Middle East Press On: Israel, F-35s, War, Egypt, Syria, Turkey strategic, Trump, Lebanon, Genocide, Gaza’s Story, Trump’s Board Made Gaza, New Age Islam's Selection, 18 July 2026
By New Age Islam Edit Desk
18 July 2026
Loyalty to Israel: Who is panicked by the mere mention of F-35s?
Architects of Peace, Contractors of War
How Egypt, Syria are shaping Türkiye’s strategic outlook
What Happens if Trump Succeeds at Pushing Syria to Invade Lebanon?
One Thousand Days of Genocide: Gaza’s Story beyond the Numbers
‘Controlled Potemkin Village’: Report Exposes Trump’s Shrinking Gaza Scheme
Trump’s Board Made Gaza the Most Dangerous Place on Earth to Be a Child
-------
Loyalty to Israel: Who is panicked by the mere mention of F-35s?
BY ÖMER EKREM KEÇECI
JUL 18, 2026
U.S. President Donald Trump's statement during his visit to Türkiye for the NATO summit, suggesting he could lift sanctions and provide Türkiye with F-35s, provoked a strong reaction in Israel, Greece, the Greek Cypriot administration as well as Zionist lobbies and their collaborators in the United States. Examining who gave this reaction and with what arguments will help us understand the issue better.
Israeli lawmakers in Congress
Amit Segal, one of Israel's most famous journalists, wrote about the news, “If Trump is truly set on selling advanced fighters to Islamists, Israel and its supporters are his greatest obstacle.” Various members of Congress, who are more like salaried employees than supporters, also immediately sprang into action.
In Congress, led by Representative Dina Titus, House Democrats introduced legislation to block the sale of F-110 jet engines to Türkiye even before the meeting between Trump and President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan took place. Following this, Titus, along with other members of Congress, Chris Pappas, Maggie Goodlander and Grace Meng, wrote a letter to congressional leaders requesting the introduction of a Joint Resolution of Disapproval of the sale of F-35s to Türkiye. They asserted that Türkiye has an “aggressive” posture towards Greece and the Greek Cypriot administration, that its provision of material support to Azerbaijan in its military campaigns against Armenia, and that its anti-Israel position are reasons for their opposition.
These individuals are funded by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), the most prominent Jewish lobbying group in the U.S. In fact, AIPAC is among the largest donors for Titus, Pappas, Goodlander and Meng.
Various members of Congress from both parties, including Mike Lawler, Nicole Malliotakis, Brad Sherman, Brad Schneider, George Latimer, John Cornyn and Gus Bilirakis, also reacted, primarily for Israel, and subsequently for Greece and the Greek Cypriot administration. All of these individuals are known for receiving substantial funding from AIPAC or similar pro-Israel organizations. Latimer, in particular, is seen as the second-highest-paid member of Congress between 2023 and 2024 by lobbyists.
Another AIPAC ally, former Vice President Mike Pence, also begged Trump not to give F-35s to Türkiye, arguing that it could undermine Israel's security.
Securing Israeli supremacy
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu himself appeared on American television, pleading against the delivery of F-35s to Türkiye on the grounds of “destroying the power balance in the Middle East.” On July 9, he emphasized the importance of maintaining Israel's air superiority. He also stated that the Turks had occupied Cyprus and were threatening to conquer Jerusalem, adding: “They are not like us. We, Israel and the U.S., share the same values.”
Sagiv Asulin, a former senior Mossad official, said that Türkiye's growing military capabilities create a significant strategic threat to Israel. Asulin went on to say that even if the F-35s are not delivered, the U.S. discussion about strengthening Ankara's position should raise “serious concerns” in Israel. Former Israeli government spokesman Eylon Levy also tweeted his concern.
The Jewish Institute for National Security of America (JINSA), a prominent Jewish organization in America to which many high-ranking Israeli and U.S. military officials have contributed, also published an article by Jonah Brody arguing that Türkiye should “certainly” not be given F-35s. Their reasons were summarized as follows: Türkiye's anti-Israel stance, the Zionist goal of securing Israel's military superiority, the Zionist support for Greece and the Greek Cypriot administration in comparison to Türkiye, and the imprisonment of jailed former Istanbul Mayor Ekrem Imamoğlu. The article emphatically stressed that no transfer should “erode” Israel's military advantage. JINSA had also published a report in 2025 stating that Türkiye should not be given F-35s unless it completely submits to – if we clearly put – Zionist demands on issues concerning Israel, Greece and the Greek Cypriot administration.
Leading broadcaster Mark Levin, recalling Trump's statement that he dissuaded Erdoğan from going to war against Israel, expressed concern that giving him F-35s would lead him to fight against them with their own weapons. He also attempts to discredit Erdoğan with many derogatory labels, stating, “Erdoğan is a grave threat to Greece” and “he threatened to destroy Israel.” For any objective person who follows the issues even slightly, it is obvious that the source of the problem is the threatening attitude of other countries and that Türkiye has only adopted a defensive stance.
It’s noteworthy that Levin's statements were shared by both the Greek Reporter and the Israeli Minister of Diaspora and Combating Antisemitism, Amichai Chikli. In these statements, he says that providing F-35s to Türkiye “would fundamentally alter the balance of power in the Middle East.”
Chikli also retweeted Dr. Dan Diker's article, published by Mossad Commentary, which reflected their concern through Islamophobia: “Erdoğan is using NATO membership to legitimize an Islamist regional power project.”
Fear of the Ottomans
Frank Gaffney, a recipient of an award from the Zionist Organization of America, held various positions in the federal government, and is also known for his Islamophobia, reacted by writing, “Under Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Turkey has been a leading force on behalf of the ‘Red-Green axis’ – the alliance between Communists and sharia-supremacists whose object is destroying Western civilization,” adding that Erdogan wants to revive the Ottoman Empire. Levin also retweeted his tweet.
Laura Loomer, who dedicates almost everything she writes to Islamophobia to distract attention from all the cruelty and atrocities of Israel and the Zionists, could not remain silent despite her closeness to Trump. She expressed her reaction by describing Erdoğan as a “sharia supremacist” and writing, “He wants a global Islamic caliphate.”
Hussain Abdul-Hussain, a fellow researcher at the Foundation for Defence of Democracies (FDD), a prominent foundation, in fact, for the defense of Zionism in the U.S., and known for its anti-Türkiye propaganda, argued that the U.S. should not provide Türkiye with even a bayonet, let alone F-35s.
Hussain continued writing about the issue for days. In a tweet on July 11, he mentioned that Erdoğan had gifted Lebanese Prime Minister Salam a memoir of Salam's grandfather, writing: “Erdoğan is dead serious about reviving the Ottoman Sultanate, which includes annihilating Israel and dismantling and annexing Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and beyond ... Maybe we help Erdoğan out by giving him the F-35s too?”
With a tweet posted clearly for Israel and retweeted by Abdul-Hussain, Representative Josh Gottheimer declared his opposition to the delivery of F-35s, arguing that, “Erdogan has sided with Hamas and Putin while undermining our closest allies in the region.”
Jonathan Schanzer, the executive director of the FDD, co-authored an article with Sinan Ciddi, who is alleged to be a member of the Gülenist Terror Group (FETÖ), calling for “Don’t Launder Erdogan’s Record at the NATO Summit.” The article repeats the same refrain voiced by Zionists and their lackeys: that Türkiye supports Hamas, occupies Cyprus, and collaborates with Russia.
Eitan Fischberger, a former Israel Defense Forces (IDF) staff sergeant and dual U.S. and Israeli citizen who is active on Twitter, explained his opposition to lifting the sanctions because Türkiye is a supporter of the Muslim Brotherhood and insulted Trump, saying “political schizophrenia.” Another FDD member, Simone Rodan-Benzaquen, shared this tweet, attempting to highlight the bond between Türkiye and the Brotherhood.
On July 11, the FDD published another article co-authored by Sinan Ciddi and Tyler Stapleton. Stating that, “The transfer of the F-35s to Turkey would remain a national security threat to Washington and NATO,” the article attempted to instill fear that Türkiye could use these against Greece and leak information to Russia and China.
Greece under Zionist shadow
On July 8, Israel's ambassador to the U.S., Yechiel Leiter, had a working dinner together with the Ambassador of Greece, the Greek Cypriot charge d'affaires, military attaches, and Jewish and Christian leaders, “to discuss the evolving security landscape and reinforce regional stability in the Eastern Mediterranean.” The AIPAC also shared this meeting by writing, “Three American allies working together to help secure the Eastern Mediterranean.” The Embassy of Greece in Washington also tweeted about the meeting with the message “stronger together.”
Thanos Davelis, director of public affairs at the Hellenic American Leadership Council (HALC), ignored Greece's violations in Turkish airspace and falsely portrayed Türkiye as constantly harassing Greek airspace, suggesting that the Turks wanted F-35s to use in a war against Greece, a tweet that Chikli also retweeted.
Endy Zemenides, executive director of HALC, who was a guest on Steve Bannon's show, asked Trump to demand the following from Türkiye in exchange for the F-35s: “Pull completely out of Cyprus, cancel the casus belli against Greece, and end the Blue Homeland doctrine.”
Israel is nobody's friend
And now, let's rewind a bit.
Abdi Ipekçi, one of the leading writers in Türkiye at the time, stated in his article on Feb. 13, 1963, that The Economist and some American newspapers argued that Türkiye was no longer as important as it once was, and while he did not disagree with this, he indicated that it was necessary to develop sound countermeasures.
The Jewish newspaper B'nai B'rith Messenger also wrote on April 9, 1965, that Türkiye was weakened, that the only reliable region in the Middle East for the West was Israel, and that it could join NATO. On June 24, 1966, The American Jewish World, while listing the reasons why the U.S. should provide more support for Israel, wrote: “Turkey ... has been outflanked and bypassed by Soviet penetration of Syria.”
Israel was very pleased with that “weak” and “diminished” Türkiye. So much so that, according to David Horowitz, who went there only as a “reporter” for B'nai B'rith, he was greeted with a “royal reception” by Fethi Kardeş, head of the Ministry of Information and Press, and met with the minister of tourism, his deputy, and the Foreign Office spokesperson, and together they raised champagne toasts to Türkiye, Israel and the U.S., as written on July 14, 1967.
However, Horowitz also uses an expression that perfectly reflects the anti-Ottoman sentiment they display today, claiming with pleasure that the Turks were subjected to a “rigorous Ottoman yoke” and that they celebrate their liberation from it.
According to the April 5, 1963, issue of the same newspaper, a Jordanian medical student at Istanbul University was expelled simply for writing a book critical of Israel. As can be seen from what has been reported, Jewish sources that today accuse Türkiye of repression were reporting this with satisfaction at the time.
All the information, which could be increased countless times over, and the ongoing genocide show that Israel does not care about any human or democratic values, that it interprets everything to increase its own power, to weaken its surroundings, and to do whatever it wants in the region, and therefore the issue goes far beyond Erdoğan personally.
Israel's behavior, which has historically sought to portray the Turks as weak and now acts as an ally of the Greeks, shouldn't deceive the Greeks. In the same newspapers of the 1960s, they criticized Makarios and advocated arming the Turks instead of the Greek Cypriots. Furthermore, it's no secret that they consider Cyprus part of the promised land, and show it special interest. Now that Türkiye, once considered “of low importance” and even receiving a Jewish journalist with a “royal reception,” has been replaced by a vastly more powerful and influential force, Israel's rapprochement with them against the Turks is nothing more than using the Greeks for its own purposes. Israel is nobody's friend.
Despite the manipulative Zionist reaction, which is far removed from the dynamics of international relations and a reasonable assessment of the picture, the U.S. could provide F-35s to Türkiye, a key player, if its internal order is restored. However, as former U.S. ambassador to Israel Dan Shapiro has pointed out, even if it does so, the U.S. might still try to maintain the superiority of Israel's air force.
https://www.dailysabah.com/opinion/op-ed/loyalty-to-israel-who-is-panicked-by-the-mere-mention-of-f-35s
------
Architects of Peace, Contractors of War
July 17, 2026
by Greg Pence
Diplomacy is sometimes less the art of ending war than the art of transferring responsibility for it. Many agreements born in quiet negotiating rooms fail not because the parties disagree over principles, but because no one is willing to bear the cost of implementing them. The contemporary history of the Middle East has repeatedly shown that a deep gap exists between signing an agreement and carrying it out—a gap that is often filled by violence.
The latest U.S.-brokered talks in Rome have given the June 26 framework agreement between the United States, Israel, and Lebanon a new appearance of momentum. The discussions focused on proposed “pilot zones” in which Israel is to withdraw from parts of the occupied territories, the Lebanese Army is to deploy in the south, and armed groups—above all Hezbollah—are to withdraw and ultimately disarm. U.S. officials initially described the agreement as “the first step toward lasting peace” and have since called the Rome talks “productive and positive.” If one reads only the text of the agreement and the latest diplomatic statements, such optimism may seem understandable. The main issue, however, lies not in what has been written, but in what has not.
Nearly all discussions surrounding the agreement initially focused on one question: Would Hezbollah agree to disarm?
The answer is far from simple. Israel has repeatedly declared that its full withdrawal depends on Hezbollah’s disarmament. Hezbollah, in turn, has made it clear that it considers this condition a red line. The agreement is therefore built upon the very point on which the two sides continue to disagree. Such an agreement can have meaning only if there is a mechanism to resolve this deadlock.
But where is that mechanism?
In successful postwar settlements, the answer is usually clear. Either an international force guarantees implementation, one of the victorious parties assumes responsibility for enforcing the agreement, or the settlement is built on a compromise accepted by all the principal actors. In the June 26 agreement, however, none of these conditions exists.
Here the agreement’s first paradox becomes clear. The most difficult and costly part of the agreement is precisely the part for which no one has accepted direct responsibility.
This gap cannot be concealed by the language of diplomacy. Agreements are ultimately judged not by political statements but by the actions of the actors on the ground. Now that Hezbollah has refused to disarm, who is supposed to compel it?
The answer, though rarely discussed, is embedded in both the text and the logic of the agreement: the Lebanese government.
At first glance, this seems natural. Should not the state alone hold the legitimate monopoly over the use of force? Should not the Lebanese Army assume full control of the country’s south? Yet this seemingly obvious answer exposes the agreement’s greatest weakness.
Its popular base, parliamentary presence, influence within the government, and extensive organizational network mean that any attempt to eliminate its military capacity would quickly turn from a security operation into a political and sectarian crisis. Under such circumstances, assigning the Lebanese government to carry out this mission means placing the state itself against one of the country’s most powerful domestic forces.
Here, the agreement’s true nature becomes clear.
What appears to be a plan to end the war between Israel and Hezbollah actually transfers responsibility for continuing it to another actor. Israel is no longer expected to bear the cost of disarming Hezbollah, and the United States has no intention of entering such a confrontation directly. Instead, the Lebanese government is expected to accomplish a mission that even Israel, despite years of military operations and overwhelming military superiority, failed to achieve.
In other words, the agreement does not end the war; it merely changes who is expected to carry it out.
This is the same logic that has increasingly characterized the security policy of major powers in recent years. After the costly experiences of Iraq and Afghanistan, the prevailing strategy is no longer direct military intervention, but shifting the costs of conflict to local actors. Under this model, outside powers preserve their security objectives while assigning the most costly part of implementation to weaker states. As a result, the war does not end; only the party that bears its cost changes.
Lebanon now finds itself in precisely such a position. If the government fails to implement the agreement, the agreement will lose its credibility and the likelihood of continued or renewed fighting with Israel will increase. If it moves to enforce it, however, it will inevitably confront Hezbollah—a confrontation that could reactivate sectarian divisions, strain the cohesion of the Lebanese Army, and push the country toward a crisis that revives memories of the civil war. In either case, Lebanon—not the architects of the agreement—will bear the main cost.
Perhaps this is why Hezbollah’s sharp rejection should not be viewed merely as a political position. The group’s objection is not simply to a security provision; it is to shifting the main arena of conflict from the southern border into Lebanon’s own political structure. This is the change that receives little attention in the agreement’s official language, yet in practice may prove to be its most significant consequence.
Supporters of the agreement argue that no lasting peace can exist unless the state holds the exclusive monopoly over arms. In theory, this proposition is correct. In practice, however, the order in which it is pursued is crucial. The experience of divided societies shows that a state’s monopoly over arms is usually the result of political agreement, not its precondition. When governments are tasked with eliminating one of the principal actors before a national consensus has been reached, the outcome is not a stronger state, but a state that becomes one of the parties to the conflict.
This may be the Washington agreement’s greatest mistake. It assumes that war can be ended by transferring responsibility for it, when in fact transferring responsibility means transferring the war itself. If peace can be achieved only by forcing Lebanese to fight other Lebanese, then the agreement has neither institutionalized peace nor ended the war; it has merely outsourced the conflict.
For this reason, the central issue with the agreement is not the promises it makes about the future, but the cost it assigns to achieving them.
In the Middle East, shifting the costs of war onto fragile states rarely brings violence to an end. More often, it simply moves the war from the borders into the state itself.
https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20260717-architects-of-peace-contractors-of-war/
-------
How Egypt, Syria are shaping Turkiye’s strategic outlook
DR. SINEM CENGIZ
July 17, 2026
The past two months have brought a flurry of developments in Turkiye’s relations with both Egypt and Syria. Although these are separate bilateral tracks, when viewed together they reveal that Ankara’s growing ties with Cairo and Damascus have become a pillar of its southern regional policy.
Egypt and Syria occupy different, yet equally important, positions in Turkiye’s regional strategy. While Ankara’s relations with the two countries have undergone years of tension, the current status of their ties points to more than just bilateral political relations.
Last week, Turkiye and Egypt signed a letter of intent establishing a framework for defense industry cooperation. The agreement came during the visit of Egyptian Defense Minister Ashraf Salem Zaher to Turkiye, the first such visit since 2013. His trip came only two weeks after Turkish Chief of the General Staff Gen. Selçuk Bayraktaroglu visited Cairo, where he attended the fifth meeting of the Egyptian-Turkish Military Cooperation Committee. In that visit, the final protocol of the fifth Military Cooperation Committee was signed, a roadmap covering future joint military activities. This makes the letter of intent look like part of a sequence rather than an isolated event.
Although few details have been released regarding the letter of intent, Egypt has long expressed interest in cooperation with Turkiye’s expanding defense industry. Earlier reports have said that Cairo is considering joining Turkiye’s fifth-generation KAAN fighter jet program as a co-producer and manufacturing partner. Last year, Turkish defense company Aselsan established its representative office, Aselsan Egypt. The company has signed preliminary agreements with three Egyptian companies to develop local partnerships that could eventually lead to joint production.
Military cooperation has already expanded. Since September 2025, Turkiye and Egypt have taken part together in at least four bilateral or multinational military exercises. In September 2025, they conducted their first joint Friendship Sea naval exercise in the Eastern Mediterranean in 13 years. Earlier this month, even before signing the letter of intent, Egyptian and Turkish forces launched the Golden Eagle 2026 joint military exercise at the training facilities of Egypt’s elite Airborne and Thunderbolt Commands, further demonstrating the growing operational dimension of their defense partnership.
This security-focused rapprochement with Egypt reflects a broader regional trend that also includes Syria. During the same week, the Turkish Navy’s TCG Istanbul frigate paid a high-profile visit to the Syrian port of Latakia, the first visit by a Turkish naval vessel since the collapse of the Assad regime in 2024, according to Turkiye’s Ministry of National Defense. In the same week, Ahmad Al-Sharaa, president of the Syrian Arab Republic, was in Ankara, where he took part in a NATO-related meeting, and held talks with Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan and US President Donald Trump.
The collapse of the Assad regime reshaped Syria’s place in the regional order, allowing Turkiye to emerge as one of the closest partners of the new transitional government in Damascus. In 2025, Ankara and Damascus signed a comprehensive security agreement that includes joint military training, institutional cooperation, and exchanges of expertise on security matters. The new Syrian army also took part in Turkiye’s EFES-2026 multinational military exercise. Syria’s participation in the military drills alongside NATO members was the first since the country’s political transition.
The visit of the Turkish navy to Latakia was significant. It showed Turkiye’s willingness to support Syria’s maritime security following Israeli strikes that severely damaged the Syrian navy during the regime’s collapse. The visit also highlighted the strategic importance of Latakia, one of Syria’s key ports and a key location in the Eastern Mediterranean, where Turkiye has significantly expanded its naval role over the past decade.
Taken together, Egypt and Syria reflect Ankara’s efforts to consolidate its influence across both the Eastern Mediterranean and the Arab world. Political cooperation among regional actors alone is no longer enough. Turkiye, therefore, aims to move a step forward in its relations with Arab nations through closer security-oriented ties to counter threats arising from both international and regional shifts.
The regional order has seen a fundamental shift since late 2024: the fall of the Assad regime, the weakening of Iran’s regional network, Israel’s expanding military operations in Syria, uncertainty over the US-Iran war, and the growing instability in the Red Sea and Eastern Mediterranean. Ankara, Cairo, and Damascus all recognize that the evolving regional environment increasingly challenges their security interests.
Despite different priorities, Ankara increasingly views its partnerships with Egypt and Syria through the same strategic logic: strengthening its security architecture along its southern flank, while expanding its influence across the Arab world. In this sense, Egypt anchors Turkiye’s western southern front in the Eastern Mediterranean, while Syria constitutes its immediate southern security frontier. Together, they shape Ankara’s evolving regional strategy, one that places defense and military cooperation at the center of its engagement with these countries. Turkiye, therefore, is pursuing the same pattern with both states: institutional military dialogue, joint military activities, and defense-industrial collaboration.
Despite their differing priorities, Egypt and Syria share a growing perception that stronger defense relations with Turkiye, a significant NATO member country with a rapidly growing defense industry, are a necessity to maintain their place in the same strategic space. If sustained, this trilateral convergence could influence the balance of power across the Eastern Mediterranean and wider Middle East.
Yet, it is important to keep in mind that Turkiye and Egypt still have differences regarding the Eastern Mediterranean, while the situation in Syria remains fragile. As a result, both Cairo and Damascus need to carefully balance their relations with other regional actors, while deepening their security ties with Ankara.
https://www.arabnews.com/node/2651328
------
What Happens if Trump Succeeds at Pushing Syria to Invade Lebanon?
July 18, 2026
By Robert Inlakesh
US President Donald Trump has been publicly pressuring his allies in Damascus to invade Lebanon in order to go after Hezbollah. What will come of such a move is going to have implications far beyond Lebanon and Syria, creating an unprecedented regional clash that will unleash unforeseen brutality.
Very public calls have been made repeatedly by the American President, stating his interest in using the forces that constitute Syria’s new army to invade Lebanese territory with the mission of degrading Hezbollah and taking out its weapons. Although Syrian leader Ahmed al-Shara’a initially issued two public denials that he was planning to order the invasion, he has more recently remained silent, even as the issue was brought up at a public meeting with Trump at an Ankara-based NATO summit.
Meanwhile, Syrian forces have been actively mobilizing and amassing equipment along the Lebanese border, a process that has been ongoing for at least three weeks and is being tracked by local media as well as the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights (SOHR). Of particular note has been the heavy presence of foreign fighters that have reportedly been sent to areas adjacent to the Lebanese Beka’a Valley.
President Trump contests that Syria would do a better job than the Israelis in dealing with Hezbollah – repeatedly bringing up the idea that instead of blowing up entire buildings, the Syrian fighters would be more surgical. While it may be true that they would not simply level entire residential complexes, the forces that could be invaded from Syria will likely commit very different kinds of war crimes.
What currently constitutes today’s Syrian Army is a collection of former al-Qaeda linked militia forces that were previously operating in the Idlib province of the country, for the most part. It is not a disciplined and well-trained military armed with precision weapons, and Israel destroyed most of the former Syrian Arab Army’s strategic weapons back when regime change occurred in December of 2024. Due to low troop numbers in its general forces, the current Syrian Army often bolsters its ranks with allied militia forces, who are not really accountable to anyone.
The reason why a Syrian invasion of Lebanon will be so dangerous comes down to a lot more than just al-Shara’a’s men. The Islamic Resistance in Iraq has already threatened to intervene if such a war is waged on Lebanon. These Iraqi militias are much more powerful than the Syrian Army and will likely seek to take Deir Ezzor in order to open up new supply lines into the country in the event they are to get involved. Iranian officials have also threatened to strike the Syrian military if it commits to such a move.
Then there is the Lebanese Army itself, which would traditionally defend its territory against threats from Syria. However, the government in Beirut is a proxy administration of the US that has already sold out the south of their country by allowing the Israelis to maintain an illegal occupation and, as part of the same agreement, has pledged to disarm Hezbollah. If the Lebanese Armed Forces are to attempt a violent clash with Hezbollah, the Army will likely split, and a civil war could follow.
The US has sent a military advisory team to Beirut to aid the Lebanese attempt to do Israel’s dirty work for it. Speculation has it that the deployment of thousands of combat soldiers is intended to help support their proxies in the event of a civil war breaking out, although the unnamed sources claiming this have not yet been substantiated.
A very obvious consequence of such a war would be an enormous rise in sectarianism throughout the region, which will be exacerbated by biased media coverage. If al-Shara’a is seeking to send in foreign fighters, this is an indication of an impending sectarian bloodbath. We have already seen major attacks by Syria’s security forces, alongside allied militias, that resulted in the butchering of thousands of civilians from the country’s minority religious sects. These sectarian clashes even gave way to Israel taking advantage of the situation and backing Druze separatist forces in southern Syria.
Despite the lifting of the EU and US sanctions on Syria, in addition to Damascus recapturing the nation’s oil fields and agricultural lands, the country is in shambles economically. Corruption is rampant, everyone is armed, and militia forces de facto control their own territory across the country with the tacit approval of the new Syrian State. The murder rate has exploded since the Hayat Tahrir al-Sham government took over, with many of the extrajudicial killings occurring over sectarian disputes and others as a result of revenge attacks for crimes committed during the war years.
If these Syrian militiamen make it into Lebanese Shia villages, the results are almost guaranteed to be a repeat of the kinds of atrocities we saw al-Shara’a’s men carry out during the height of the Civil War. When atrocities occur, it will end up fueling animosity towards the other side, and there are many Arabic-language media outlets that will fan the flames of hate.
It is also not out of the question that Hezbollah may end up forming alliances inside Syria and could even go on the offensive itself. There are many armed groups across Syria that would rebel against the current authorities if they were given the opportunity to do so, especially if they were guaranteed compensation. Meanwhile, Israel would take advantage of the situation to carry out an air campaign against Hezbollah and maybe even some Syrian targets.
Although there is much more that can be said about the possible ways that such a situation could play out, these are some of the scenarios that could be on the table. As a result, there would be an inevitable mass displacement and possible refugee crisis.
It suffices to say that if Trump gets what he wants – on Israel’s behalf – we are looking at a terrifying escalation that can spiral out of control in so many different ways. Truly, for the sake of everyone, this war should never even be a consideration. It will only end up benefiting Tel Aviv if it does occur.
https://www.palestinechronicle.com/what-happens-if-trump-succeeds-at-pushing-syria-to-invade-lebanon/
------
One Thousand Days of Genocide: Gaza’s Story beyond the Numbers
July 18, 2026
By Shaimaa Eid
As a journalist from the Gaza Strip, I have lived through the genocide since its very first day. I am still trying to remain strong, not for my own sake, but for the mission I believe I was born in Gaza to fulfill. It is a mission that goes beyond personal pain, becoming a testimony to an entire era in which human beings are being erased before the eyes of the world.
What has happened in Gaza since October 7 cannot be reduced to statistics, news headlines, or even thousands of journalistic reports. It is an entire chapter in the history of humanity unfolding before the world’s eyes. It is a story that must be documented, preserved, and taught to future generations, not only as a record of destruction, but as a testament to what human beings can endure when every essential means of survival is stripped away.
For one thousand days, Gaza has existed between life and death. Our endurance is no longer breaking news; it has become a painful question confronting the world: How much suffering can a human being endure? And how many tragedies can the world witness before deciding that what has happened has crossed every possible line?
This war has touched every family in Gaza. There is not a single home that has been spared grief, fear, displacement, or loss. Families who once believed their homes were the safest places on earth found themselves sleeping in tents, schools, hospitals, or out in the streets. Parents carried their children through the ruins, while children learned the sound of bombs before they ever learned what safety felt like.
We moved from one place to another, not because we wanted to leave, but because survival demanded it. Every time we were told there was a “safer place,” we gathered what little we had left and made our way there, hoping to find temporary shelter. But fear followed us wherever we went. Areas described as humanitarian zones became places of death, and safety became a word that appeared more often in official statements than in reality.
For many people around the world, home is associated with comfort, memories, and a sense of belonging. For Palestinians in Gaza, home has become a memory of what was lost. Entire neighborhoods have disappeared, and streets once filled with families have been reduced to fields of rubble. The places that once held our childhood memories now remind us only of those who are gone.
Yet despite everything, people in Gaza wake up every morning searching for a reason to keep going.
They search for water, struggle to find bread, and try to obtain medicine. They hold their children close throughout the night when the sound of explosions returns, and they rebuild small pieces of their lives again and again, knowing they may lose them once more.
This is what the world must understand: Gaza’s resilience is not a romantic story, nor is it an easy choice. It is the result of people being forced to fight for the most basic of human rights: the right to exist.
What Israel has done to Gaza, in full view of the international community, has forced us to question the very meaning of the principles the world claims to uphold. What does justice mean if those who suffer are left without protection? And what value do international laws have if civilians, hospitals, journalists, and children remain in danger despite the protections those laws are supposed to provide?
In Gaza, these are no longer abstract political or legal questions. They are questions asked every day under bombardment, while standing in line for bread, searching for clean water, and living inside fragile tents that offer protection from neither the weather nor the war.
We are not only searching for an explanation for what is happening to us. We are searching for an explanation for the world itself.
The people of Gaza have learned that no one is outside the circle of danger. Journalists, doctors, paramedics, civil defense crews, children, women, older people, and people with disabilities have all come face to face with the same reality: a life that can be endangered anywhere, at any moment.
Journalists did not simply document the destruction; they lived through it themselves. Many lost their homes, their families, and their colleagues, yet they continued carrying their cameras and documenting what was happening around them. They paid an immense price simply for preserving the memory of a place the world might otherwise have chosen to forget.
On a personal level, I lost 54 members of my family during the genocide. They were all killed, and entire branches of my family were erased from the civil registry. We grieved, we suffered, and we cried out under the weight of such immense loss, but we never abandoned our mission. I continued writing, documenting, and telling the world the truth because I know that every story left untold is another loss, and that bearing witness to what has happened has become a duty no less important than survival itself.
Doctors and healthcare workers faced a similar reality. Hospitals, which should be the safest places during war, became places of fear and destruction. Medical staff continued their work under impossible conditions, treating the wounded with extremely limited resources while facing the same danger that threatened the very patients they were trying to save.
What kind of world turns hospitals into battlefields? What kind of world arrests or targets doctors while they are carrying out their humanitarian duty? And what kind of world kills journalists in their homes, alongside their families, simply because they carried a camera instead of a weapon?
These are not isolated incidents. They are part of a much broader reality in which every line that was supposed to protect civilians has been crossed.
Among the most painful chapters of this war has been hunger.
Before this war, it was rare to hear of children dying from hunger in the modern world. In Gaza, however, hunger became a daily reality. It was no longer simply the absence of food; it became a condition that shaped every aspect of life. It first appeared on the faces of children before it appeared in official reports. It was visible in their frail bodies, in the exhaustion of parents, and in the despair of families searching for something as simple as bread.
We walked through streets where people were too weak from hunger to remain standing. Children cried throughout the night because their bodies could no longer understand why food had disappeared from their lives. Families shared the few crumbs they had, dividing tiny portions among many people and trying to convince themselves that tomorrow might be different.
But tomorrow usually brought the same reality.
We followed evacuation orders and went to areas described as “humanitarian zones.” We believed they might offer us some protection from the violence. Yet even there, people were killed, tents were burned, and families were destroyed.
The very idea of shelter became fragile, and safety became a word repeated in official statements but rarely experienced by those living through the war.
Many people remember the image of the little girl, Warda Jalal al-Sheikh, standing amid flames, smoke, and devastation after her family’s tent was struck and caught fire. Several members of her family were killed as she struggled to stay alive. Her image became a heartbreaking symbol of what it means to be born into a reality where fire surrounds you before you have even had the chance to understand the world.
Many also remember our colleague, journalist Ayman al-Jadi, who was waiting for his wife as she gave birth to their child. It should have been a moment of new beginnings, a moment to welcome new life. Instead, he was killed while waiting to meet his baby.
How can the world comprehend a reality in which death reaches even the moments meant to embody hope?
These stories are not exceptions. They are scenes repeated over and over in a place where simply staying alive has become extraordinary.
Even after the ceasefire was announced, the suffering did not simply disappear.
Across Gaza, a new reality began to take shape with the continued expansion of what has come to be known as the “Yellow Line.” Marked by yellow concrete blocks and military boundaries, these zones have redrawn the map of the Gaza Strip, cutting off access to vast areas of land.
The Yellow Line has continued to consume more territory, approaching nearly 70 percent of Gaza’s total area and separating communities from their homes, farmland, and neighborhoods. For many Palestinians, these yellow concrete barriers are not merely physical obstacles; they represent the continuation of displacement by other means.
Despite the ceasefire announcement, violations continued in full view of international mediators and the world. The nature of the war may have changed, but people’s sense of insecurity has not. The sound of bombardment may have faded in some areas, yet the fear of losing what remains has never left people’s hearts.
The expansion of these boundaries raises a painful question: Can there truly be a ceasefire while the map of Gaza continues to shrink?
For Palestinians, the yellow barriers have become a symbol of an even deeper fear: that the temporary measures imposed during the war will become a permanent reality, reshaping the future of an entire people.
After one thousand days of genocide, Gaza cannot be understood solely through the numbers of those killed, wounded, displaced, or left homeless. Statistics matter because they reveal the scale of the devastation, but behind every number is a human story, a family, a dream, a memory, and a life cut short.
The true story of Gaza is not only a story of destruction. It is also the story of people who refused to disappear.
It is the story of mothers who continued caring for their children despite their grief; fathers who searched for food under impossible circumstances; doctors who kept working despite exhaustion; journalists who continued writing despite the danger; and ordinary people who rebuilt small pieces of their lives even when everything around them had collapsed.
This resilience must not be mistaken for an acceptance of suffering. The ability of Palestinians in Gaza to survive does not make their suffering acceptable, nor does it absolve those who allowed this reality to continue of their responsibility. Survival is not proof that people are well. It is proof of the immense burden they have been forced to endure.
The world should not see Gaza’s resilience as a reason to move on and forget what has happened. It should see it as a reason to ask more difficult questions about justice, accountability, and the value the world places on human life.
One thousand days of genocide are not merely the passage of time. They are the living memory of an entire generation being written in real time. They are children growing up with images of destruction instead of ordinary childhood memories, and families learning how to mourn their loved ones while still struggling to survive.
What has happened in Gaza must not become another chapter that the world reads and then closes. It must remain an open testimony, a reminder of what happens when international principles are ignored and human suffering becomes something people watch from a distance.
Gaza’s resilience after one thousand days cannot be captured in a news report or a headline. It deserves to be written into the history books, not only as a record of pain, but as evidence of a people who continued to live despite every attempt to break them.
Because the story of Gaza is not only about what was done to it. It is also about what remains after everything else has been taken away.
Homes may have been destroyed, streets transformed, and familiar landmarks erased, but the people remain, carrying their memories, their names, their stories, and their determination to be seen and heard.
As a journalist from Gaza, I know there are countless stories that have yet to be told. Behind every destroyed building lies the history of a family. Behind every empty chair is someone we still mourn. Behind every survivor is a story of resilience that deserves to be heard.
In the end, we are still here.
We are still writing.
We are still documenting.
We are still bearing witness.
Because what remains untold about Gaza is far greater than anything the world has heard so far.
https://www.palestinechronicle.com/one-thousand-days-of-genocide-gazas-story-beyond-the-numbers/
------
‘Controlled Potemkin Village’: Report Exposes Trump’s Shrinking Gaza Scheme
July 17, 2026
Six months after Donald Trump’s Board of Peace unveiled sweeping promises to rebuild Gaza within 100 days, the initiative has quietly contracted into a modest pilot project for a small section of southern Gaza.
According to a report published by The Guardian on Thursday, the Board of Peace has effectively abandoned its original vision of territory-wide reconstruction in favor of a temporary settlement near Rafah that would house only a fraction of Gaza’s more than two million displaced Palestinians.
From Grand Promises to a Pilot Camp
When the initiative was unveiled in January, Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner presented an ambitious plan promising that humanitarian aid would flow freely into Gaza and that basic infrastructure—including water, electricity, sewage systems, hospitals and bakeries—would be restored within 100 days. Billions of dollars were expected to finance the effort.
Six months later, virtually none of those objectives has materialized.
Instead, planners are now focused on a camp of portable housing units near Rafah designed for only tens of thousands of Palestinians.
Even that scaled-down proposal has yet to move beyond the planning stage.
Satellite imagery reviewed by The Guardian reportedly shows little evidence of construction, while the deployment of the proposed international stabilization force, the training of Palestinian police, funding arrangements and legal agreements all remain unresolved.
Officials familiar with the planning acknowledged that the project is unlikely to become operational before the end of 2026.
Israeli Control Remains Central
The revised blueprint would place security inside the pilot area under an international force alongside a specially trained Palestinian police unit.
However, Israeli authorities are expected to retain decisive influence over the recruitment of that force, according to officials cited in the report.
Meanwhile, Israel continues to block large-scale reconstruction throughout Gaza while maintaining restrictions on humanitarian supplies that include essential infrastructure materials such as water pipes and solar panels.
The Israeli government has also withheld approval for several key components of the Board of Peace proposal, including the deployment of the international force.
The Guardian noted that Israeli forces now directly occupy more than 60 percent of Gaza while continuing to violate the ceasefire announced in October 2025. Since then, more than 1,100 Palestinians have reportedly been killed in Israeli attacks.
‘Keeping Something Going’
Perhaps the report’s most revealing admission came from diplomats involved in the initiative.
One Western diplomat told The Guardian that the objective was no longer to deliver the original reconstruction vision but simply to preserve the process itself.
“The aim is just to keep something going, keep the ball in play,” the diplomat said, arguing that abandoning the initiative altogether could allow even more extreme Israeli proposals—including mass population transfer and renewed colonization—to dominate policy discussions.
The remarks reflect how dramatically expectations surrounding the initiative have diminished since its launch.
‘A Controlled Potemkin Village’
Muhammad Shehada, visiting fellow at the European Council on Foreign Relations, argued that the Rafah project risks becoming a showcase intended to legitimize Israeli military policy rather than alleviate Gaza’s humanitarian catastrophe.
“Israel is basically trying to build a caged and controlled Potemkin village,” Shehada told The Guardian, describing a symbolic enclave where a limited number of Palestinians would receive improved conditions while the overwhelming majority of Gaza remained under siege and military pressure.
Other Palestinian officials also warned that fragmenting aid into a single enclave could deepen divisions inside Gaza and normalize a reality in which limited humanitarian improvements replace a comprehensive political solution.
https://www.palestinechronicle.com/controlled-potemkin-village-guardian-report-exposes-trumps-shrinking-gaza-scheme/
-----
Trump’s Board Made Gaza the Most Dangerous Place on Earth to Be a Child
July 17, 2026
By Jamal Kanj
Mohamed al-Wahidi, 57 years old, a husband, father and grandfather, spent his days doing what aid workers do in a place with almost nothing left: clearing rubble, reopening roads, repairing a leaking pipe, filling a community water tank, or building tents for families with nowhere else to go. In his spare time, he carried out a “perilous project” setting up screens and generators across Gaza so people could watch the World Cup. On the eve of Egypt’s match against Argentina, Israel killed him along with the 33-year-old taxi driver as well as two young brothers, ages 8 and 10, walking nearby. Israel’s military said it was investigating “the incident.”
As it almost always does, Israel commits murder first, then trumps up a pretext after the kill.
Al-Wahidi is one name in Gaza’s daily killing rituals under the supposed ceasefire. Israel has murdered more than 1,100 Palestinians in the Strip since October 2025 — 265 of them children. Not a single Israeli civilian has been killed on the other side. This is the ‘peace’ Trump’s Board is managing.
Nearly one million people remain trapped in tents through a Gaza summer where temperatures reach 35 degrees Celsius. Season after season, they are left exposed to the elements: first a freezing winter, then the merciless heat of summer. Families survive in tent cities or beneath dangling concrete slabs in destroyed buildings. Meanwhile, Israel continues to block shade nets and plastic sheeting at the border, just as it blocked warm blankets during the winter.
Children bake in tents, while Israel keeps pushing the civilian population into smaller corridors. When the so-called Board of Peace was formed, Israel occupied 53 percent of Gaza. A month later, 60 percent. By late May, Prime Minister Netanyahu ordered the IDF to seize 70 percent. 2.3 million human beings squeezed into an ever-shrinking cage away from all the farming areas. Energy Minister Eli Cohen has said the quiet part out loud, telling Israeli radio that Israeli control will keep growing “until we reach 100 percent.” The next phase envisions corralling Palestinians into fenced “humanitarian shelters” near the ruins of Rafah as part of the ultimate ethnic cleansing program, cynically marketed as a “plan for free movement.”
Concentration camps built on the same mechanisms Nazi Germany used to cage Jews in World War II. A UN independent commission of inquiry released this summer found that Israel’s killing of children in Gaza is not collateral damage of war but part of a strategy to destroy the biological continuity of Palestinian society. Acts that meet the legal definition for war crimes and the crime against humanity.
Israel has murdered or injured more than 10% of Gaza’s population since October 2023. At least 20,179 children, more than 5,000 under five years old, and another 44,143 injured. The number of murdered children is one third of the total number of dead Palestinians in Gaza. The commission documented children shot by snipers and quadcopter-mounted rifles with a precision that ruled out accidents and cited Israeli soldiers’ own testimonies where soldiers celebrate and congratulate each other after murdering civilians. The commission called Gaza the most dangerous place on earth to be a child.
In June, a father named Bahaa Abu Al-Ajeen watched an Israeli soldier kneel and shoot his three-year-old son in the head as the boy cried in his arms near Deir al-Balah. In April, nine-year-old Ritaj Rihan was shot through the mouth while standing in a classroom tent waiting for her teacher. These are not outliers under a ceasefire. They are the continuation of an Israeli genocide under the shadow of the ceasefire.
When Israel and the US launched their war against Iran at the end of February, Israel closed every crossing into Gaza outright. Not because there is any connection, but because of Israel’s malevolent nature and because it can get away with it under the fog of war. Weekly truck deliveries collapsed from an average of roughly 4,200 down to just 590. Kerem Shalom and Zikim remain the only crossings still functioning, and even now, roughly half the trucks arriving from Egypt are turned away rather than unloaded.
As of now, aid volumes have never recovered to where they stood before the Iran war, let alone reached the minimum the UN says Gaza needs. Four UN agencies have already warned that the famine the ceasefire was supposed to end could return without sustained access. Sixty-eight percent of Gaza’s population is now burning garbage to cook because there isn’t enough gas. Not one of Gaza’s 37 hospitals is fully operational; only nineteen are even partially running. Nearly half of essential medicines are out of stock, and Israel is delaying the surgical equipment needed to treat the more than 43,000 people left with life-changing injuries. More than 40,000 people who will likely become permanently disabled for lack of treatment are another phase of Israel’s silent genocide.
The Board of Peace’s own six-month progress report claims aid distribution rose 70 percent and that basic food needs have been “stabilized” for the first time since 2023. In the art of euphemism, 70 percent of zero is zero, and basic food has “stabilized,” meaning shipments are entering regularly, but not that it is adequate. Conspicuously absent from the report is any mention that aid truck deliveries have never returned to their pre-Iran war levels and remain well below the minimum the UN itself considers necessary.
The Board’s own biannual report to the Security Council spends its pages blaming the Palestinian resistance, with no mention of an occupying army that has pushed past the ceasefire’s demarcated line, nor Israel’s order to aid groups like Doctors Without Borders, the Norwegian Refugee Council, and Oxfam to choose between handing over staff names to a government that targets humanitarian workers, or ceasing operations in Gaza entirely.
Even how to count the murdered journalists is contested. The Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) was pressured to redefine who qualifies as a “Palestinian” journalist. The move was intended to give Israel a license to kill Palestinian reporters with impunity. A CPJ board member who objected to considering Israel’s request was removed within days of publicly protesting. The board ultimately kept its definition intact, but only after stripping 20 murdered Palestinian journalists from the count.
This is what the Board of Peace normalizes: an occupying power expanding while a one-sided truce remains in force, a starvation policy rebranded as a stabilization success, concentration camps as a housing plan, ethnic cleansing as free movement and a licensed death toll that keeps climbing with impunity.
A grandfather who wanted nothing more than to give displaced families an hour of joy watching a soccer match instead became another name on the ever-growing list of genocide victims. In Gaza, where “The essence of childhood has been destroyed,” even the smallest acts of humanity have become acts punishable by death
Peace was never the Board’s plan. Genocide management was.
https://www.palestinechronicle.com/trumps-board-made-gaza-the-most-dangerous-place-on-earth-to-be-a-child/
-------
New Age Islam, Islam Online, Islamic Website, African Muslim News, Arab World News, South Asia News, Indian Muslim News, World Muslim News, Women in Islam, Islamic Feminism, Arab Women, Women In Arab, Islamophobia in America, Muslim Women in West, Islam Women and Feminism