Middle East Press On: Turkiye rises in global geopolitics, Board for Peace, Tehran, Nigeria, Manhattan, New Epstein Files Expose Israeli Footprint in Africa, New Age Islam's Selection, 21 February 2026
By New Age Islam Edit Desk
21 February 2026
Israel fades as Türkiye rises in global geopolitics
A stunted start marks the inaugural Board for Peace in Gaza
History can teach us how to make Gaza ceasefire work
From Tehran to Gaza: Frontlines of Resistance
The Resistance is Redrawing Its Deployment Boundaries in the Gaza Strip… Why Now?
Gaza, Nigeria, Manhattan – New Epstein Files Expose Israeli Footprint in Africa
Between Life and Death: An Unknown Fate Haunts the Families of the Missing in Gaza
-----
Israel fades as Türkiye rises in global geopolitics
BY İHSAN AKTAŞ
FEB 21, 2026
After the Oct. 7 attacks, Israel declared to the entire world that Hamas is a "terrorist organization" and succeeded in mobilizing global media on an unprecedented scale.
There are moments in world affairs whose significance may not be immediately apparent; sometimes a seemingly minor issue can signal the flare announcing the dawn of a new era.
Before the Oct. 7 attacks, Israel (or global Zionism) had reached the height of its power. Whether recognized or not, after its founding, Israel had, at the elite level, taken the U.S., the U.K., Europe and virtually all states into the palm of its hand through financial and media monopolies, compelling any government to act as it wished.
There is an intriguing principle in the governance of the universe, well known to philosophers, theologians, historians of religion, and modern historians alike: absolute power belongs only to God. Every state possesses a certain power, and that power has limits. If the influence of a person, a state or a hegemonic force in the world rises to the level of divine authority, alarm bells begin to ring for that group. Israel represented precisely such a power before the Oct. 7 attacks.
When the October attacks began, Israel declared them a "casus belli." It subjected the people of Gaza to what it describes as a relentless campaign of destruction, similar to Hitler’s genocide.
These days, rarely discussed, the Geneva Conventions define protected areas in times of war. Civilians, women, children, hospitals, schools, churches and mosques (in other words, humanitarian spaces) are not to be touched. Soldiers fight soldiers.
But Israel did not confine itself to fighting armed militants such as the Qassam Brigades in Gaza. It carried out massacres against the entire population of Gaza, doing so knowingly, intentionally, and with civilians as the target.
In fact, rather than focusing solely on Israel’s actions, this article will address how Israel (recently attempting to portray itself as a rival to Türkiye) is steadily losing ground in global geopolitics, as Türkiye rises with each step it takes.
Why Israel lost
If we ask, “Why has Israel lost?” the first answer is that Israel swiftly shattered the very norms the West constructed and elevated globally over the past two centuries – from the colonial period to the democratic era, and especially from 1960 to Sept. 11, 2001 – norms such as human rights, universal rights, women’s rights, children’s rights and patients’ rights. Western states, meanwhile, remained silent in the face of this destruction.
Though at first Israel’s actions appeared successful, its attacks on Lebanon and Iran, its occupation of certain areas in Syria, its strikes on Yemen, and even its targeting of Qatar, amounted to stirring a hornet’s nest in Middle Eastern geopolitics. Following these offensives, no state – Saudi Arabia foremost among them – felt secure.
Remarkably, debates over Israel spilled into the U.S. As Israel appeared to steer America as one might seize a bull by the horns and drag it where one wills, the American public began reacting against what they perceived as an Israeli encirclement.
Thirty years ago, Israel was celebrated worldwide as the Middle East’s only democracy; a developed, democratic, technologically advanced nation. Today, that reputation has evaporated. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is compared by many to Hitler, and the Zionist state is increasingly recognized across humanity as a state of massacre and genocide.
In the U.S., not only the current manifestations of Israeli influence and the American Israel Public Affairs Committee's (AIPAC) role but also the alleged 50- to 60-year record of misconduct by Mossad and the CIA have begun to surface in public debate.
Most scandalous of all in recent times have been revelations suggesting how Mossad and the CIA intertwined themselves within the American system and Western elites globally – compromising individuals, ensnaring them in crimes, and, like a mafia organization, rendering their members culpable to control them. As such information has circulated, debates surrounding Israel have intensified further.
Moreover, Netanyahu recently threatened European states, implying that they must continue protecting Jews worldwide or face dire consequences.
Rising Türkiye
On the other hand, when one considers Türkiye’s position in regional geopolitics, it is evident that for more than two decades Türkiye has made extraordinary efforts to pursue independent policies: its struggle against terrorism, deploying its navy in the Eastern Mediterranean, striving for Libya’s stability, playing a leading role with global stakeholders in fostering the formation of a unitary state structure in Syria, and taking decisive steps in Africa following Israel’s recognition of Somaliland. When a state enters a trajectory of ascent, each step it takes can become solid, lasting and growth-enhancing.
In response to Israel’s aggressive policies, Türkiye, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and even Pakistan have demonstrated a convergence – initially within the framework of a psychological alliance. This rapprochement is poised to produce extraordinary consequences, both in shaping Africa and in redesigning the Middle East’s security architecture.
In previous years, Israel had sought closer ties with Middle Eastern countries while placing Iran squarely in its crosshairs as the principal adversary. Israel’s hostility toward Iran once appeared to resonate sympathetically with regional states.
Today, however, none of Israel’s actions are regarded favorably by the billions in the streets of the U.S., Europe or the Middle East.
Such is fate: while it paves the road of ascent for one nation, it lays the conditions for another’s decline.
Thanks to more than two decades of calculated and strategic policymaking, Türkiye has earned growing respect among nations. A strong historical mission, solid infrastructure, sustained development and a robust defense industry – such a comprehensive convergence of strengths is rarely found in a single country.
As Türkiye rises step by step, Israel – having placed itself in the position of God – is losing ground. And this, too, is destiny.
https://www.dailysabah.com/opinion/columns/israel-fades-as-turkiye-rises-in-global-geopolitics
----
A stunted start marks the inaugural Board for Peace in Gaza
February 20, 2026
By Ranjan Solomon
Donald Trump’s “Board of Peace,” inaugurated in early 2026 to oversee Gaza’s reconstruction and potentially supplant UN roles, began with low expectations and limited attendance, as many U.S. allies opted out. While 26 countries joined the charter, only 19 attended the initial, vaguely detailed meeting, which was criticized as a “masterclass in branding” rather than an established diplomatic force.
Many countries, including major U.S. allies, did not attend the initial meeting. Nearly half of the invited nations held off on signing the charter. Originally intended for Gaza rebuilding, the board expanded to potentially oversee the United Nations, with Trump as chair for life, wielding significant veto power.
The board saw a $10 billion pledge from the U.S. for Gaza and, by its first day, 9 members pledged $7 billion for relief. The board has been described as a “fascinating experiment in monetizing international legitimacy” and a “corporate board meeting” rather than a traditional diplomatic body. India was invited but did not attend, with reports indicating it was still examining the proposal, while others like Pakistan accepted the invitation.
The initiative remains under scrutiny, with critics questioning its ability to replace established UN mechanisms. There are too many empty chairs. Trump does not like that because in his school master-like role, he is ordering the absentees to stop “being cute”. Trump can try to dictate and be a deal-maker. He cannot replace the United Nations. That’s utter nonsense and the idea will be stillborn. At best, the (Board for Peace) BOP is doomed to an early death, if things go a little better for Trump.
Nor does the BOP have that kind of people with diplomatic skills, knowledge of the region, cultural sensitivities, and political finesse to take this forward. Kushner looks like the nominated CEO. And what does have for background -14 books on Israel. Scholars have written far more. Kushner would never have got into the BOP had he been interviewed by a knowledgeable group of political thinkers from Palestine- a first round exit it would have been.
In sharp remarks by ABC Net News, the author observes rather humorously: “George Orwell would have had a chuckle listening to US President Donald Trump speaking at the inaugural meeting of his new international organisation. Orwell, the author of the classic book 1984, delighted in organisations being named the opposite of what they actually were. He would have seen the irony of Trump — the founder of something called the “Board of Peace” — making clear in his very first speech to this new peace organisation that he may give the order for a major new war in the Middle East within 10 days”.
The board’s shaky beginning, characterized by a lack of international consensus, was consistent with initial, widespread criticism of its, “corporate,” rather than, “diplomatic,” structure. The initiative was marked by scepticism, with critics noting the lack of concrete plans for disarming Hamas or a clear, long-term strategy.
Netanyahu’s absence from the Board of Peace event has a story to tell. Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar attended, but stayed mum. Trump’s public confidence that Hamas will “give up their weapons” was naivety without grounding. He probably has no clue that Hamas members have Hamas is finished as a governing authority.”
While proponents highlight the $7 billion in pledges for reconstruction and commitments for a stabilization force, the initiative has been heavily criticized for being vague, underfunded, and opaque, while raising concerns about its potential to undermine the United Nations. The $7 billion pledged by nine nations is well short of the estimated $70 billion needed to rebuild Gaza after two years of war. Despite high-level promises, few concrete details were provided on how the money would be used, how Hamas would be disarmed, or when Israeli troops would fully withdraw.
Trump guilelessly believes Hamas is finished. It probably is, in its earlier avatar as the governance authority of Gaza. Yet, an organisation with a mass base, and a history of being a resistance movement cannot be “finished” with a click of the finger. While simultaneously collecting taxes on cigarettes, batteries and mobile phones; integrating police into a proposed new force; paying public servants; and reconstituting municipal structures, Hamas collects shekels in taxes on smuggled goods.
By contrast; the Board has no independent revenue stream. The BOP has only a couple of pledges – the I billion dollars that was extracted from several countries. on February 19, 2026. Just this nothing at all. This is why the BoP for Gaza has faced weighty criticism and challenges, characterizing its very launch as problematic.
An organisation cannot be “finished” while simultaneously collecting taxes on cigarettes, batteries and mobile phones; integrating police into a proposed new force; paying public servants; and reconstituting municipal structures. Political science teaches a simple lesson: governance is not rhetoric. It is control over territory, revenue, security, and administration. By those metrics, Hamas remains embedded.
Trump’s outbursts and transactions- many of which have been extracted by threats and intimidation, should be seen from a psychological perspective. Much of his policy impositions display what some psycho-therapists describe as ‘Intermittent explosive disorder’ (IED) or a variation of this. IED is a condition that involves frequent episodes of impulsive anger quite out of proportion to the event that triggered it. Specialist in the USA have raised this, and those who watch some of Trump’s dealings with his political opponents, and the media will ascribe to this. The presentation of “New Gaza” projects included AI-generated renderings, described by critics as “AI slop” or a “US-first western hemisphere” logo on a “Trumpian gold” shield. There is an element of inanity and obliviousness coupled with conceit beyond all reasonable proportions.
Political science teaches a simple lesson: governance is not rhetoric. It is control over territory, revenue, security, and administration. By those metrics, Hamas remains embedded. Based on reports and analyses of the situation in Gaza through late 2025 and early 2026, the assessment that Hamas remains “embedded” through control of territory, revenue, security, and administration has been a central, albeit contested, point of analysis. While the group suffered massive military losses and lost territorial control to the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) during the war, it has shown resilience in reasserting aspects of governance.
While Hamas remains a significant player, analysts describe the post-October 2024 Hamas as a “pale shadow” of its former self, operating in a, degraded, guerrilla-style capacity rather than as a centralized government. Despite the destruction of its formal bureaucratic structure, Hamas has demonstrated an ability to adapt and survive as a combatant force.
In summary, while Hamas’s direct, open, and total control over the Gaza Strip has been severely broken, it has shown significant capacity to re-embed itself in local governance and security, making it a persistent, though weakened, force in the territory.
https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20260220-a-stunted-start-marks-the-inaugural-board-for-peace-in-gaza/
------
History can teach us how to make Gaza ceasefire work
DAOUD KUTTAB
February 20, 2026
The US-sponsored ceasefire for Gaza was approved by the UN Security Council three months ago, yet the killing has not stopped. Since the truce supposedly began in October, at least 586 Palestinians have been killed and more than 1,000 have been injured. In Gaza, the “peace” looks remarkably like the war that preceded it, with civilians still caught in the crossfire and a humanitarian catastrophe deepening by the day. If Thursday’s Board of Peace meeting is to be anything more than a symbolic gesture, members must work on moving from a sham truce to a genuine cessation of hostilities.
One way to find a solution is to look at previous ceasefires that actually worked. History shows us that a ceasefire is not merely a pause in shooting; it is a technically complex agreement that requires specific pillars to remain standing. The most successful ceasefires share two key ingredients: robust, neutral monitoring with clear, reciprocal obligations and a parallel political process that can give people hope. When those elements are absent, as they are today, the stronger party inevitably dictates the terms on the ground and the agreement collapses at the hands of a powerful occupier that is not genuinely interested in a cessation of violence.
The monitoring vacuum in Gaza is perhaps the greatest catalyst for failure. Israel has barred foreign journalists and international observers from the Strip. The International Stabilization Force envisioned in US President Donald Trump’s 20-point plan remains a phantom. Without boots on the ground from neutral parties — the kind of monitors that stabilized the Sinai after 1979 or the Balkans in the 1990s — a ceasefire is just a piece of paper. Israel has even vetoed the inclusion of Turkish and Qatari troops, insisting instead on a force that will do what its own military could not: the total and immediate disarmament of Hamas. To make this ceasefire work, the US must end the Israeli veto on monitors and deploy a multinational force with a clear mandate to verify violations and report them directly to the UNSC.
Beyond monitoring, a ceasefire needs a functioning civilian alternative to the chaos of war. For weeks, 14 Palestinian men and one woman have been waiting in Egypt for Israeli permission to enter Gaza. This National Committee for the Administration of Gaza is composed of non-Hamas technocrats, chosen by the US team in coordination with all parties. Yet they remain stranded while Israel reportedly objects to trivialities like the committee’s logo.
By preventing a vetted civilian government from taking root, the status quo ensures that Hamas remains the only governing power in Gaza, which in turn justifies continued Israeli military operations. A firm decision is needed: the committee must be seated in Gaza immediately, with the full backing of the international community, to manage reconstruction and restore basic services.
Furthermore, a ceasefire only holds when it is linked to a credible political horizon. Previous successful truces were never an end result; they were the first phase of a larger political settlement. The promise of “Palestinian self-determination” cannot remain a footnote in the 20-point plan. While Washington’s focus has drifted toward Iran in recent weeks, the reality is that the toxicity of the Middle East cannot be drained so long as Gaza is left to fester. The Board of Peace must re-establish a “credible pathway to statehood,” as recognized by the UN, and give the Palestinian people a reason to invest in the calm.
Finally, we must address the humanitarian death by a thousand cuts that undermines the truce. Israel has refused to allow prefabricated homes for those in tents and has restricted the entry of the heavy equipment needed to recover the thousands of bodies still trapped under the rubble. A ceasefire that secures the release of Israelis but leaves the Palestinian population to freeze and starve is not a peace plan. True success requires the full lifting of the siege and unconditional entry of aid, as required by international humanitarian law.
Thursday’s summit is the last chance to prove that the current peace framework is a roadmap, not a headstone. The 15 technocrats in Egypt are ready. The reconstruction funds are pledged. All that is missing is the political will to enforce the basic requirements of the truce. We must learn from the past: peace is not kept by silence but by the active presence of monitors, the empowerment of civilian leaders and the promise of a future beyond war, occupation, siege and attempts at displacement.
https://www.arabnews.com/node/2633771
-----
From Tehran to Gaza: Frontlines of Resistance
February 21, 2026
By Dr. M. Reza Behnam
Forty-seven years ago, after a millennium of monarchical rule, Iran reinvented its political system. The Islamic Republic was born by the Revolution of 1979, considered one of the most consequential historical events of modern times.
The Iranian Revolution profoundly altered the geopolitical landscape of West Asia. By removing the Shah, Iranians severed one pillar of US regional hegemony. In addition, the Revolution transformed Iran from a close ally of Israel into one of its primary adversaries. It also shifted the Palestinian cause from a largely secular national liberation struggle against settler-colonialism into a more Islamist-oriented resistance, an Islamic and political imperative. The liberation of al-Quds (Jerusalem) became a central pillar of the government’s anti-imperialist Islamic identity.
In August 1979, Iran’s first supreme leader, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, initiated Al-Quds Day to solidify Palestine as a unifying principle. The international day, held annually, is commemorated on the last Friday of the fasting month of Ramadan. It features large rallies intended to express solidarity with Palestinians, and to oppose Israeli occupation of Jerusalem and all of Palestine. It has since served as a symbol of resistance.
In addition, to counter US and Israeli hegemony, Iran established a network of allies that has linked Palestinian freedom to a regional strategy. Tehran has never wavered in providing material support (estimated in the billions) to Palestinian resistance groups; support that has enabled them to continue their struggle for liberation and self-determination.
For the past 47 years, Iran, a non-Arab country, has maintained its commitment to Palestine as a core pillar of its anti-imperialist and anti-Zionist foreign policy. No Arab country or any Muslim nation can say the same. For that, Iran has been terrorized economically and militarily by Israel, the US and its Western allies, and punished for a nuclear weapons program that does not exist.
Revolutionary Iran has been central in making Palestine a litmus test for freedom and justice in West Asia and beyond. In the words of Abbas Araghchi, Iran’s foreign minister: “It (Palestine) is the strategic and moral compass of our region. It is a test of whether international law has meaning, whether human rights have universal value and whether global institutions exist to protect the weak or merely to rationalize the power of the strong.”
For its refusal to assent to injustice and to yield its national sovereignty, the United States, since the 1950s, has inflicted systematic suffering on Iran. For rejecting its dictates, Washington has adopted policies and measures that include:
overthrowing Iran’s democratically elected government in 1953.
sustaining the Shah’s brutal dictatorship for 26 years.
sponsoring Iraq’s eight-year war and use of chemical weapon against Iranians.
collaborating with Israel in its campaign of killing Iranian scientists.
destroying industrial infrastructure and attacking peaceful nuclear facilities.
maintaining devastating sanctions that have crippled the economy, contributed to environmental degradation and inflicted significant hardships on the population.
Tel Aviv views the complete elimination of regional opposition as a prerequisite for regional domination and for restructuring the area in its own likeness. Iran, Palestinian Resistance, Lebanese Hezbollah, the Popular Mobilization Forces in Iraq, and Ansarallah in Yemen are the remaining barriers to the US and Israel achieving complete subjugation.
In its pursuits, Israel has worked for decades to portray Iran as a malign actor. It has developed and seasoned a powerful propaganda network of pro-Zionist think tanks, educational institutions, media and lobbying groups to condition Americans to view Iran as an aggressor, a threat and a country whose leaders should be feared.
There are numerous, often subtle examples, of how the US-Israeli campaign to undermine and to “otherize” Iran has worked; among them:
Iran’s constitutional republic is inevitably referred to as a “regime”.
Protests receive extensive media coverage and anti-Iran punditry in the corporate media, while Israel’s genocide against the Palestinians is downplayed or explained away as defense.
Iranian women, among the most educated in the world (97 percent are literate and 65 percent of university students are female) and prominent in the professions, are depicted as oppressed.
Iran’s leaders are portrayed negatively, often as sinister, hardline and irrational, while Israel’s hardline, militaristic, right-wing conservative theocrats are represented as rational and democratic.
What has become increasingly evident is that Washington and Tel Aviv, in order to force Tehran into submission, have employed illegal economic sanctions and baseless nuclear weapons threats as political tools.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has spent more than 34 years manufacturing a nonexistent nuclear crisis, sounding the alarm that Iran is weeks or months away from a nuclear breakthrough, a recurring narrative used to build a case for military action.
Soon after the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), the multilateral nuclear agreement, was finalized on July 14, 2015, Netanyahu made destroying it central to his war aims.
It is important to remember that Iran, hoping for a lasting diplomatic solution, accepted the strictest restrictions ever placed on a civilian nuclear program when it agreed to the JCPOA. The nuclear deal included the following constraints on Iran’s peaceful program: uranium enrichment capped at 3.67 percent (90 percent needed for a bomb); enriched uranium stockpile reduced by 98 percent; and the program placed under the full surveillance of the International Atomic Energy Agency.
Although Iran honored the conditions of the nuclear deal, Israel and its US supporters applauded Trump when, in 2018, he unilaterally withdrew the United States from the JCPOA and initiated a “maximum pressure” campaign.
The financial war waged by the US and Israel has not produced the “regime” change desired; instead, it has accelerated Iran’s integration into a strategic alliance with China and Russia.
Additionally, since the 1990s, Netanyahu and his allies in Washington have repeatedly called for military action against Iran, persistently trying to get the United States to attack. He finally realized his scheme in June 2025, when Israel launched, with US military support, the 12-day war, an attack that took place under the cover of negotiations.
It is interesting to note that following the 2020 US assassination of Iranian Major General Qassem Soleimani, Trump complained privately that Netanyahu was “willing to fight Iran to the last American soldier.” His frustration stemmed from his belief that Netanyahu would involve Israel directly in the operation.
Iran and Palestine have always been in Washington and Tel Aviv’s crosshairs: Iran for its significant history and geopolitical location, its oil, gas, and other mineral riches; Palestine for its religious force and its historical presence in the heart of the Islamic world; and both for their perseverance and principled steadfastness.
Americans have come to misunderstand the complex Iranian nation through pro-Zionist corporate and social media, and commentaries by anti-government diaspora Iranians and so-called Iran experts. Bereft of historical background, both centuries-old nations have been reduced to faux soundbites.
Members of the political and foreign policy. and media establishment rarely, if ever, scrutinize the need, efficacy or clamor for war against Iran; let alone question the morality of US-Israeli actions; instead, their violence and aggression are tolerated and often applauded.
Unlike many in the Arab and Western world, the Islamic Republic has refused to abandon the Palestinians and to bend a knee to the dangerous bullies US-Israeli regimes.
Faced with Israel’s expansionist ambitions, Arab oil families also have a decision to make regarding their future in the region. If they wish to remain sovereign, rather than vassal states of the US and Israel, they, too, must stand with Palestine.
The Arab states’ absence in the battle for Palestine is not simply moral cowardice; it is a victory for the Zionists and a surrender to the imperialist US-Israeli plan for the region.
Irrelevance, duplicity and continued instability are the best Israel has to offer. The choice of the Arab states is clear—collective unity or subordination.
Israel has mistakenly concluded—as Washington has led it to believe— that it can continue to live and thrive in the region despite its genocidal war on Palestinians, terrorist aggression against neighbors, and assault on the international legal system.
The Washington-Tel Aviv rogue axis has been threatening and building toward war against Iran since 1979. And what we are witnessing today is Washington’s quest to install another compliant, client monarch, like the late Shah.
For the region and global community, their contrived and long-desired war, driven by the misguided conviction that it will end Palestinian resistance and topple the Iranian government, may become a tragic reality.
https://www.palestinechronicle.com/from-tehran-to-gaza-frontlines-of-resistance/
------
The Resistance is Redrawing Its Deployment Boundaries in the Gaza Strip… Why Now?
February 21, 2026
By Ahmed Abdel Rahman
One cannot deny the fact that the Palestinian resistance in Gaza has lost a large portion of the geography in which it had previously maneuverer before the ‘Battle of Al-Aqsa Flood’. The area it once controlled and in which it possessed operational and combat superiority has shrunk to less than half. It has also lost some of the assisting factors it relied upon in its ongoing confrontation with the occupation, most notably the element of surprise, whose impact has declined significantly and has nearly disappeared in light of the post-ceasefire changes.
These changes have granted the heavily armed enemy—backed by all forms of weaponry and by the political and legal cover provided by its strategic ally, the United States—an unmistakable superiority, especially with the retreat of the role of regional mediators, whose positions over the four months of the ceasefire agreement were marked by incapacity and passivity.
In the phase preceding the launch of ‘Al-Aqsa Flood’, the resistance, with all its factions and military formations, was deployed throughout the length and breadth of the Gaza Strip. It possessed large, multi-purpose military sites in all its cities and governorates. Some of those sites nearly touched the eastern and northern borders of the Strip and were only a few hundred meters away from enemy positions. Despite having all the necessary tools to do so, the enemy did not dare fire a single bullet at resistance positions or near them. Resistance fighters even patrolled in their vehicles and four-wheel drives along the border fence without suffering any harm from the occupation.
That reality, which was the direct result of the deterrence equation that existed at the time between the resistance and the occupation, completely vanished after the launch of the ‘Flood’. In its place emerged a new reality in which the resistance moved to operate underground to avoid enemy targeting. As noted above, the enemy possesses a significant advantage and superiority in combat capabilities—capabilities that cannot be compared in any way to those of the resistance, which are not suited for engaging in a direct or open confrontation with the occupation “army.”
On the level of geographic control, a major and striking shift occurred, represented by the occupation “army’s” control over most of the Strip’s territory. In many cases, this control lacked absolute and sustained dominance, with the exception of the city of Rafah in the southern Strip. Rafah was the last city subjected to a ground assault, yet it was the first to be brought under complete and sustained control—a situation that continues to this day.
As a result of this shift, the resistance was forced to change its previous tactics, whether in terms of field deployment or regarding battle plans and the operational arenas it required. In the last five months of the war, after the launch of “Gideon’s Chariots 2,” it moved to what may be described as delayed defense, through which it sought to reduce casualties among its fighters and also among civilians. This was especially necessary after the occupation army escalated its use of explosive, suicide vehicles, which in most cases could not be confronted or neutralized. Their explosions covered wide areas and caused heavy and severe losses.
This tactical shift—particularly regarding deployment and positioning—continued until the ceasefire agreement entered into force on October 10 of last year. After that, the resistance attempted to return to the state it had been in before the war, or close to it. It deployed small groups of fighters along the new lines of contact produced by the truce, most of which ran parallel to what is called the “yellow line,” which has become a substitute for the previously known borders that were farther away from the centers of Gaza’s cities and governorates.
This attempt to restore previous positioning was met with wide Israeli targeting, whether through daily artillery shelling of the new borders and sometimes beyond them, or through aerial bombardment by warplanes that deliberately targeted and destroyed most—if not all—houses, or what remained of them, located along the boundaries of the yellow zone.
At other times, several groups whose positions were discovered were targeted, resulting in martyrs and wounded. On other occasions, enemy tanks and armored vehicles advanced to areas very close to them and attempted to encircle them from three directions. This later compelled the resistance to withdraw most of its forward groups and evacuate the areas near the new borders of any fighter presence, replacing that deployment by stationing them deeper within urban areas, which provide greater protection.
Recently, over the past three weeks, despite the concentrated campaign of targeting and assassinations carried out by the occupation army in Gaza—operations that now recur almost every few days under flimsy and false pretexts—the resistance has, according to some sources, redeployed groups of its fighters in areas closer to the “yellow line.” This has occurred either through fixed guard posts day and night, or through what is known in Gaza as “night ribat,” in which fighters are present only during the late nighttime hours. This presence is marked by a high degree of secrecy to avoid bombardment and targeting.
From the perspective of many observers and specialists, several reasons stand behind this decision, which surprised many, particularly as it came amid escalating aggression and intensified bombardment across the Strip, and after occupation forces expanded the “yellow zone” and shifted its boundaries westward several times, until in many sectors it came to run alongside the vital and central Salah al-Din Street.
The first of these reasons is the occurrence of what are described as “security breaches” deep within the areas where the resistance is deployed—that is, in the heart of cities outside the occupation army’s control. These were carried out by collaborating militias working with the occupation.
These groups, which possess good weaponry and intelligence provided by enemy forces, along with aerial cover from various types of Zionist reconnaissance aircraft, succeeded in carrying out several extremely dangerous operations. Two of these occurred in the heart of Gaza City, where two resistance cadres were abducted in separate operations. Two other operations took place in the Maghazi refugee camp and in Khan Younis, resulting in the assassination of two senior leaders of the Internal Security apparatus—the body primarily responsible for pursuing collaborators and spies.
This breach sounded an alarm within the resistance leadership, which now fears the growing role of these collaborating groups. Investigations indicated that they infiltrated from areas under occupation control and returned to those same areas after carrying out their operations, exploiting the security vacuum in the border regions and the absence of resistance groups there.
After the redeployment of fighters, several new operations were thwarted, dozens of militia members were arrested, and armed clashes occurred between fighters and collaborators on more than one front. Were it not for the intervention of the occupation aircraft, a large number of collaborators would have been killed or captured.
A second reason some see behind the return of resistance fighters near the so-called Yellow line relates to the increased pace of occupation operations near that line, on both sides of it. Recent weeks have witnessed the advance of occupation forces into areas closer to Palestinian residential zones, which are densely populated due to the shrinking overall area of the Strip. From the viewpoint of concerned parties, these movements appear preparatory for broader activities that could, at some stage, not far off, develop into a full-scale ground maneuver.
Accordingly, the resistance seeks to position its fighters relatively close to the presence of the occupation army, for operational necessities related to rapid response in the event of any emergency. It also seeks, even at a minimal level, to maintain intelligence oversight of the enemy’s movements within areas under its control that could serve as launching points for an expected ground action—especially if the truce agreement falters, which the enemy appears to be seeking to evade or collapse in order to continue the war of extermination against Palestinian civilians and achieve the absolute and decisive victory it has spoken of since the first days of the aggression.
As for the third reason, it is directly linked to the second. It concerns the resistance’s effort to raise the level of combat readiness among its fighters and soldiers, who since the beginning of the ceasefire entered a period of passive rest after the unprecedented effort they exerted throughout the months of war and the immense pressures they endured—pressures that, were it not for their steadfastness, patience, and perseverance, might have broken them.
The resistance leadership understands more than anyone that allowing fighters to sink into rest and distance themselves from the battlefields can have negative repercussions on their combat readiness, as well as on their psychological and morale state—particularly as they continue to be targeted from time to time by the enemy “army,” resulting in the martyrdom of many of their cadres and leaders. Therefore, the decision to return fighters to operational theaters or near them has become necessary, especially given the declared intentions of the enemy, indicating the possibility of resuming aggression, whether on a wide or limited scale.
The fourth and final reason relates to the second phase of the ceasefire agreement, which may witness the deployment of what is called an international “stabilization force” inside the Strip. While the resistance does not seek confrontation with this force or to obstruct its deployment, it remains wary of its entry amid significant ambiguity surrounding its expected roles, which, according to American and Israeli statements, do not bode well.
Accordingly, the resistance in Gaza seeks to remain prepared to confront any emergency, particularly if one of the roles of these forces is to disarm the resistance—a thorny and complex issue whose consequences many fear.
In any case, despite the fact that the step taken by the resistance carries considerable risks—especially given the significant military superiority of the occupation army and its operational and intelligence oversight of most events and developments in Gaza—it remains less harmful than the security vacuum that arose after the ceasefire entered into force. That vacuum allowed breaches such as those previously mentioned to occur, breaches that have significantly diminished following the resistance’s recent move, which restored many matters to their proper course.
https://www.palestinechronicle.com/the-resistance-is-redrawing-its-deployment-boundaries-in-the-gaza-strip-why-now/
------
Gaza, Nigeria, Manhattan – New Epstein Files Expose Israeli Footprint in Africa
February 20, 2026
Conflict as Access
Fresh reporting and newly surfaced records are forcing a harder look at the political economy of “security partnerships” in Africa—where insurgencies and instability can serve as leverage for outside actors seeking contracts, market access, and strategic footholds.
A Drop Site News investigation by Ryan Grim and Murtaza Hussain, built on a tranche of emails released by the US Department of Justice, reported that the Israeli government installed security equipment and controlled access at a Manhattan apartment building managed by Jeffrey Epstein—beginning in early 2016 at 301 E. 66th Street—where former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak “frequently stayed for stretches at a time.”
The same Drop Site reporting line—expanded in separate coverage focused on Nigeria—described how Epstein and Barak’s relationship ran in parallel to commercial efforts tied to Africa’s conflicts, with Nigeria emerging as a pivotal theater where “counterterror” became a gateway: first into state relationships, then into higher-value economic terrain like ports, logistics, and cyber infrastructure.
Al Jazeera’s feature report, drawing on the same document trail, framed the arrangement as a model in which Israeli intelligence firms marketed tools as “field-proven”—a euphemism for systems deployed against Palestinians—then positioned them as solutions for Nigeria’s Boko Haram crisis.
The result is not a single “smoking gun” claim that resolves everything at once, but an increasingly coherent map of methods: use insecurity to open doors; use doors to sell surveillance; use surveillance relationships to reach ports, energy, and state-building projects; and rely on overlapping private and public channels to make the machine run.
‘Ehud’s Apartment’
Drop Site’s Manhattan reporting is notable not only for who appears in the emails, but for what the emails describe as routine operational coordination between Israeli officials and Epstein’s staff.
The Drop Site investigation reported that the “security operation at ‘Ehud’s apartment’ was in place for at least two years,” with officials from Israel’s permanent mission to the United Nations corresponding regularly with Epstein’s staff regarding security.
The emails, as Drop Site summarized them, place Rafi Shlomo—then director of protective services at Israel’s UN mission and head of Barak’s security—in direct contact with Epstein employees to arrange meetings, coordinate the installation of specialized equipment, and manage access. Shlomo “personally controlled access to the apartment for guests” and carried out background checks on cleaners and Epstein employees, Drop Site reported.
A January 2016 email exchange cited in the Drop Site piece included language about the mechanics of the system itself. Barak’s wife, Nili Priell, wrote that, “They can neutralize the system from far, before you need somebody to enter the appartment. the only thing to do is call Rafi from the consulate and let him know who and when is entering.”
Another message quoted by Drop Site underscores how the physical work required Epstein’s sign-off: “Jeffrey says he does not mind holes in the walls and this is all just fine!”
The Israeli mission and Barak did not respond to Drop Site’s requests for comment, the outlet said.
The significance of the Manhattan material is structural: it portrays Epstein not merely as a disgraced financier with elite contacts, but as an operator with physical infrastructure—properties, staff, access control—capable of supporting sensitive relationships. That infrastructure matters when assessing how “private” intermediaries can end up serving state-adjacent objectives, especially when former officials and serving personnel appear in the same communications chain.
The Nigeria Connection
In its Nigeria-focused investigation, Drop Site described a track that braided together insurgency-era fear, surveillance marketing, and commercial ambition.
Al Jazeera captured the underlying posture in a 2014 email referenced in the files. The reporting does not frame this as a theoretical debate. It presents an operational sequence: insecurity creates political demand; demand legitimizes foreign “solutions”; “solutions” generate access, which is then leveraged into broader deals.
Drop Site reported that in May 2015, Barak and his business partner, Gary Fegel, made a $15 million investment in FST Biometrics, a facial recognition/access-control firm founded by Aharon Ze’evi Farkash, a former head of Israeli military intelligence.
The technology’s lineage matters to how it was marketed. Drop Site reported that Farkash developed the concept of “remote identification” during the Second Palestinian Intifada at Israeli checkpoints on the Gaza border; in 2003, Israel deployed the “Basel” system at the Erez Crossing, using facial scans to identify and process Palestinians going to work in Israel.
In Nigeria, the same reporting describes how Boko Haram’s attacks—often framed through a sectarian lens—created a ready-made narrative for pitching biometric control at a Christian institution. Drop Site reported that a pilot was implemented at Babcock University, and by July 2015, an “in-motion identification” system was live, with staff training and promotional language emphasizing the filtering of “unwanted persons.”
Al Jazeera’s account similarly notes that a press release at the time boasted the technology would “filter away all unwanted persons,” presenting surveillance as safety while normalizing population-control logics in a crisis setting.
From there, the reporting argues, the foothold widened. Al Jazeera stated the emails suggest the initial “counterterror” entry helped institutionalize Israeli cyber expertise within Nigerian state structures, pointing to later cooperation involving the Israel National Cyber Directorate and a Barak co-founded firm, Toka, on national cyber infrastructure.
The DP World Dimension
If the biometrics track shows how conflict opens the door, the ports track shows what can lie behind it: strategic infrastructure, long-term revenue, and geopolitical leverage.
Al Jazeera reported that the correspondence indicates security deals were “frequently utilised as a gateway for broader commercial interests,” including infrastructure projects tied to DP World.
Drop Site described Epstein facilitating conversations involving Jide Zeitlin—then chair of Nigeria’s sovereign investment fund—and DP World’s Sultan Ahmad bin Sulayem, in a context where control of ports around Lagos and Badagry was a central objective.
One email excerpt captures how this network discussed diplomatic normalization as part of deal-making ecosystems: “I hope your pal’s sojourn in Tel Aviv … was more effective than his efforts on the African continent,” Zeitlin wrote to Epstein in September 2018, referring to outreach that the report characterizes as cultivating Israel-UAE ties ahead of the Abraham Accords.
Reuters, reporting separately on fallout from the DOJ document releases, described the resignation of bin Sulayem as CEO and chair of DP World after his name appeared in Epstein files and scrutiny intensified.
Together, these pieces outline a grim logic: African insecurity supplies the urgency; surveillance supplies the justification; ports supply the payoff. Even when a specific contract fails or stalls, the relationship-building can persist—creating influence networks that outlast the crisis that opened the door.
The Africa Pattern
A key theme across the reporting is how Israeli security technology—often developed in the context of controlling Palestinians—travels outward through private networks that can blur into official state action.
Al Jazeera notes that “field-proven” was a selling term for systems deployed under occupation. Drop Site’s Nigeria investigation provides the operational detail of how that translation occurred: from Gaza-border checkpoint systems to Nigerian campus deployments, then into state-level cyber relationships.
The Manhattan reporting adds another layer: a picture of state-linked security operations functioning inside an Epstein-controlled property, coordinated via Israel’s UN mission, and approved by Epstein himself.
For Africa, the most consequential question raised by the combined record is not simply whether Epstein knew powerful people—he did—but how conflicts on the continent can be turned into currency for outsiders: an all-purpose justification for surveillance systems, identity infrastructure, and cyber projects that can outlive the insurgency they were sold to defeat.
This is where the investigative trail now points: into contracts, procurement chains, “public-private” partnerships, and the quiet spaces where security doctrine meets commercial expansion—often with minimal democratic oversight and limited public visibility in the countries most affected.
https://www.palestinechronicle.com/gaza-nigeria-manhattan-new-epstein-files-expose-israeli-security-footprint-in-africa/
-----
Between Life and Death: An Unknown Fate Haunts the Families of the Missing in Gaza
February 20, 2026
By Shaimaa Eid
On the morning of June 14, 2025, Ayman al-Muqayyad left his tent in Gaza to search for humanitarian aid for his three children. He headed toward the Zikim area in the northern Gaza Strip. After that moment, all contact with him was lost.
Ayman’s disappearance came after Israeli occupation tanks opened fire on aid trucks in the area, causing one of them to overturn. Since then, despite conflicting accounts and varying testimonies, the family has received no official information about his whereabouts. They continue to wait for any verified news about his fate.
His brother Ahmed told the Palestine Chronicle that Ayman, 46, went that day to an area locally known as the ‘Golden Hall’ near Zikim to obtain aid. Ayman, who is deaf and mute, is married and a father of three.
According to eyewitnesses cited by Ahmed, Israeli tanks advanced toward the gathering and opened fire on a truck carrying people attempting to collect aid, causing it to overturn. The last person who saw him was present at the site roughly half an hour before the tanks advanced. From that moment onward, Ahmed explains, all contact was lost and no trace of him has been found.
The family immediately began searching. They appointed a lawyer to inquire in Israeli prisons and checked hospitals across the Gaza Strip, going through lists of the injured and the dead. None of those efforts revealed any information about his fate.
The incident occurred within what is known as the ‘Yellow Line’, a restricted-access zone. Because of this, Ayman’s family was unable to reach the location to verify what happened. Since that day, the household has lived in constant anxiety.
Ayman’s wife and relatives waited for his return for a long time, especially as everyone from the camp who went out with him that day eventually came back — except him.
Occasionally, when the Gaza Ministry of Health coordinates with international organizations to enter areas previously controlled by occupation forces and recover bodies, the family is notified so they can attempt identification. So far, he has not been among them.
The uncertainty surrounding Ayman’s fate mirrors thousands of similar cases across Gaza.
The Palestinian Center for the Missing and Enforced Disappeared is documenting these disappearances through field and digital methods, seeking to build a comprehensive database preserving the names of the missing and helping families search for answers.
Its director, Nada Abu Aita, told The Palestine Chronicle that the work operates on two parallel tracks: receiving reports through the Center’s website and conducting field visits by specialized teams. Families can submit data through an open registration platform promoted on social media or communicate directly via messages and a dedicated phone number.
Once contact is established, the team gathers all available information — the last place the person was seen, the circumstances of disappearance, and any supporting testimonies — to determine whether the individual may have been subjected to enforced disappearance.
Sometimes the information comes indirectly. Testimonies may indicate that families in a particular camp have missing relatives, prompting the team to travel there and document the cases directly.
According to the Center’s estimates, at least 7,000 to 8,000 people are missing in the Gaza Strip.
From a legal perspective, Abu Aita notes that international law clearly prohibits enforced disappearance and obligates parties to disclose the identity of any detainee in their custody. It also requires allowing specialized teams to visit detention sites, enter bombed areas to search for remains, and enable families to inquire about relatives.
In practice, however, she says these obligations remain unimplemented, leaving the conventions effectively “ink on paper.”
One of the main obstacles facing the Center’s work is Israel’s refusal to reveal the names of detainees and disappeared persons in its custody. Although underground prisons holding detainees have been acknowledged, their identities have not all been declared.
Control over large parts of the Strip further prevents verification. As a result, there may be hundreds or thousands of people whose fate vanished in those areas — whether besieged inside their homes during military operations or approaching the zones and then disappearing — without clarity on whether they were killed or detained.
Other barriers also exist. Some families have lost hope and believe reporting the disappearance will not help, while others fear being targeted if they publicly announce a missing relative. In addition, many families lack internet access or awareness of institutions that could document their cases.
Yet despite the pain, families across Gaza continue to hold onto their right to know the truth. They want only one answer: where are they? Between documentation efforts and the patience of the families, hope persists that disappearance will not become a fate without accountability.
https://www.palestinechronicle.com/between-life-and-death-an-unknown-fate-haunts-the-families-of-the-missing-in-gaza/
-----
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