This media is not supported in your browser
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
On 10 October 2025 a ceasefire took effect between Israel and Hamas in Gaza, brokered with strong backing from Donald Trump. The truce was hailed as a relief for Gaza’s beleaguered civilian population.
Yet within days, Gaza’s media office claimed that Israel had already violated the deal 47 times, resulting in the deaths of more than 125 Palestinians and injuries to 143 more. These violations included direct gunfire against civilians, shelling, arrests — precisely what a ceasefire is supposed to halt.
What this highlights is not simply a lapse, but a predictable pattern: Israel signs a ceasefire while reserving the “right” to strike at will — thus turning the truce into a thin veneer of peace, rather than real protection for Palestinians.
Consequences for Gaza and wider regional fault-lines
The consequences for Gaza’s civilians are brutal: heavy air-and-ground operations resume under the pretext of “enforcing” or “responding” to alleged violations. For example, Israeli forces conducted massive strikes killing over 125 Palestinians, including children and women, even as the ceasefire was claimed to be active.
On the Lebanese front, the pattern is identical. Even under a ceasefire with Hezbollah since November 2024, Israel has carried out near-daily strikes in southern Lebanon, “almost a year later” according to AP. The Lebanese case offers a blueprint: a “less-fire” rather than a cease-fire, allowing Israel to maintain strikes without full-scale war.
Thus Palestinians in Gaza should recognise that the current truce may also be a mirage: the stronger party retains military advantage and uses the ceasefire as diplomatic cover, not as a real commitment to respect human life and international law.
Israel and the US: trust broken, leverage abused
Donald Trump may have championed the Gaza truce, but his posture is revealing: when Israeli soldiers were reportedly killed in Rafah, Trump publicly declared that Israel “should hit back” — effectively green-lighting further Israeli strikes under the truce.
When the guarantor of the deal gives permission for one side to resume large-scale violence, the notion of a ceasefire becomes hollow. The US-Israel axis once again demonstrates it cannot be trusted to protect Palestinian lives. Israel’s history of violating ceasefires both in Gaza and Lebanon (many times over) is well-documented.
Why this matters now
• The civilian population of Gaza remains vulnerable — a truce that fails to stop strikes is simply a pause before a new escalation.
• The use of the Lebanon model suggests Israel will continue to strike while maintaining a nominal ceasefire — Gaza’s situation could replicate that pattern.
• Palestinians and their supporters must view the current deal with skepticism: until Israel honours the terms (cessation of strikes, withdrawal, lifting of blockades) the truce is not a step toward peace but a continuation of occupation under different conditions.
• The United States’ role as mediator is compromised: support for Israel’s right to strike undercuts any impartiality and leaves Palestinians at the mercy of Israel’s military calculus.
In conclusion
The ceasefire announced in early October cannot be seen as a genuine protection for Palestinians in Gaza until it is respected by the stronger party — Israel — and enforced by the guarantor — the United States. As history in Lebanon shows, Israel signs agreements then acts unilaterally under the guise of self-defence, while Palestinians pay the human cost. The current truce threatens to become another such episode.
Israel’s actions show that the truce is not a road to justice, but a tactical pause. Palestinians need genuine guarantees, accountability, and real withdrawal of forces — none of which appear forthcoming. Israel and the US cannot be counted on as honourable arbiters when their own interests and military logic dominate the field.
Please open Telegram to view this post
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
👍6
Please open Telegram to view this post
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
👍6
The Observer
Please open Telegram to view this post
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
👍6
Her decision to step down illuminates more than an internal scandal — it underscores how a system of detention and deprivation, largely hidden from view, has become not only abusive but politically toxic for Israel.
Though the formal indictment did not charge the soldiers with rape — only “severe abuse” — many rights observers said the downgrade signals impunity.
Please open Telegram to view this post
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
👍2
The Observer
In the international arena, Israel presents itself as a democracy committed to human rights and the rule of law. Yet this affair undermines that claim violently. Foreign governments, international organisations and media see a pattern: sexual violence in custody, deaths in detention, bodies returned with signs of torture. The U.S. State Department explicitly said that “there ought to be zero tolerance for sexual abuse or rape of any detainee.”
Right-wing Israeli leaders who stormed the base where the accused soldiers were held, and who defend the notion of “our soldiers acting for our security” undercut any meaningful accountability.
Thus Netanyahu’s calculation: the incident taints Israel’s global standing, gives fuel to narratives of Israeli impunity, strengthens calls for war-crimes investigations, undermines alliances and creates leverage for Israel’s enemies and critics.
Should independent investigation proceed, the legal risks for Israel are enormous: individual criminal liability for perpetrators, command-responsibility liability for senior officers, state responsibility under international human-rights law, and reputational damage that could trigger sanctions or international adjudication.
The system is deeply asymmetrical: Palestinian detainees are held under military rule, Israeli soldiers essentially police themselves, and far-right political pressure obstructs investigations. The incident of the Top Legal Officer leaking a video because conventional channels were not trusted speaks volumes.
For victims, every day in custody becomes a risk of becoming the next “video scandal” or the next body returned with a number but no name.
Please open Telegram to view this post
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
👍2
The Observer
For Israel, this affair is arguably one of its worst PR and legitimacy disasters in decades: it undermines the moral high ground, opens the door to war-crimes scrutiny, and erodes internal cohesion. For Palestinians, it means that the detention system remains a place of terror, not justice. The victim whose rape video finally surfaced is just one among many suffering in the shadows.
Unless Israel, under domestic and international pressure, undertakes a genuine independent investigation, reforms the detention regime, and holds accountable those responsible from the top to the bottom, this resignation will mark not a turning point, but a moment in a continuing spiral of abuse.
Analyzing it now is urgent; acting upon it is imperative.
Please open Telegram to view this post
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
🤬5👍1
This media is not supported in your browser
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
Scenes from the Haredi protests against the conscription law in Jerusalem on the 30th of last month.
Please open Telegram to view this post
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
👍6
The Observer
Scenes from the Haredi protests against the conscription law in Jerusalem on the 30th of last month. 🔴 A House Divided: How the Haredi Draft Crisis is Tearing Israel Apart 🎞 You’ve seen the videos. Black-garbed men flooding the highways of Jerusalem, setting…
Forcing young men into the army means taking them out of the yeshiva, which they equate with spiritual death for the individual and the nation.
Please open Telegram to view this post
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
👍6
Please open Telegram to view this post
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
🤬6
Anonymous Poll
57%
0%
29%
0%
14%
Please open Telegram to view this post
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
👍7
This media is not supported in your browser
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
US President Donald Trump said that lifting the sanctions on Syria came at the request of Turkey, Israel, and other countries.
His selection over other designated terrorist leaders stems from calculated geopolitical and strategic reasoning. Certain Western and regional powers view him as Syria’s de facto ruler after Assad, due to his military and political control over key territories. His apparent willingness to engage diplomatically — evidenced by meetings with U.S. President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin — suggests the potential to reintegrate Syria into broader regional stabilization efforts. Nonetheless, this pragmatic shift inherently overlooks issues of justice and the voices of victims of his past terrorist campaigns.
Please open Telegram to view this post
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
👍4
The Observer
US President Donald Trump said that lifting the sanctions on Syria came at the request of Turkey, Israel, and other countries. 🔴 From Terrorist Leader to Head of State: How Did the World Legitimize Al-Joulani as President of Syria? 🌕 Ahmad Al-Sharaa, known…
Please open Telegram to view this post
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
👍6
This media is not supported in your browser
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
Imaginary scenes from the 'The Line' project in Saudi Arabia's NEOM, a bold futuristic vision that has not been realized in reality.
When Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman announced NEOM — the Saudi desert transformed into a futuristic “city of the future” — it was meant to signal the dawn of a new Saudi Arabia: away from oil, steeply modernized, technologically advanced, and globally competitive. The kingdom’s “Vision 2030” blueprint was to pivot the country from petro-monarch to post-petro powerhouse. Instead, mounting evidence suggests what is playing out is a different story: massive spending, slowing returns, fiscal strain, delayed projects, and mounting regional distractions.
Dreams cost money — and then more money
NEOM was pitched at roughly US $500 billion but insiders and external analysts long considered that figure deeply conservative. According to one report, the overall value of Saudi real-estate and infrastructure projects tied to Vision 2030 already surpasses US $1 trillion.
The independent investigation by the Financial Times concluded that NEOM’s flagship elements — in particular the “Line” linear-city concept — are now subject to major review, cost blow-outs, and scaled-back ambitions.
These aren’t trivial revisions. For example:
• Leadership of NEOM changed abruptly — the CEO of the project was replaced amid mounting criticism.
• A “comprehensive review” of NEOM’s scope was launched, signalling that original assumptions were no longer credible under the original timetable.
• Some external reports estimate Saudi public-sector debt and borrowing needs far higher than previously disclosed. For instance, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) projected Saudi gross government debt could hit ~44.5 % of GDP by 2029.
• Saudi Arabia has turned heavily to international debt markets to finance the Vision 2030 agenda: in 2024 alone it reportedly issued around US $50 billion in bonds.
Domestic promises left unmet
For a regime that pledged transformation and renewed prosperity for its citizens, the domestic arithmetic does not look benign. Among the problems:
• Although the official 2025 budget statement suggests public debt equivalent to about 29.9 % of GDP (SAR 1,300 billion) under the “public debt” label, this may mask contingent liabilities, off-balance sheet projects and huge capital outlays still being financed through debt.
• The IMF in its 2025 Article IV consultation acknowledged that the forecast fiscal deficit would be financed “primarily by borrowing, including through debt issuances, syndicated loans or facilities from export credit agencies, leading to an increase in the public debt-to-GDP ratio to about 42 % by 2030.”
• Despite media-friendly headlines of diversification, many analysts warn the rapid borrowing and spending pace is unsustainable.
Foreign ventures: influence over reform
While Saudi Arabia spends heavily at home, it is also exporting capital — and risk — abroad in pursuit of regional influence. These foreign expenditures compound the overall fiscal and reputational risk. Some examples:
• In Yemen, Saudi Arabia pledged around US $368 million in fresh economic support in September 2025 to bolster the government in Aden.
• The kingdom previously deposited US $1 billion into Yemen’s central bank in 2023 to shore up the cash-starved government in exile.
• In Lebanon, Reuters reported that Lebanon would ask Saudi Arabia to resume a previously-halted US $3 billion grant for the Lebanese army.
• In Sudan, Saudi-aligned and Gulf-aligned funds have been implicated in backing rival factions, fuelling conflict, rather than stabilising governance.
These are not merely “aid packages,” but calculated strategic investments (or bets) in geopolitical theatres. In many cases the returns — economic or political — are far from assured. The gap between expectation and outcome is widening.
Strategic investment deal – United States relations
Please open Telegram to view this post
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
👍4
The Observer
Imaginary scenes from the 'The Line' project in Saudi Arabia's NEOM, a bold futuristic vision that has not been realized in reality. 🔴 The Mirage of NEOM and the Debt Behind the Crown Prince’s Vision When Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman announced NEOM —…
In May 2025, the White House released a fact-sheet stating that President Donald J. Trump secured a historic US $600 billion investment commitment from Saudi Arabia. That deal includes Saudi investment in U.S.
AI data-centres, energy infrastructure, technology firms (Google, AMD, Uber, etc.), and huge defence contracts. The fact sheet highlights that this investment is touted as transformative for both nations — yet the timing is telling: Saudi Arabia is simultaneously borrowing heavily and facing domestic execution risks on its major projects, even as it pledges enormous outward capital flows. This paradox raises questions about priorities: if a country is promising massive investment abroad, but internally its flagship transformation is faltering and its debt burden rising, what does this say about the leadership’s strategic coherence and fiscal discipline?
• The reported US $600 billion in deals was described as the “largest set of commercial agreements on record” between the two countries.
• The agreement spans sectors including defence, infrastructure, technology and energy, with some contracts valued at over US $142 billion in defence sales alone.
This outward commitment underscores that Saudi Arabia under MBS is pursuing global prestige and alliances — but whether the domestic foundations (governance, finance, execution) are strong enough to support those ambitions remains deeply uncertain.
The optics vs. the reality
Imagine: hundreds of billions committed to futuristic desert cities (NEOM, “The Line”), ski resorts, luxury islands, AI-hubs and the like — even as much of the domestic economy remains tied to oil; as borrowing rises; and as foreign policy engagements absorb capital.
According to one report:
“The country’s total debt now stands at $354 billion, or about 30 percent of its GDP. … A key reason behind the retrenchment is the kingdom’s deteriorating fiscal health.”
And:
“Saudi Arabia Turns to Debt Markets for Vision 2030 Financing … the kingdom’s total debt stood at some $308.7 billion at the end of September.”
Meanwhile, some of the grand project assumptions are being peeled back. One report noted:
“Initial projections for The Line to house 9 million people by 2030 have been reduced to fewer than 300,000 people.”
Accountability, governance and execution
Much of the critique centres not simply on ambition, but on execution — and the lack of transparent accountability. The FT notes that NEOM’s revision stemmed in part from unrealistic engineering assumptions, governance lapses, and the fact that private investment and international partners have not followed at the pace originally envisaged.
The governance challenge is real. A 2020 study on “Managing Public Debt: the Case of Saudi Arabia” observed the sharp increase in debt and the need for stronger risk-management frameworks.
That risk may be manifesting: if returns don’t materialise or if oil revenue weakens — as it has in recent years — then reliance on large-scale borrowing becomes brittle.
Regional distraction, strategic cost
While the domestic transformation is faltering, Saudi Arabia’s regional posture under MBS has also been expensive. Military interventions, influence operations in Lebanon, Sudan and Yemen, political patronage and soft-power expenditures add to the total cost. Money spent abroad is money not spent on domestic competitiveness, infrastructure or households.
Although credible open-source evidence of “funding terrorists” in the broad sense you asked is harder to pin down (and requires care and nuance), what we do see is Saudi funds flowing into unstable theatres, allied militias and proxy engagements. For example, Sudan’s conflict has seen external backing of rival military commanders.
To the extent that these foreign engagements underwrite instability, the financial cost is also reputational and strategic — and the dividend is far from obvious.
AI data-centres, energy infrastructure, technology firms (Google, AMD, Uber, etc.), and huge defence contracts. The fact sheet highlights that this investment is touted as transformative for both nations — yet the timing is telling: Saudi Arabia is simultaneously borrowing heavily and facing domestic execution risks on its major projects, even as it pledges enormous outward capital flows. This paradox raises questions about priorities: if a country is promising massive investment abroad, but internally its flagship transformation is faltering and its debt burden rising, what does this say about the leadership’s strategic coherence and fiscal discipline?
• The reported US $600 billion in deals was described as the “largest set of commercial agreements on record” between the two countries.
• The agreement spans sectors including defence, infrastructure, technology and energy, with some contracts valued at over US $142 billion in defence sales alone.
This outward commitment underscores that Saudi Arabia under MBS is pursuing global prestige and alliances — but whether the domestic foundations (governance, finance, execution) are strong enough to support those ambitions remains deeply uncertain.
The optics vs. the reality
Imagine: hundreds of billions committed to futuristic desert cities (NEOM, “The Line”), ski resorts, luxury islands, AI-hubs and the like — even as much of the domestic economy remains tied to oil; as borrowing rises; and as foreign policy engagements absorb capital.
According to one report:
“The country’s total debt now stands at $354 billion, or about 30 percent of its GDP. … A key reason behind the retrenchment is the kingdom’s deteriorating fiscal health.”
And:
“Saudi Arabia Turns to Debt Markets for Vision 2030 Financing … the kingdom’s total debt stood at some $308.7 billion at the end of September.”
Meanwhile, some of the grand project assumptions are being peeled back. One report noted:
“Initial projections for The Line to house 9 million people by 2030 have been reduced to fewer than 300,000 people.”
Accountability, governance and execution
Much of the critique centres not simply on ambition, but on execution — and the lack of transparent accountability. The FT notes that NEOM’s revision stemmed in part from unrealistic engineering assumptions, governance lapses, and the fact that private investment and international partners have not followed at the pace originally envisaged.
The governance challenge is real. A 2020 study on “Managing Public Debt: the Case of Saudi Arabia” observed the sharp increase in debt and the need for stronger risk-management frameworks.
That risk may be manifesting: if returns don’t materialise or if oil revenue weakens — as it has in recent years — then reliance on large-scale borrowing becomes brittle.
Regional distraction, strategic cost
While the domestic transformation is faltering, Saudi Arabia’s regional posture under MBS has also been expensive. Military interventions, influence operations in Lebanon, Sudan and Yemen, political patronage and soft-power expenditures add to the total cost. Money spent abroad is money not spent on domestic competitiveness, infrastructure or households.
Although credible open-source evidence of “funding terrorists” in the broad sense you asked is harder to pin down (and requires care and nuance), what we do see is Saudi funds flowing into unstable theatres, allied militias and proxy engagements. For example, Sudan’s conflict has seen external backing of rival military commanders.
To the extent that these foreign engagements underwrite instability, the financial cost is also reputational and strategic — and the dividend is far from obvious.
👍3
The Observer
In May 2025, the White House released a fact-sheet stating that President Donald J. Trump secured a historic US $600 billion investment commitment from Saudi Arabia. That deal includes Saudi investment in U.S. AI data-centres, energy infrastructure, technology…
What happens next?
Saudi Arabia still retains enormous financial firepower: large sovereign reserves, the global role of Saudi Aramco, and a credit rating still well above many peers. But the trajectory is worrisome: more borrowing, more risk, more reliance on grand projects, and fewer clear pay-offs.
If the government is forced to delay or scale back major initiatives, or if oil prices slump, then taxpayers will ultimately feel the burden. The question for Saudi citizens — and for external investors — is whether this is just a recalibration or a structural failure of vision.
For MBS’s prestige to align with performance, Saudi Arabia must shift from spectacle to substance: meaningful returns, credible institutions, and realistic project scopes. Without that shift, the dream of NEOM becomes the cautionary tale of the kingdom’s transformation.
🔵 Link to the article in Arabic
🖋 @observer_5
Saudi Arabia still retains enormous financial firepower: large sovereign reserves, the global role of Saudi Aramco, and a credit rating still well above many peers. But the trajectory is worrisome: more borrowing, more risk, more reliance on grand projects, and fewer clear pay-offs.
If the government is forced to delay or scale back major initiatives, or if oil prices slump, then taxpayers will ultimately feel the burden. The question for Saudi citizens — and for external investors — is whether this is just a recalibration or a structural failure of vision.
For MBS’s prestige to align with performance, Saudi Arabia must shift from spectacle to substance: meaningful returns, credible institutions, and realistic project scopes. Without that shift, the dream of NEOM becomes the cautionary tale of the kingdom’s transformation.
Please open Telegram to view this post
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
👍5
Over the past two decades, experience has shown that electoral victory does not guarantee control over governance due to the sectarian quota system and the political balances imposed on Iraq following the U.S. occupation in 2003.
⸻
Washington presented this list as a “moderate national alternative” to the Shiite parties aligned with Iran and viewed it as an opportunity to restore political balance after Nouri al-Maliki’s first term.
However, Allawi failed to form the largest bloc in parliament due to post-election coalitions led by al-Maliki, supported by Shiite and Kurdish parties and indirectly backed by Tehran.
This event marked a turning point: Washington realized that ballot boxes alone do not guarantee its interests unless accompanied by post-election political engineering.
⸻
Reports from Reuters and The Washington Post at the time revealed that McGurk held repeated meetings with Sunni, Shiite, and Kurdish leaders to coordinate a pro-Western alliance.
The American objective was to prevent Iran-aligned forces from seizing power; yet, those efforts failed due to strong domestic resistance and the complexity of internal balances.
Adel Abdul Mahdi’s government was formed despite Washington’s reservations, after which the U.S. began exploiting public anger by supporting the October 2019 protest movement that ultimately brought down the government.
⸻
However, the majority project failed due to disputes over sovereign positions and the resistance of the Coordination Framework—a coalition of Shiite forces and resistance factions that view U.S. influence as a threat to Iraq’s sovereignty.
The Sadrists withdrew from parliament, leaving the stage for the Coordination Framework to form the current government. Observers noted that this withdrawal weakened Washington’s undeclared project to reorganize the political blocs in line with its regional interests.
⸻
In August 2022, Sadrist supporters stormed the Green Zone — home to the parliament and government buildings — with implicit support from then-Prime Minister Mustafa al-Kadhimi, who was accused by opponents of closeness to Washington.
From a local Iraqi perspective, the storming was not a coup against the state but rather an attempt to restore balance within the political process and reject monopolization of power.
The Popular Mobilization Forces, as an official arm of the Iraqi state, intervened to protect government institutions and contain the crisis.
In the aftermath, Muqtada al-Sadr announced his withdrawal from politics, maintaining his symbolic role as an external voice of opposition.
Please open Telegram to view this post
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
👍5
The Observer
Washington seeks to capitalize on this regional momentum to secure a new foothold in Baghdad by influencing electoral outcomes and post-election alliances, using economic, diplomatic, and media tools to pressure nationalist forces.
The U.S. goal is clear: to weaken parties with strategic ties to Iran and to ensure Iraq remains within the American sphere of control — even at the expense of the country’s unity and sovereign independence.
⸻
Post-election alliances are often built upon regional and international understandings rather than reflecting the voters’ true will.
Thus, understanding the Iraqi landscape requires an internal reading rooted in the people’s suffering and their rejection of foreign dependency, rather than through a Western lens that reduces Iraq to a mere “sphere of influence.”
While Washington frames it as a “visit to support the democratic process,” many observers see it as an undeclared attempt to redraw Iraq’s political balance or steer upcoming alliances in a way that preserves U.S. dominance within Iraqi institutions.
However, the timing of his movements—immediately before the elections—raises questions about whether his visit carries implicit pressure or veiled promises to specific candidates, or if it is a preemptive move to prevent the rise of anti-U.S. or pro-Resistance political forces.
Is Savaya seeking to back certain political figures? Or is he preparing the ground to impose economic and security conditions after the results are announced?
Whatever the answer, the timing alone exposes legitimate doubts about American intentions and reaffirms that Washington’s concept of “democracy” often becomes a tool to shape nations’ choices to suit its own interests.
Please open Telegram to view this post
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
👍5
The Observer
This frustration is clearly reflected in the declining voter turnout, as data indicates that nearly one-third of eligible voters have not registered with the Independent High Electoral Commission — a clear expression of lost confidence in the political process.
Safeguarding the country’s territorial unity, protecting national wealth, and ensuring access to international waters are existential matters that must not be offered up as concessions to short-term economic demands or partisan rivalries.
The looming water crisis is a striking example of a sovereign challenge that demands a unified national stance — not submission to foreign dictates or the blackmail of regional and international powers.
Please open Telegram to view this post
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
👍5
The world can no longer stay silent.
What is happening today in southern Lebanon is not just another border skirmish, nor a “security operation” as Israeli officials cynically claim — it is an active, illegal annexation. The Israeli Defense Forces (IDF), backed by extremist settler organizations and private military contractors, are redrawing Lebanon’s borders with concrete, bulldozers, and blood.
Near the village of Jal al-Dier, Israeli bulldozers roar day and night, carving out a massive fortified wall that snakes deep into Lebanese land. This is not merely a fence — it is a monument of colonial theft, a structure meant to erase Lebanon’s sovereignty under the guise of “security.” Behind this monstrous barrier lies another inner wall and layers of cement and soil fortifications meticulously engineered over the years to permanently seize Lebanese territory.
And here lies the scandal: this isn’t the work of the Israeli military alone. The construction is being carried out by Israeli settler companies — private civilian contractors funded and supported by far-right extremist groups. Among them is the notorious “Uri Tzafon Movement”, founded in March 2024, whose open mission is to settle southern Lebanon as “biblical land.” Since mid-2024, Uri Tzafon has been actively building and selling properties on Lebanese soil, openly violating international borders as the world looks away.
One of the key contractors in this criminal enterprise is Bardarian Brothers, a company long linked to Israeli Ministry of Defense contracts. According to WhoProfits (2018), this firm has profited for years from constructing apartheid walls, military infrastructure, and illegal settlement expansions. In 2024 and 2025, Bardarian Brothers and similar companies expanded their operations into southern Lebanon — this time to entrench an occupation that has no legal, moral, or historical justification.
But the invasion does not stop with bulldozers. It has taken on a religious and ideological face, reminiscent of the darkest colonial crusades. In March 2025, hundreds of Hasidic Jews were escorted by IDF soldiers deep into southern Lebanon to pray at what they called “a rabbi’s shrine.” The event was not a religious pilgrimage — it was a political declaration. Loud prayers proclaimed the land as “inherently Israeli,” under the watchful eyes of soldiers carrying rifles. This grotesque fusion of faith and occupation exposes the religious extremism driving the annexationist project.
These acts represent a flagrant violation of international law, particularly UN Security Council Resolution 1701, adopted on August 11, 2006, which explicitly prohibits any Israeli military presence or expansion in southern Lebanon. Even UNIFIL and multiple international observers have condemned Israel’s recent construction, describing it as a direct breach of Resolution 1701 and a threat to regional stability.
And yet, the crime deepens.
In a shocking development, Israeli real estate agencies have begun advertising and selling land parcels in southern Lebanon and Gaza — online, in plain sight. Reports by Roya News (2024) and BBC (2025) reveal how Israeli extremists and speculators are marketing occupied land as “new investment opportunities,” turning stolen soil into profit. This economic normalization of annexation is as dangerous as the walls themselves.
Israel is not merely violating Lebanon’s sovereignty; it is destroying the very foundations of international order. Every wall built, every prayer staged under military escort, every land sale signed is a blow to the global legal system meant to prevent such aggression.
Let us be clear:
This is not a security buffer.
This is not a border adjustment.
This is a crime — the deliberate, systematic annexation of another nation’s territory, enforced by the military, blessed by extremist rabbis, and financed by private companies complicit in occupation.
Please open Telegram to view this post
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
😱5
The Observer
The IDF’s actions in southern Lebanon — from Jal al-Dier to the border hills — mirror Israel’s colonial blueprint from the West Bank to Gaza: build walls, plant settlers, claim divine right, and wait for the world’s silence.
But silence is complicity.
Human rights organizations, international courts, and every voice that still believes in justice must act — now. The International Criminal Court must open immediate investigations into Israel’s war crimes and illegal annexation efforts. The United Nations must enforce Resolution 1701 and sanction Israeli companies involved in construction on Lebanese land.
Lebanon’s sovereignty is not negotiable.
Its borders are not for sale.
And its people will not disappear behind walls built by occupiers and extremists.
The annexation of southern Lebanon is not only a Lebanese tragedy — it is a global moral test. If the world fails to stop Israel’s colonial advance today, it will have no authority to speak of human rights, peace, or law tomorrow
🔵 Link to the article in Arabic
🖋 @observer_5
But silence is complicity.
Human rights organizations, international courts, and every voice that still believes in justice must act — now. The International Criminal Court must open immediate investigations into Israel’s war crimes and illegal annexation efforts. The United Nations must enforce Resolution 1701 and sanction Israeli companies involved in construction on Lebanese land.
Lebanon’s sovereignty is not negotiable.
Its borders are not for sale.
And its people will not disappear behind walls built by occupiers and extremists.
The annexation of southern Lebanon is not only a Lebanese tragedy — it is a global moral test. If the world fails to stop Israel’s colonial advance today, it will have no authority to speak of human rights, peace, or law tomorrow
Please open Telegram to view this post
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
😱5