of the world. 

As always, my many thanks to all. 

MORE ON LEBANON AND THE LEBANESE ......

 

 *Jordanian journalist reveals the true secret of Lebanon!*

A few days ago, Jordanian journalist Abdul Hadi Raji Al-Majali wrote a remarkable article in the newspaper *Al-Raii* entitled *Lebanon*, in which he stated:

What do we mean by a strong state?
*The Zionist entity*, for example, made important preparations in anticipation of the strike, fortifying the home front.
They provided all ministers and army commanders with satellite phones...

They also opened shelters, found alternative fuel sources in case tanks were hit, provided massive quantities of medicine, contacted the West for military support, and even established a hotline with the US Central Command to secure continuous military assistance in case of a major attack.

What has Lebanon done?

I watch Lebanese TV channels and follow the news...
Lebanon is not very concerned about fuel, and its home front is completely secure...
Everyone there *loves each other...*

*Alyssa* produced a film on (Netflix) about her personal life, and this *film gained popularity in the scene*...
This is causing *controversy* in people's conversations.

*Restaurants* also produced special offers, for example, one restaurant in Beirut *offered an offer of (15) dollars* in which you could eat as much fresh seafood as you wanted and drink as much as you wanted.
Therefore, Elias decided to take his wife, his mother-in-law, his wife's sister, and their neighbor (Um Hussein) to the restaurant today...

Wael Kfoury held a lively concert and the tickets sold out in one hour.

*Question: What is the secret of Lebanon?...*

Lebanon is a very strange country; during war, people treat missiles as firecrackers.

And they go out into the streets and don't ask...

In the midst of *bank collapse* and *hard currency shortages*, *George* insists on going to the beach and *inviting friends over* and gives you an *important theory in economics* which says:
*( Brother, God will make things easier)...*

The South is being bombed every day, homes are being destroyed and demolished, yet I haven't seen a single Lebanese person appear on television and complain.

I didn't see a single Lebanese person packing their belongings and leaving.

Then I don't see a *female news anchor crying* or a *protest criticizing the current situation*...

*The important thing is that the Lebanese national reservoir of love remains reassuring..*

Is *Lebanon a real country* or a *joy factory*?

I do not know the secret of this country, the secret of this power, and this might...

But what I do know is that Middle East Airlines is still operating and the beautiful flight attendants are still smiling when the planes take off...

*Lovers still meet in (Al-Rawsha)*, and it doesn't matter what happens...what matters is that love grows there like a tree...

And *Fairouz's songs* are not songs at all. Whoever said that Fairouz was singing *doesn't know Lebanon...*
Fairouz was *planting cedars in people's hearts*, and *watering the sea with Rahbani melodies....*

It doesn't matter to them if flour runs out in the markets; what matters is that joy never leaves Aboud's eyes.

And more importantly, *(Umm Elias)* is able to feed *the entire neighborhood*, as she has a stockpile of *(kibbeh)* sufficient for everyone...*

This great nation treats war as a joke.

It treats *martyrs* as a *normal situation...*

*Bleeding* has become the fate of *the Lebanese*,
They *pay* their blood for the sake of Palestine, Arabism, and religion, and for the sake of keeping *Beirut dear with complete satisfaction*, without *doing* favors to anyone and without asking for *praise* from anyone.

Do not register Lebanon with the United Nations as a state.

*They even recorded it as the world's largest factory of joy and sugar,*

And *beware of writing on your passport* a box that says:

*Lebanese nationality..*
Instead, write the nationality: *A lover who embodies history, stories, and Arab identity...*

And always remember that the hair clip that the girls of Ashrafieh put on their braids in the morning when they go out to work is stronger than David's slingshot, and stronger than the Iron Dome.

At least this *(buckle)...* contains the hair that *was bathed in the words of Gibran...* and the poems of Saiid Akl...* contains the strands of hair immortalized by *Azar Habib*, and sung by *Nasri Shamseddine...*

I laugh when I read in the news statements by Netanyahu saying: "Beirut will be destroyed if Tel Aviv is attacked..."

This man *doesn't know Lebanon at all..*

They don't know that they are the only people who made the sea of ​​Beirut thirsty...so they quenched it with the voice of Fairouz and it was satisfied...

I'm going to Beirut tomorrow...

I want (the garden) to heal the stumbles of my soul and the weariness of my heart...

Long live Beirut...and let the sea thirst...Lebanon will remain the strongest.

*Abdul Hadi Raji Al-Majali*

I'm not sure if the writer is complementing or using his sarcasm with a twist, but the short article describes well the actual mood and attitudes prevailing in the country, even among the displaced, and the ones who lost loved ones, and the ones who lost their life long belongings and homes, they are all smiling even cheerful at some occasions, I had the message by email in Arabic, and thought of forwarding it to better understand how things are progressing in that unfortunate part of the world. 

My gratitude, as always, to all. 

THE PREVAILING LEBANESE SCENE NOWADAYS......

 

The negotiations are progressing beyond simply establishing a ceasefire or managing calm in the south of Lebanon. Washington announced a fourth round of negotiations on June 2 and 3, in parallel with the launch of a security track at the Pentagon on May 29, with the participation of military delegations from both sides, in a move that reflects the shift in the discussion from the framework of field calm to an attempt to formulate long-term security and political arrangements.

The ongoing negotiations are divided into two main tracks: the first is military, relating to a ceasefire and Israeli withdrawal. The first track focuses on reconstruction, while the second revolves around the issue of the state's monopoly on weapons and sustainable security arrangements on the borders. Between these two tracks, concerns are growing that the proposed security gradual approach could become a pretext for redrawing internal power balances. Amid growing questions about the army's position and the future of Hezbollah weapons, That limits of the American role in reshaping the landscape.

The outcome of the negotiations. Washington On May 29, Brigadier General Dr. Bahaa Hilal explained that the region is not facing a mere ceasefire agreement between Israel and Lebanon, rather, it's facing an American attempt to reshape the Lebanese security and political structure within a new regional system, in which the definitions of security, sovereignty, the function of the state, and the role of weapons outside its official institutions are being redefined.

The information circulating about the security track indicates a multi-stage project starting from southern Lebanon, specifically south of the Litany River, under the title of consolidating the truce and preventing the return of the military front against Israel. But a deeper reading, according to Gen. Hilal, reveals that the objective goes far beyond that, gradually aiming to reshape the entire Lebanese security environment.

This begins with bolstering the army's deployment, establishing monitoring and coordination mechanisms under American auspices, linking reconstruction and financial support to security measures, and extending to the issue of Hezbollah's weapons north of the Litany River, then in the southern suburbs and Beirut. It is precisely here that the similarity to the May 17, 1983 agreement begins, not necessarily in its direct legal form, but rather in the underlying political and security philosophy of the project.

In both cases, the following emerges,  As Brigadier General Hilal states, the US acts as the sponsor, guarantor, and supervisor of the re-establishment of a new security balance, one in which the security of Israel and its northern borders holds absolute priority. The core of the current American proposal rests on the idea of ​​gradually transforming the Lebanese state into a security partner in controlling the resistance and its weapons. This echoes the philosophy underlying the May 17 Agreement, which linked Lebanese stability to security arrangements connected to Israel.

However, the fundamental difference between the periods of 1983 and 2026 lies in the shifting balance of power. In the 1980s, Israel occupied Lebanon. Large parts of Lebanon were under Israeli control, and the Lebanese state was virtually collapsed as the civil war raged. Today, the situation is far more complex. Israel has not achieved a decisive strategic victory, and Hezbollah, despite the strikes, still possesses significant military and organizational capabilities and a broad network of influence. Furthermore, the Shia community continues to view weapons as a means of protection and deterrence against Israel.

Therefore, the American strategy and approach appears to be closer to a long-term, gradual containment project, rather than imposing a direct or rapid surrender. Hence, according to Brigadier General Hilal, the talk is of a step-by-step approach: Lebanese security measures in exchange for de-escalation, economic support, reconstruction, and political and international guarantees.

In this sense, the security track is not a final agreement, but rather a cumulative process aimed at shifting the issue of weapons from a position of independent power to one of negotiation and restriction. However, the most dangerous aspect of the proposed project, according to Brigadier General Hilal, does not only concern Hezbollah's weapons, but also the Lebanese military institution itself. The United States appears to be betting on the Lebanese army as the only legitimate instrument capable of implementing any future security arrangements. Therefore, the increasing American support for the army cannot be understood apart from the attempt to redefine its role in the coming phase. This highlights the delicate position of General Rudolph Haykal, the army commander, who finds himself facing one of the most complex dilemmas in the history of the Lebanese military: how to maintain relations with the international community and external support, while simultaneously preventing the army from sliding into an internal confrontation with the broader Lebanese public?

Historically, as Brigadier General Hilal emphasizes, the army was not built as an instrument of civil conflict, but rather as a national balancing force whose goal is to protect stability, prevent disintegration, and maintain a minimum level of national unity. Therefore, the most dangerous aspect of the current American proposal is not merely the idea of ​​disarmament, but the possibility of gradually drawing the army into an internal political and sectarian conflict under the guise of the state's monopoly on the use of force.

In this context, any talk, as Brigadier General Hilal says, of joint brigades or security arrangements directly linked to the American-Israeli vision will place the military establishment before a highly sensitive existential test. The move from south of the Litany River to its north, and then to the southern suburbs of Beirut, is not merely a geographical shift, but a move into the heart of the social and political environment that fosters the resistance.

It is precisely here, as Hilal says, that the comparison with the experience of Saad Haddad and Antoine Lahad becomes strongly present in the Lebanese consciousness. While it is true that the circumstances are radically different, and that the discussion today does not revolve around a separate local militia like the South Lebanon Army, the similarity lies in the same security philosophy: the creation of a Lebanese structure functionally linked to Israeli security under the guise of protecting the borders and controlling the resistance. However, the difference is that the current project does not attempt to build a "militia" parallel to the state, but rather seeks to utilize the state's own institutions, foremost among them the army, within a new regional security system that enjoys international and American backing.

Thus, the greatest Lebanese fear, as Brigadier General Hilal states, lies not only in the issue of normalization or negotiation, but also in the possibility that the division over the issue of weapons could transform into an internal rift threatening the very unity of the state. A swift or forced move toward an internal confrontation with Hezbollah could destabilize the military establishment, exacerbate sectarian tensions, and unravel Lebanon's fragile balances.

For this reason, Washington appears, thus far, to be steering matters gently, avoiding a full-blown explosion, because while a Lebanese civil war might achieve Israel's goal of weakening the resistance and depleting its support base, it could simultaneously open the door to regional chaos that would be difficult to control.

Therefore, according to Brigadier General Hilal, what is happening today can be described as an attempt to re-engineer Lebanon's security and political landscape through gradualism, containment, and pressure, rather than through direct military intervention. However, the success of this project remains contingent on an unresolved question: Can Lebanon redraft its internal social contract regarding the concepts of the state, weapons, and sovereignty without sliding into a new civil conflict?

This is precisely the question that will determine whether Lebanon is facing a new historical settlement or a more complex and updated version of the May 17th crisis and the civil war combined. Given this, Brigadier General Hilal believes that a step-by-step approach is the most realistic, as it is the practical model currently being proposed: a security measure in exchange for reduced attacks, aid, reconstruction, international support, and political guarantees. For example: removing weapons from south of the Litany River in exchange for de-escalation; strengthening the army in exchange for aid and armaments; monitoring border crossings in exchange for easing economic pressure; and discussing heavy weapons in exchange for political stability and reconstruction. This aligns with the American discourse advocating a gradual approach rather than an immediate resolution.

Again, a copied article from the Lebanese news site "Lebanon 24" by the talented Hitaf  Daham. forwarded to me , I translated it to fit and forward through our blog for the benefit of our readers for better understanding of the Lebanese dire situation. a good analysis and scenario that might reverse itself any time, as not all parties abide by the American or official Lebanese wishes. two players , Israel and Hezbollah with Iran might very well turn the table upside down. A quick escalation from any side might put an end to the entire process, and it's actually happening, as the American side imposed sanctions on several Lebanese officials including two army officers, a clear warning to the Lebanese side of likely escalation.  

As, always, my many thanks to all.  

A DIRE SITUATION INDEED.....

 

With attempts to reach an agreement to end the faltering war, an Israeli assessment suggests that the US president currently faces two options for dealing with Iran:

An Israeli source told the newspaper Yediot Aharonot that "Mr. Trump" now has two options: either a limited and controlled military operation that does not lead to escalation, or a temporary agreement that allows negotiations to continue and the Strait of Hormuz to be reopened.

The source added that Israel wants to resume fighting by launching strikes on energy and infrastructure targets, which would significantly weaken the regime, as well as bombarding to ground major parts of Lebanon.

But according to the newspaper at this stage, it seems that Israel and the United States view things differently. Trump is not keen on a full-scale resumption of fighting, and the interim agreement will calm the situation between the two sides, allowing the strait to reopen, but it will not resolve all the issues."

In contrast, the Israelis believe that "Trump neither desires nor longs for a full-scale resumption of fighting, because he believes that this will not improve his position, but will rather complicate matters for him domestically. With another rise in energy prices and harm to allied countries," according to Yediot Aharonot's assessment.

The newspaper reports, according to an Israeli source, believes that "Israel prefers a more assertive approach, but does not want to be accused of dragging the American president into renewed fighting."

It adds that "one of the possibilities under discussion in Washington, the Americans might choose a limited military operation and continue the blockade of the Strait of Hormuz; in that case, they might ask for Israel commitment to neutrality and non-intervention, recognizing that Israel's response would be harsh if Iran launched missiles at it, potentially leading to a full-blown war.

The Israeli source stated that "neither the Iranians nor the Americans want a full-scale resumption of the war, so Israel may remain neutral this time."

However, according to Yediot Ahronoth, "Israel is preparing for all eventualities, including a scenario in which Trump orders a resumption of hostilities and Iran resumes launching missiles at Israel."

The newspaper noted that there's "concern in Israel" that Americans are only discussing the nuclear issue and the Strait of Hormuz with the Iranians, without ever mentioning ballistic missiles or proxies in the region—two crucial issues for Israel.

However, it is likely in Israel that Trump will wait until his return from his visit to China early next week to take his next step regarding Iran. 

A good report/analysis translated from the Lebanese news site "Lebanon 24", based on Israeli newspapers reports, copied here for better understanding of the weird situation over the entire Middle-East affecting the safety of the entire world.

As always, my many thanks to all. 

 

A MULTIFACETED REPORT.....

 

A report in the Israeli newspaper Maariv warned that "the Egyptian military advance in Sinai under the pretext of Counter-terrorism. This will turn into a strategic threat to Israel, which calls for a careful review of the peace treaty commitments.
Maariv stated that "peace with Egypt is an indispensable strategic asset, and for this very reason we should be concerned about the accumulating violations of the agreement in Sinai and the Egyptian mobilization against Israel" On the international stage."

It added that "the peace agreement between Egypt and Israel, signed in 1979 following Anwar Sadat's historic initiative, has been considered for decades a cornerstone of regional stability," noting that "the agreement, which restored to Egypt a near-monopoly on relations with Israel, was a cornerstone of regional stability." The semi-island of Sinai includes clear provisions limiting the presence of Egyptian military forces in this region, with the aim of preventing friction and establishing and building mutual trust.

 However, the newspaper noted that "in recent years, it has become increasingly clear that the reality on the ground is moving further and further away from the original agreements." The newspaper stated that "Egypt's central justification for increasing its military presence in Sinai is combating ISIS and its affiliates, which have operated in the region and posed a real threat to the country's internal stability," adding that "there is no doubt that this terrorist activity required a firm response, and even Israel itself understood the need to allow Egypt a certain degree of flexibility in deploying its forces."

The newspaper added that "over the years, quiet, and sometimes even public, permissions have been granted to increase Egyptian forces beyond what is permitted under the agreement." It stated that "Egypt has not only increased the number of soldiers in Sinai, but has also introduced heavy weaponry, advanced military infrastructure, and established permanent logistical arrangements, all in violation of the spirit and letter of the agreement." 

The newspaper further noted that "international reports indicate that the Egyptian presence is moving closer and closer to the border with Israel," pointing out that "this is a quiet, almost imperceptible process, but one with profound strategic implications." It emphasized that "when large, well-equipped forces are near the border, a situation arises where any political change or regional crisis could lead to a rapid escalation." 

The newspaper stated that "Egypt, for its part, continues to claim that all its activity is within the framework of counterterrorism and that it has no intention of harming the peace agreement," adding that "it must be acknowledged that combating ISIS in Sinai has been complex and difficult, and ultimately Egypt has succeeded in significantly reducing the organization's activity in the region." The newspaper added that "this particular success raises an expected question: if the threat has diminished, why does the enhanced military presence remain?" 

It noted that his does not stem from the assumption that Egypt is planning for an immediate war; on the contrary, security cooperation between the two countries continues and even deepens in certain areas, including agreements to supply Egypt with gas.

The Israeli newspaper stated: History teaches us that strategic situations can change rapidly, and agreements remain stable as long as there is political will to maintain them. When circumstances change, agreements can also erode."

 Indeed a multifaceted report, I copied and translated it from a Lebanese site, to indicate that it could be a genuine caution about a growing force on Israeli borders, but it could very well be a deliberate early prepping for another possible war or aggression toward an entire strategic area that Israel was and is looking steadily at controlling and/or annexing, all the way to the Suez canal. It once had it and had to give it back when as mentioned Sadat offered a peace plan, but the dream and geopolitical control of the area, including the Suez canal, like the straight of Hormuz are all part of the alleged Godly dream of the biblical Israel, plus of course the new Zionist inheritors complex dreams of a greater Israel, and its total control of the entire Middle-East. It could very well be a continuation of what started in Gaza, the occupied West Bank, Lebanon and Syria.... 

As always, my many thanks to all.