“Pure falsehood with no basis whatsoever.”
He noted that U.S. policies produce nothing but wars, destruction, and support for the Zionist entity, adding that Washington is not a party worthy of communication or trust.
“The Americans and the Zionists returned empty-handed, achieving none of their objectives.”
He explained that the Iranian people faced the events with remarkable national unity.
Please open Telegram to view this post
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
👍4❤1
The Israeli Defense Forces announced that Chief of Staff Eyal Zamir yesterday approved the combat plan for the year 2026, which has been distributed to all units.
According to the statement, the plan covers all missions, maneuvers, training, readiness, means, and required resources. It is also expected that reservists will perform around 60 days of service or readiness during the year, including task and preparation days.
The decision to adopt the 2026 combat schedule means the army is shifting from managing emergency crises to managing a strategic annual plan. It also indicates that Israel is preparing for a prolonged period of continuous readiness, not just for a temporary war.
Please open Telegram to view this post
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
🤬5
This media is not supported in your browser
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
The Israeli army publishes footage of air force strikes targeting resistance fighters in Beit Jinn, in the Damascus countryside.
Beit Jinn Breaks the Silence of the Southern Front: The First Direct Clash with Israel Near the Golan in Decades
At dawn today, the village of Beit Jinn in southern Syria witnessed fierce clashes between an Israeli special forces unit and local gunmen, in an operation that Israel said was aimed at arresting wanted members of the “Islamic Group.”
According to the Israeli account, 13 soldiers were wounded during the ambush, including 3 in serious condition, after a force from the 55th Paratroopers Brigade came under heavy fire while exiting one of the houses. The troops were forced to abandon a Hummer armored vehicle, which was later bombed by the Israeli air force after being evacuated.
Channel 12 in Hebrew reported that the operation had been “prepared for weeks,” and that Israeli aircraft were unable to intervene due to the proximity of the clashes on the ground.
On the Syrian side, local sources reported 9 martyrs so far, with a family trapped under the rubble as a result of Israeli airstrikes on the area.
Israeli sites describe the operation as “successful,” while Syrian sources consider that the Israeli army suffered a “field setback” deep inside Syrian territory, where the forces penetrated 11 kilometers.
The incident raises tensions in southern Syria and marks the first direct confrontation in decades in an area long considered “quiet,” opening the door to the emergence of a new front against Israel in the Golan.
👍4
Media is too big
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
Syria… When the Land Refuses to Submit Once Again
For a full century, Syria has known exactly what it means for a foreign occupier to set foot on its soil. When Yusuf al-Azma confronted the French at Maysalun, he wasn’t defending the borders of a state as much as he was protecting the dignity of Syrians. The Battle of Maysalun did not triumph militarily, but it was the first clear declaration that this people — no matter how defeated, divided, or starved — will not allow a stranger to lay his hand on their land. From yesterday’s Frenchmen, to today’s Israelis, and through every intrusive militia in between… Syrian soil has refused to become a prize.
And today, after years of fragmentation, successive occupations, and the rise of new butchers like al-Joulani and those like him, Syria repeats the same message: the land is not for sale. And the people — no matter how silent — do not die from within.
What happened in Beit Jinn? And why does it matter?
An Israeli force, heavily armed, stormed the occupied village of Beit Jinn to carry out a kidnapping operation targeting two brothers from the town. The occupation forces assumed that the “new Syria” — torn, weakened, ruled by competing militias — would swallow the humiliation.
But the people of the town did what no one expected:
They opened fire.
They did not wait for a decision from Joulani’s government.
They no longer asked whether there was a “state” or “institutions.”
They acted in a manner befitting a land that knows the meaning of occupation.
Six Israeli soldiers and officers were injured, three of them critically. The invading Humvee burned inside the town itself — a scene Syria had not witnessed in years.
The occupation’s response was madness: indiscriminate shelling, a massacre, twelve martyrs — among them a young man preparing to walk into his wedding hall.
But one thing became clear:
Syria — despite the ruin — has not surrendered.
The significance of this event: beyond the fire and smoke
This is not a mere local clash.
It is the first armed act of resistance from inside occupied Syrian territory since Israel seized large parts of the south following the collapse of the Syrian state.
More importantly:
The people acted outside the “Joulani system,” outside factional calculations, and outside the imposed balance of power on the ground.
This means that the occupation — with all its strength — has failed to turn Syrians into a people stripped of will.
It signals that nations, not militias, determine the future of occupation.
What does this mean for Joulani’s government?
Joulani’s government, built essentially on the bargain of “security in exchange for authority,” now faces its worst nightmare:
a resistance created by ordinary people, not armed factions.
This event threatens Joulani’s existence on three levels:
1. The collapse of the illusion of control
If the people of a small village can fire on an occupying force, it means Joulani’s authority is superficial — he does not truly control the land he claims to rule.
2. The fall of the “stability” narrative
Joulani built his legitimacy on being the “guardian of the borders.”
But what remains of that legitimacy when Israeli units enter a Syrian village and conduct kidnappings without any official response?
3. A direct threat to his regional and international ties
Joulani has tried to present himself as a tacit ally to the West against what he calls “terrorism.”
But any popular movement against occupation exposes him as nothing more than a tool — not a statesman.
In short: Beit Jinn is a political earthquake for Joulani.
What does it mean for the Axis of Resistance?
After the ceasefire agreement in Lebanon and Syria’s fall to occupation and extremist factions, it seemed as if the Axis of Resistance was living its final moments.
But what happened in Beit Jinn reveals three new truths:
1. Resistance can rise from the ashes
It does not need to be an institution, a party, or an army.
It can begin with a village… and expand.
For a full century, Syria has known exactly what it means for a foreign occupier to set foot on its soil. When Yusuf al-Azma confronted the French at Maysalun, he wasn’t defending the borders of a state as much as he was protecting the dignity of Syrians. The Battle of Maysalun did not triumph militarily, but it was the first clear declaration that this people — no matter how defeated, divided, or starved — will not allow a stranger to lay his hand on their land. From yesterday’s Frenchmen, to today’s Israelis, and through every intrusive militia in between… Syrian soil has refused to become a prize.
And today, after years of fragmentation, successive occupations, and the rise of new butchers like al-Joulani and those like him, Syria repeats the same message: the land is not for sale. And the people — no matter how silent — do not die from within.
What happened in Beit Jinn? And why does it matter?
An Israeli force, heavily armed, stormed the occupied village of Beit Jinn to carry out a kidnapping operation targeting two brothers from the town. The occupation forces assumed that the “new Syria” — torn, weakened, ruled by competing militias — would swallow the humiliation.
But the people of the town did what no one expected:
They opened fire.
They did not wait for a decision from Joulani’s government.
They no longer asked whether there was a “state” or “institutions.”
They acted in a manner befitting a land that knows the meaning of occupation.
Six Israeli soldiers and officers were injured, three of them critically. The invading Humvee burned inside the town itself — a scene Syria had not witnessed in years.
The occupation’s response was madness: indiscriminate shelling, a massacre, twelve martyrs — among them a young man preparing to walk into his wedding hall.
But one thing became clear:
Syria — despite the ruin — has not surrendered.
The significance of this event: beyond the fire and smoke
This is not a mere local clash.
It is the first armed act of resistance from inside occupied Syrian territory since Israel seized large parts of the south following the collapse of the Syrian state.
More importantly:
The people acted outside the “Joulani system,” outside factional calculations, and outside the imposed balance of power on the ground.
This means that the occupation — with all its strength — has failed to turn Syrians into a people stripped of will.
It signals that nations, not militias, determine the future of occupation.
What does this mean for Joulani’s government?
Joulani’s government, built essentially on the bargain of “security in exchange for authority,” now faces its worst nightmare:
a resistance created by ordinary people, not armed factions.
This event threatens Joulani’s existence on three levels:
1. The collapse of the illusion of control
If the people of a small village can fire on an occupying force, it means Joulani’s authority is superficial — he does not truly control the land he claims to rule.
2. The fall of the “stability” narrative
Joulani built his legitimacy on being the “guardian of the borders.”
But what remains of that legitimacy when Israeli units enter a Syrian village and conduct kidnappings without any official response?
3. A direct threat to his regional and international ties
Joulani has tried to present himself as a tacit ally to the West against what he calls “terrorism.”
But any popular movement against occupation exposes him as nothing more than a tool — not a statesman.
In short: Beit Jinn is a political earthquake for Joulani.
What does it mean for the Axis of Resistance?
After the ceasefire agreement in Lebanon and Syria’s fall to occupation and extremist factions, it seemed as if the Axis of Resistance was living its final moments.
But what happened in Beit Jinn reveals three new truths:
1. Resistance can rise from the ashes
It does not need to be an institution, a party, or an army.
It can begin with a village… and expand.
👍2
The Observer
Syria… When the Land Refuses to Submit Once Again For a full century, Syria has known exactly what it means for a foreign occupier to set foot on its soil. When Yusuf al-Azma confronted the French at Maysalun, he wasn’t defending the borders of a state as…
2. Syria has not become a neutralized arena
Israel assumed the battle was over, that Syrians were too consumed by hunger and division.
But the confrontation in Beit Jinn shows that the occupation has not “won” yet.
3. Yemen was the first to recognize the signal
The Houthis’ statement was not diplomatic courtesy.
It was a message to the region:
“If a spark is born inside Syria, there will be hands ready to carry it.”
This event reopens the file of Syrian resistance — a file many thought permanently closed.
How did the region react?
Three types of responses emerged:
1. The Axis of Resistance (Yemen, Iraq, Iran before its recent political collapse)
They saw in the event a “return of the spirit” to Syria.
Ansar Allah’s statement was the clearest: support, praise, and an affirmation that resistance never dies.
2. The Arab regimes that normalized relations with Israel
They remained silent, fearing any spark that might spread to their own streets.
3. Jordan and the Gulf
Deep anxiety about a potential “spread of the resistance contagion” to their borders, especially amid growing public anger toward normalization.
How did the world react?
The West treated the incident as a “security disturbance,” not an act of resistance.
Israeli media was shocked that a small village could injure six trained soldiers.
International organizations repeated the usual line about the “need for restraint” — a phrase that has become a bitter joke in our region.
Behind the scenes, however, there is real fear that southern Syria could turn into a second Gaza:
shantytowns, siege, popular resistance, and a permanent embarrassment for the occupation.
Do we foresee a new wave of resistance in Syria?
Yes — in fact, it is highly likely.
Not because military forces are ready; they are broken.
But because occupation, historically, breeds its own resistance.
Beit Jinn was the first spark.
And the occupation knows that small sparks are the ones that burn empires.
Syria’s resistance against the French was born in small villages.
And today, resistance to the Israeli occupation may be born in the same way:
a village, a family, a rifle, a cry…
and then an entire geography begins to change.
Conclusion
Yes… Syria is living the darkest moments in its history.
Yes… the state has collapsed.
Yes… Hezbollah is in a stage of recovery.
And yes… Joulani, the killer of yesterday, now sits in the seat of power.
But one thing has not fallen:
Syrians’ refusal of the foreigner.
Beit Jinn is not a military battle.
It is a declaration…
that Syria — no matter how torn apart — will never be an easy trophy for anyone who imagines himself above history.
🔵 Link to the article in Arabic
🖋 @observer_5
Israel assumed the battle was over, that Syrians were too consumed by hunger and division.
But the confrontation in Beit Jinn shows that the occupation has not “won” yet.
3. Yemen was the first to recognize the signal
The Houthis’ statement was not diplomatic courtesy.
It was a message to the region:
“If a spark is born inside Syria, there will be hands ready to carry it.”
This event reopens the file of Syrian resistance — a file many thought permanently closed.
How did the region react?
Three types of responses emerged:
1. The Axis of Resistance (Yemen, Iraq, Iran before its recent political collapse)
They saw in the event a “return of the spirit” to Syria.
Ansar Allah’s statement was the clearest: support, praise, and an affirmation that resistance never dies.
2. The Arab regimes that normalized relations with Israel
They remained silent, fearing any spark that might spread to their own streets.
3. Jordan and the Gulf
Deep anxiety about a potential “spread of the resistance contagion” to their borders, especially amid growing public anger toward normalization.
How did the world react?
The West treated the incident as a “security disturbance,” not an act of resistance.
Israeli media was shocked that a small village could injure six trained soldiers.
International organizations repeated the usual line about the “need for restraint” — a phrase that has become a bitter joke in our region.
Behind the scenes, however, there is real fear that southern Syria could turn into a second Gaza:
shantytowns, siege, popular resistance, and a permanent embarrassment for the occupation.
Do we foresee a new wave of resistance in Syria?
Yes — in fact, it is highly likely.
Not because military forces are ready; they are broken.
But because occupation, historically, breeds its own resistance.
Beit Jinn was the first spark.
And the occupation knows that small sparks are the ones that burn empires.
Syria’s resistance against the French was born in small villages.
And today, resistance to the Israeli occupation may be born in the same way:
a village, a family, a rifle, a cry…
and then an entire geography begins to change.
Conclusion
Yes… Syria is living the darkest moments in its history.
Yes… the state has collapsed.
Yes… Hezbollah is in a stage of recovery.
And yes… Joulani, the killer of yesterday, now sits in the seat of power.
But one thing has not fallen:
Syrians’ refusal of the foreigner.
Beit Jinn is not a military battle.
It is a declaration…
that Syria — no matter how torn apart — will never be an easy trophy for anyone who imagines himself above history.
Please open Telegram to view this post
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
👍4
Please open Telegram to view this post
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
👍5
U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Michael Rigas arrived in Baghdad as part of an official tour that includes Turkey, Iraq, and Israel. The visit comes at a sensitive time, marked by direct and explicit American involvement in Iraqi affairs, with public messages and warnings to factions and political forces—similar to Safaya’s threats two days ago—underscoring Washington’s intent to impose its will on the formation of the Iraqi government and the balance of internal influence.
This tour follows rising security tensions along the Iraqi‑Iranian border and in Kurdistan, including a rocket strike on the Kor Mor gas field in the region, which caused a fire and suspended gas production. This situation highlights that Washington views Iraq as a vital arena for regional power balances, closely monitoring government formation and factional influence, without venturing into predictions about future steps or possible escalation.
Please open Telegram to view this post
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
👍4🤬1
“The Vatican’s Arabic page deleted the photos of Imam Mahdi Scouts who took part in welcoming the Pope in Beirut after they had been posted on their page.”“The Vatican’s Arabic page deleted the photos of Imam Mahdi Scouts who took part in welcoming the Pope in Beirut after they had been posted on their page.”
His Holiness Pope Leon XIV visits the Christians of Lebanon, but not Lebanon itself—despite the welcome extended by all sects, officials, and Lebanese parties, and their participation in receiving him. The government imposed a compulsory two‑day shutdown without justification, especially since the Pope’s visit is limited to geographically central Christian areas.
The Pope “Leo” excluded the South from his itinerary, even though it contains landmarks of Jesus (peace be upon him), such as Qana, the site of his first miracle according to the Gospel of John (“On the third day there was a wedding in Cana of Galilee, and the mother of Jesus was there”), Our Lady of Mantara, where the Virgin Mary awaited him, and the first great church dedicated to the Virgin, historically established in 314. Alongside other sacred sites in Tyre and beyond, these places are unparalleled in Lebanon. This exclusion shows that the Pope’s visit is a political‑pastoral one, not a religious pilgrimage to bless the traces of Christ.
The Pope visits Lebanon to bid farewell to the last Christians of the East, after Israel displaced Christians from Palestine, restricted them, and occupied their holy sites—the most sacred centers of Christianity worldwide.
He comes to Lebanon to bid farewell to what remains of its Christians, considered the last Christians of the East, after extremist groups displaced Christians from Iraq and Syria. Patriarch al‑Rai himself spoke of the worsening Christian migration in Syria. And before Israel displaces them again—while implementing its “Greater Israel” project, which recognizes neither Christianity nor Islam—the Pope’s visit is framed as a farewell.
The Pope visits Lebanon to call for its accession to the Abraham Accords, whether through direct invitation or by promoting “peace” according to Israeli and American conditions imposed by Trump through force and by Israel through fire—aimed at uprooting and distorting every religious creed opposed to the Judaic‑Talmudic doctrine.
The Israeli‑American concept of peace means unconditional surrender: abandoning religion, culture, geography, and wealth, and adopting the new “Abrahamic faith” shaped by Zionism‑Freemasonry. This stage must be preceded by the destruction of Christianity. Western Christianity has already faced this—blessing same‑sex marriage, changing many church laws, the Gospel, and Christ’s teachings—until it barely resembles his message. Now the phase continues to eradicate Eastern Christianity, both its creed and its followers, because it represents Christianity’s authentic roots. It must be uprooted from its geography either through displacement or doctrinal distortion. This aligns with the goals of “Greater Israel,” which seeks to eliminate Christianity, considered the first enemy of Judaic‑Talmudism, before Islam becomes the second and main enemy.
The Pope’s refusal to visit South Lebanon and its Christian holy sites aims to avoid reinforcing Lebanese sovereignty over the South. Qana lies south of the Litani River, which Israel seeks to annex or strip from Lebanon’s sovereignty. Today, decisions regarding everything south of the Litani—peace or war, reconstruction or agriculture, even restoring cemeteries, mosques, and husayniyyas—are in Israel’s hands, not Lebanon’s. International forces and the Lebanese army act according to the “Mechanism Committee” dictated by Israel and America. It seems the Lebanese government and the Vatican could not obtain “Israeli permission” for the Pope to visit the South, after France and Lebanon failed to secure Israeli approval to halt attacks during his visit.
Please open Telegram to view this post
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
The Observer
“The Vatican’s Arabic page deleted the photos of Imam Mahdi Scouts who took part in welcoming the Pope in Beirut after they had been posted on their page.”“The Vatican’s Arabic page deleted the photos of Imam Mahdi Scouts who took part in welcoming the Pope…
Lebanon gained nothing from the Pope’s visit except appearances and folklore, without political benefit. He did not demand Israel’s withdrawal from Lebanon or an end to the war, nor did he offer anything to lift the blockade.
Instead, the visit brought a negative image—portraying Lebanon as stable and peaceful, masking Israel’s savagery against a Lebanese community that raised welcoming flags for the Pope amid the ruins of their destroyed buildings in the southern suburbs, under the rain. The Pope did not return their greeting, but rather depicted the area as unsafe, leaving his armored car only at its eastern boundary.
We welcome the Pope as a guest, and we had hoped he would aid us in expelling the occupiers from our land, just as Jesus (peace be upon him) expelled them from the Temple.
O “His Holiness the Pope” and his followers in Lebanon… if the resistance is defeated, not a single Christian will remain in the East!
Dr. Nassib Hoteit – 1/12/2025
🔵 Link to the article in Arabic
🖋 @observer_5
Instead, the visit brought a negative image—portraying Lebanon as stable and peaceful, masking Israel’s savagery against a Lebanese community that raised welcoming flags for the Pope amid the ruins of their destroyed buildings in the southern suburbs, under the rain. The Pope did not return their greeting, but rather depicted the area as unsafe, leaving his armored car only at its eastern boundary.
We welcome the Pope as a guest, and we had hoped he would aid us in expelling the occupiers from our land, just as Jesus (peace be upon him) expelled them from the Temple.
O “His Holiness the Pope” and his followers in Lebanon… if the resistance is defeated, not a single Christian will remain in the East!
Dr. Nassib Hoteit – 1/12/2025
Please open Telegram to view this post
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
👍5
Media is too big
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
Please open Telegram to view this post
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
👍5
What makes this development significant is the role of Saudi media — through Al-Hadath — as a platform to promote this threatening discourse, giving the message a psychological and political dimension. Instead of remaining a mere diplomatic warning, the message represents an attempt to reshape the balance of power and deterrence within Iraq and Lebanon, portraying the participation of factions as crossing a “red line” that could expose them to direct attacks.
Therefore, these messages cannot be viewed simply as news coverage: Saudi media has become part of the “information battlefield” — promoting threats that are backed militarily, and contributing to the shaping of a new equation in the regional conflict.
Please open Telegram to view this post
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
🤬3😱1
Trapped in the Maze: Gaza’s Underground War and the Fate of the Missing
The air is thick with dust and the metallic smell of diesel. A faint tremor shakes the clay walls—muted echoes of the bombardment raging above. In the darkness, lit only by a salvaged lamp, a young fighter coughs, his lungs strained after moving through these tunnels with purpose. Beside him, an elderly woman clutches a small, dirty photo of her grandson, displaced from the surface and now confined to this underground artery. They are not allies, but prisoners of war together beneath the earth. Water drips from the ceiling, marking the passage of time—a slow, painful clock measuring their dwindling hope and uncertain future.
This is the hidden theater of Gaza’s war (2023–2025):
A vast underground labyrinth where both freedom fighters and civilians are trapped—not only by military siege, but by the collapse of the very infrastructure meant to protect or sustain them.
Our investigation delves into the origins of the “Gaza Metro,” the fate of those now lost within it, and the urgent legal and humanitarian risks of their captivity.
Quick Facts: The Hidden War Below
• Tunnel network estimates: Reports suggest 350–450 miles of tunnels with more than 5,700 shafts.
• Historical origins: Tunnels linking Gaza and Egypt date back to the early 1980s, primarily for smuggling.
• Major incident: The August–September 2025 assault on Gaza City saw deep incursions into the densest tunnel networks.
• Civilian conditions: By July 2025, over 320,000 children under five in Gaza faced acute malnutrition. Underground conditions are presumed far worse.
• IHL principle: The principle of distinction requires attacks to target only military objectives, not civilians or civilian objects.
• ICRC demand: The International Committee of the Red Cross repeatedly called for unconditional release of hostages and access to all detainees.
Origins and Purpose of the Tunnel Networks
The Gaza tunnel system—often called the “Gaza Metro” by Israeli sources—is not a single structure but an evolving mix of utilitarian and military engineering. Its roots lie in the early 1980s, after Rafah was split by the Philadelphi Route. Local families built sophisticated cross-border tunnels to smuggle goods and bypass Israeli blockades.
After Hamas’s rise in the early 2000s, especially post-2007, the network expanded dramatically and was repurposed:
• Military tunnels: Dug 18–25 meters deep, designed for weapons storage, command centers, training, and covert movement of Hamas fighters and other factions. Equipped with electricity, ventilation, and communications.
• Civilian/utilitarian tunnels: Smaller, shallower tunnels used by civilians for temporary shelter or limited access to goods, especially along the Egyptian border. However, military shafts were often placed inside civilian sites—homes, mosques, schools—complicating IHL analysis and civilian protection.
It is publicly documented that Hamas’s military wing built massive underground networks to counter Israeli air superiority and enable clandestine operations.
Role in the Gaza War (2023–2025)
The tunnels became central to both Hamas’s strategy and the Israeli Defense Forces’ (IDF) response.
• Military utility: The network gave Hamas “road-like capabilities” for maneuvering, supporting both offensive raids and defensive withdrawals. Concealed movement was critical for ambushes against Israeli forces.
• Civilian refuge: With over 90% of Gaza’s population displaced and infrastructure systematically destroyed, tunnels may have been the only immediate refuge for civilians fleeing bombardment—though proximity to military sites exposed them to grave danger.
Timeline of Key Incidents
• 7 October 2023: Hamas’s initial attack on Israel used tunnels leading into Israeli communities, enabling infiltration and hostage-taking.
• Oct–Nov 2023: IDF’s first ground invasion focused on locating and destroying tunnel infrastructure.
The air is thick with dust and the metallic smell of diesel. A faint tremor shakes the clay walls—muted echoes of the bombardment raging above. In the darkness, lit only by a salvaged lamp, a young fighter coughs, his lungs strained after moving through these tunnels with purpose. Beside him, an elderly woman clutches a small, dirty photo of her grandson, displaced from the surface and now confined to this underground artery. They are not allies, but prisoners of war together beneath the earth. Water drips from the ceiling, marking the passage of time—a slow, painful clock measuring their dwindling hope and uncertain future.
This is the hidden theater of Gaza’s war (2023–2025):
A vast underground labyrinth where both freedom fighters and civilians are trapped—not only by military siege, but by the collapse of the very infrastructure meant to protect or sustain them.
Our investigation delves into the origins of the “Gaza Metro,” the fate of those now lost within it, and the urgent legal and humanitarian risks of their captivity.
Quick Facts: The Hidden War Below
• Tunnel network estimates: Reports suggest 350–450 miles of tunnels with more than 5,700 shafts.
• Historical origins: Tunnels linking Gaza and Egypt date back to the early 1980s, primarily for smuggling.
• Major incident: The August–September 2025 assault on Gaza City saw deep incursions into the densest tunnel networks.
• Civilian conditions: By July 2025, over 320,000 children under five in Gaza faced acute malnutrition. Underground conditions are presumed far worse.
• IHL principle: The principle of distinction requires attacks to target only military objectives, not civilians or civilian objects.
• ICRC demand: The International Committee of the Red Cross repeatedly called for unconditional release of hostages and access to all detainees.
Origins and Purpose of the Tunnel Networks
The Gaza tunnel system—often called the “Gaza Metro” by Israeli sources—is not a single structure but an evolving mix of utilitarian and military engineering. Its roots lie in the early 1980s, after Rafah was split by the Philadelphi Route. Local families built sophisticated cross-border tunnels to smuggle goods and bypass Israeli blockades.
After Hamas’s rise in the early 2000s, especially post-2007, the network expanded dramatically and was repurposed:
• Military tunnels: Dug 18–25 meters deep, designed for weapons storage, command centers, training, and covert movement of Hamas fighters and other factions. Equipped with electricity, ventilation, and communications.
• Civilian/utilitarian tunnels: Smaller, shallower tunnels used by civilians for temporary shelter or limited access to goods, especially along the Egyptian border. However, military shafts were often placed inside civilian sites—homes, mosques, schools—complicating IHL analysis and civilian protection.
It is publicly documented that Hamas’s military wing built massive underground networks to counter Israeli air superiority and enable clandestine operations.
Role in the Gaza War (2023–2025)
The tunnels became central to both Hamas’s strategy and the Israeli Defense Forces’ (IDF) response.
• Military utility: The network gave Hamas “road-like capabilities” for maneuvering, supporting both offensive raids and defensive withdrawals. Concealed movement was critical for ambushes against Israeli forces.
• Civilian refuge: With over 90% of Gaza’s population displaced and infrastructure systematically destroyed, tunnels may have been the only immediate refuge for civilians fleeing bombardment—though proximity to military sites exposed them to grave danger.
Timeline of Key Incidents
• 7 October 2023: Hamas’s initial attack on Israel used tunnels leading into Israeli communities, enabling infiltration and hostage-taking.
• Oct–Nov 2023: IDF’s first ground invasion focused on locating and destroying tunnel infrastructure.
😢5
The Observer
Trapped in the Maze: Gaza’s Underground War and the Fate of the Missing The air is thick with dust and the metallic smell of diesel. A faint tremor shakes the clay walls—muted echoes of the bombardment raging above. In the darkness, lit only by a salvaged…
The IDF falsely claimed a major command center lay beneath al-Shifa Hospital.
• Aug–Sep 2025: Final-stage battles saw deep incursions into Gaza City’s most complex tunnel layers, shifting from clearing entrances to underground combat.
---
Current Situation of Those Trapped
Tunnels, built for limited military use, are unfit for long-term human habitation—especially after heavy combat.
• Physical conditions: Gaza’s humanitarian crisis already showed catastrophic shortages. By July 2025, 320,000 children under five faced acute malnutrition, and nine in ten families resorted to “extreme coping mechanisms” for food. Underground, isolation from even minimal aid worsens untreated wounds, dust-choked breathing, and near-total lack of clean water.
• Emotional state: Trauma and fear dominate civilians. Fighters remain resilient but still require food and medical support.
Possible Outcomes for Released Fighters
• Detention: Continued administrative/security detention without trial is common but must meet IHL standards.
• Trial: Fighters may face criminal charges under Israeli law. IHL requires fair trial standards, banning summary or in absentia punishment.
• Exchange/Reintegration: Releases often occur via prisoner swaps during ceasefires. Others may face long-term detention or, rarely, reintegration if conflict resolution frameworks emerge.
The core risk remains mistreatment, torture, or extrajudicial punishment—violations of both IHL and human rights law.
Human Rights Organizations’ Positions
• ICRC: Demands unconditional release of hostages, access to detainees, and humane treatment.
• HRW: Highlights forced displacement and aid denial, arguing these amount to crimes against humanity.
• UN agencies: Stress the “hollowing of humanity” and insist on unhindered humanitarian access.
Remedies: Humanitarian and Legal
• Humanitarian corridors: Neutral passageways must be negotiated to deliver medical aid, water, and food underground.
• Independent monitoring: ICRC and neutral bodies must gain immediate, unhindered access to all detention sites, including tunnels.
• Legal counsel: Captured fighters must be allowed legal representation to challenge detention and ensure fair trial standards.
Advocacy includes supporting trusted NGOs (MSF, UNRWA), letter campaigns to foreign ministries and UN bodies, and demanding strict adherence to Geneva Convention IV.
Analysis: Geopolitical and Ethical Stakes
The handling of Gaza’s tunnels and those inside carries profound geopolitical and moral weight.
Failure to uphold IHL—allowing inhumane conditions, torture, or summary punishment—sets a dangerous precedent undermining international law and justice in war. Such violations fuel regional instability, damage international standing, and serve as rallying cries for future conflict.
The ethical question is stark:
Does a fighter’s alleged crime justify collective, inhumane punishment or denial of medical aid?
IHL is clear: No.
Humane treatment is a non-reciprocal obligation, applying regardless of the adversary’s actions.
Conclusion
The war in the tunnels is an unseen tragedy testing the limits of humanity and the strength of international law.
Those trapped—fighters or civilians—are owed the same basic dignity and protections guaranteed by global conventions forged after past atrocities. Accountability must be pursued for all actions: both the tactical use of civilian infrastructure by fighters and the treatment of detainees by Israel.
The facts are clear:
Tunnels may have been built for war, but they must not become graves where legal obligations and human rights are buried forever.
🔵 Link to the article in Arabic
🖋 @observer_5
• Aug–Sep 2025: Final-stage battles saw deep incursions into Gaza City’s most complex tunnel layers, shifting from clearing entrances to underground combat.
---
Current Situation of Those Trapped
Tunnels, built for limited military use, are unfit for long-term human habitation—especially after heavy combat.
• Physical conditions: Gaza’s humanitarian crisis already showed catastrophic shortages. By July 2025, 320,000 children under five faced acute malnutrition, and nine in ten families resorted to “extreme coping mechanisms” for food. Underground, isolation from even minimal aid worsens untreated wounds, dust-choked breathing, and near-total lack of clean water.
• Emotional state: Trauma and fear dominate civilians. Fighters remain resilient but still require food and medical support.
Possible Outcomes for Released Fighters
• Detention: Continued administrative/security detention without trial is common but must meet IHL standards.
• Trial: Fighters may face criminal charges under Israeli law. IHL requires fair trial standards, banning summary or in absentia punishment.
• Exchange/Reintegration: Releases often occur via prisoner swaps during ceasefires. Others may face long-term detention or, rarely, reintegration if conflict resolution frameworks emerge.
The core risk remains mistreatment, torture, or extrajudicial punishment—violations of both IHL and human rights law.
Human Rights Organizations’ Positions
• ICRC: Demands unconditional release of hostages, access to detainees, and humane treatment.
• HRW: Highlights forced displacement and aid denial, arguing these amount to crimes against humanity.
• UN agencies: Stress the “hollowing of humanity” and insist on unhindered humanitarian access.
Remedies: Humanitarian and Legal
• Humanitarian corridors: Neutral passageways must be negotiated to deliver medical aid, water, and food underground.
• Independent monitoring: ICRC and neutral bodies must gain immediate, unhindered access to all detention sites, including tunnels.
• Legal counsel: Captured fighters must be allowed legal representation to challenge detention and ensure fair trial standards.
Advocacy includes supporting trusted NGOs (MSF, UNRWA), letter campaigns to foreign ministries and UN bodies, and demanding strict adherence to Geneva Convention IV.
Analysis: Geopolitical and Ethical Stakes
The handling of Gaza’s tunnels and those inside carries profound geopolitical and moral weight.
Failure to uphold IHL—allowing inhumane conditions, torture, or summary punishment—sets a dangerous precedent undermining international law and justice in war. Such violations fuel regional instability, damage international standing, and serve as rallying cries for future conflict.
The ethical question is stark:
Does a fighter’s alleged crime justify collective, inhumane punishment or denial of medical aid?
IHL is clear: No.
Humane treatment is a non-reciprocal obligation, applying regardless of the adversary’s actions.
Conclusion
The war in the tunnels is an unseen tragedy testing the limits of humanity and the strength of international law.
Those trapped—fighters or civilians—are owed the same basic dignity and protections guaranteed by global conventions forged after past atrocities. Accountability must be pursued for all actions: both the tactical use of civilian infrastructure by fighters and the treatment of detainees by Israel.
The facts are clear:
Tunnels may have been built for war, but they must not become graves where legal obligations and human rights are buried forever.
Please open Telegram to view this post
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
😢5
Corruption at the Helm: How Netanyahu’s Trial Exposes Israel’s Rot and Opens Doors for Resistance
Introduction
Benjamin Netanyahu—Israel’s longest-serving and most polarizing prime minister—is on trial for bribery, fraud, and breach of trust in three major corruption cases known as 1000, 2000, and 4000. These charges cut directly into the core of his political empire. He was indicted in 2019 while still in office, and ever since, the legal process has been repeatedly stalled under the pretext of “national security”—a tool he has weaponized amid ongoing wars in Gaza and confrontations with Lebanon and Syria.
This analysis clarifies the allegations, evaluates the likelihood of conviction, and examines the broader consequences. Inside Israel, the trial has weakened Netanyahu’s coalition and eroded public confidence. Regionally, it has pushed him toward reckless military escalation to distract from his legal peril and rally his base.
Viewed from the axis of resistance, Netanyahu’s trial does not reflect a healthy judicial system; rather, it reveals a state unable to correct its own corruption. His political survival increasingly depends on external interference—especially repeated interventions from Donald Trump—while every delay exposes deeper internal decay. Whether Netanyahu is convicted, pardoned, or simply protected by procedural stalling, the trial accelerates Israel’s political fragmentation and opens strategic opportunities for Palestinian, Lebanese, and regional resistance actors.
Why Is Netanyahu Being Taken to Court?
Netanyahu’s prosecution stems from three criminal cases filed by Attorney General Avichai Mandelblit in February 2020. It is the first time in Israel’s history that a sitting prime minister has faced criminal charges.
Case 1000 – Illicit Gifts
Netanyahu and his wife allegedly received over $200,000 worth of cigars, jewelry, and champagne from businessman Arnon Milchan and billionaire James Packer. In return, Netanyahu allegedly offered political favors, including assistance with visas and business matters.
Case 2000 – Media Manipulation
Netanyahu is accused of negotiating with Arnon Mozes, publisher of Yedioth Ahronoth, for favorable coverage in exchange for legislation that would weaken rival newspaper Israel Hayom.
Case 4000 – The Most Serious Charge: Bribery
This case alleges that Netanyahu granted regulatory benefits worth hundreds of millions of shekels to Shaul Elovitch, owner of Bezeq and the Walla news site. In return, Walla allegedly provided Netanyahu with consistently positive coverage. This case carries a potential prison sentence of up to 10 years.
Investigations began between 2016 and 2017, intensifying during Netanyahu’s 2019 election campaign. He attempted—and failed—to secure parliamentary immunity. The trial formally began in May 2020, but Netanyahu has repeatedly delayed proceedings, frequently citing “diplomatic” and “security” obligations.
One notable delay occurred in June 2025, following pressure from Donald Trump related to U.S.–Israeli strategic coordination.
Will He Be Convicted? Three Scenarios
Netanyahu is already indicted and on trial. The real question is whether the evidence—testimonies, recordings, and documented exchanges—will translate into a conviction.
1. Charges Dropped or Plea Deal – 30% probability
Netanyahu could pressure President Isaac Herzog for a pardon before the final verdict. Coalition partners like Smotrich and Ben-Gvir have already begun framing the charges as “fabrications.” A partial plea deal that removes the bribery charge is also possible.
2. De Facto Immunity Through Delay – 45% probability
This is Netanyahu’s favored strategy. Endless postponements—over 30 defense delays by mid-2025 alone—could push the trial past the 2026 elections or bury it under wartime emergencies. This method mirrors how Netanyahu has survived every political scandal over the past two decades.
3. Full Trial and Conviction – 25% probability
Introduction
Benjamin Netanyahu—Israel’s longest-serving and most polarizing prime minister—is on trial for bribery, fraud, and breach of trust in three major corruption cases known as 1000, 2000, and 4000. These charges cut directly into the core of his political empire. He was indicted in 2019 while still in office, and ever since, the legal process has been repeatedly stalled under the pretext of “national security”—a tool he has weaponized amid ongoing wars in Gaza and confrontations with Lebanon and Syria.
This analysis clarifies the allegations, evaluates the likelihood of conviction, and examines the broader consequences. Inside Israel, the trial has weakened Netanyahu’s coalition and eroded public confidence. Regionally, it has pushed him toward reckless military escalation to distract from his legal peril and rally his base.
Viewed from the axis of resistance, Netanyahu’s trial does not reflect a healthy judicial system; rather, it reveals a state unable to correct its own corruption. His political survival increasingly depends on external interference—especially repeated interventions from Donald Trump—while every delay exposes deeper internal decay. Whether Netanyahu is convicted, pardoned, or simply protected by procedural stalling, the trial accelerates Israel’s political fragmentation and opens strategic opportunities for Palestinian, Lebanese, and regional resistance actors.
Why Is Netanyahu Being Taken to Court?
Netanyahu’s prosecution stems from three criminal cases filed by Attorney General Avichai Mandelblit in February 2020. It is the first time in Israel’s history that a sitting prime minister has faced criminal charges.
Case 1000 – Illicit Gifts
Netanyahu and his wife allegedly received over $200,000 worth of cigars, jewelry, and champagne from businessman Arnon Milchan and billionaire James Packer. In return, Netanyahu allegedly offered political favors, including assistance with visas and business matters.
Case 2000 – Media Manipulation
Netanyahu is accused of negotiating with Arnon Mozes, publisher of Yedioth Ahronoth, for favorable coverage in exchange for legislation that would weaken rival newspaper Israel Hayom.
Case 4000 – The Most Serious Charge: Bribery
This case alleges that Netanyahu granted regulatory benefits worth hundreds of millions of shekels to Shaul Elovitch, owner of Bezeq and the Walla news site. In return, Walla allegedly provided Netanyahu with consistently positive coverage. This case carries a potential prison sentence of up to 10 years.
Investigations began between 2016 and 2017, intensifying during Netanyahu’s 2019 election campaign. He attempted—and failed—to secure parliamentary immunity. The trial formally began in May 2020, but Netanyahu has repeatedly delayed proceedings, frequently citing “diplomatic” and “security” obligations.
One notable delay occurred in June 2025, following pressure from Donald Trump related to U.S.–Israeli strategic coordination.
Will He Be Convicted? Three Scenarios
Netanyahu is already indicted and on trial. The real question is whether the evidence—testimonies, recordings, and documented exchanges—will translate into a conviction.
1. Charges Dropped or Plea Deal – 30% probability
Netanyahu could pressure President Isaac Herzog for a pardon before the final verdict. Coalition partners like Smotrich and Ben-Gvir have already begun framing the charges as “fabrications.” A partial plea deal that removes the bribery charge is also possible.
2. De Facto Immunity Through Delay – 45% probability
This is Netanyahu’s favored strategy. Endless postponements—over 30 defense delays by mid-2025 alone—could push the trial past the 2026 elections or bury it under wartime emergencies. This method mirrors how Netanyahu has survived every political scandal over the past two decades.
3. Full Trial and Conviction – 25% probability
👍5
The Observer
Corruption at the Helm: How Netanyahu’s Trial Exposes Israel’s Rot and Opens Doors for Resistance Introduction Benjamin Netanyahu—Israel’s longest-serving and most polarizing prime minister—is on trial for bribery, fraud, and breach of trust in three major…
If prosecutors successfully demonstrate bribery in Case 4000, Netanyahu could face 5–10 years in prison, forcing a resignation. The lower probability reflects Netanyahu’s influence over political messaging, Likud pressure on the judiciary, and ongoing U.S. support that softens institutional resolve.
Domestic Consequences Inside Israel
The trial has deepened political fractures inside Israel:
• Coalition instability: Netanyahu’s partners remain loyal only because their power depends on his. A conviction—or even a strong cross-examination—could trigger defections.
• Erosion of public trust: Many Israelis now see the system as corrupt, whether they blame Netanyahu or the judiciary.
• Institutional paralysis: Key decisions on Gaza, Lebanon, and judicial reform are stalled as political energy is consumed by Netanyahu’s legal strategies.
• Security misuse: Netanyahu repeatedly invokes security crises to delay the trial, making war a political instrument.
For Israel’s judiciary and political elites, the trial represents a struggle between legal accountability and the entrenched power of a leader who has merged governance with personal survival.
Axis of Resistance Perspective: Strategic Vulnerabilities
From the axis-of-resistance viewpoint, the trial does not offer justice—but it exposes state decay that resistance actors can exploit.
• Netanyahu’s desperate need for distraction increases the likelihood of rash military decisions in Gaza, Lebanon, and Syria.
• Internal Israeli fractures weaken deterrence and morale across Israeli society.
• U.S. and Trump interventions reveal Israel’s dependency and loss of strategic autonomy.
• Judicial paralysis indicates that Israel is struggling to maintain the façade of a functioning democratic system.
The trial exposes the same logic that governs Israel’s military actions: corruption, self-interest, and political survival dressed as “national security.” As Netanyahu clings to power, Israel’s internal divisions deepen, creating new openings for calibrated, strategic pressure.
Conclusion
Netanyahu’s trial embodies Israel’s crisis: a leader mired in corruption, a judiciary too weak to deliver justice, and a political system dependent on foreign backing and wartime distraction. Whether he is convicted, pardoned, or protected through delays, the process has already damaged Israel’s legitimacy and stability. The axis of resistance sees in these cracks not just scandal, but strategic opportunity. As Netanyahu fights for personal survival, Israel continues its slow internal unraveling—on the legal front, in the streets, and on the battlefield.
🔵 Link to the article in Arabic
🖋 @observer_5
Domestic Consequences Inside Israel
The trial has deepened political fractures inside Israel:
• Coalition instability: Netanyahu’s partners remain loyal only because their power depends on his. A conviction—or even a strong cross-examination—could trigger defections.
• Erosion of public trust: Many Israelis now see the system as corrupt, whether they blame Netanyahu or the judiciary.
• Institutional paralysis: Key decisions on Gaza, Lebanon, and judicial reform are stalled as political energy is consumed by Netanyahu’s legal strategies.
• Security misuse: Netanyahu repeatedly invokes security crises to delay the trial, making war a political instrument.
For Israel’s judiciary and political elites, the trial represents a struggle between legal accountability and the entrenched power of a leader who has merged governance with personal survival.
Axis of Resistance Perspective: Strategic Vulnerabilities
From the axis-of-resistance viewpoint, the trial does not offer justice—but it exposes state decay that resistance actors can exploit.
• Netanyahu’s desperate need for distraction increases the likelihood of rash military decisions in Gaza, Lebanon, and Syria.
• Internal Israeli fractures weaken deterrence and morale across Israeli society.
• U.S. and Trump interventions reveal Israel’s dependency and loss of strategic autonomy.
• Judicial paralysis indicates that Israel is struggling to maintain the façade of a functioning democratic system.
The trial exposes the same logic that governs Israel’s military actions: corruption, self-interest, and political survival dressed as “national security.” As Netanyahu clings to power, Israel’s internal divisions deepen, creating new openings for calibrated, strategic pressure.
Conclusion
Netanyahu’s trial embodies Israel’s crisis: a leader mired in corruption, a judiciary too weak to deliver justice, and a political system dependent on foreign backing and wartime distraction. Whether he is convicted, pardoned, or protected through delays, the process has already damaged Israel’s legitimacy and stability. The axis of resistance sees in these cracks not just scandal, but strategic opportunity. As Netanyahu fights for personal survival, Israel continues its slow internal unraveling—on the legal front, in the streets, and on the battlefield.
Please open Telegram to view this post
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
👍5
🔻 First: He declares that after the withdrawal of UN forces from the south, the government will seek a “replacement,” clearly hinting at American and French forces to deploy and oversee a “demilitarized zone” south of the Litani River! This is a direct call to place the south under a new mandate.
🔻 Second: He openly adopts what he calls the “2002 Agreement” for full peace and normalization with the Zionist enemy… as if the blood of martyrs and the sacrifices of the resistance were just a page to be erased.
🔻 Third: He speaks of the possibility of opening economic files with the entity after normalization, even if “not soon.” Meaning he is laying the foundations today for tying Lebanon’s economy to the occupation tomorrow.
🔻 Fourth: He attacks the resistance’s weapons, claiming they have “failed” and do not deter Israel, ignoring seventeen years of real deterrence between 2006 and 2023, when the enemy did not dare launch an open war thanks to the strength of the resistance.
🔻 Fifth: He considers the withdrawal of the occupation from certain points a “necessary step to complete the first phase in the Litani area,” as if the entire project is simply implementing Israeli conditions step by step.
This is not just a political mistake… but a dangerous declaration of intent to drag Lebanon toward normalization, to place the south under American–French guardianship, and to strip the resistance of the weapons that safeguarded this nation.
Today’s battle is not only at the borders… but over Lebanon’s identity and choice: either the axis of resistance, or the axis of American–Israeli dictates.
Please open Telegram to view this post
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
😱5
This media is not supported in your browser
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
Political activity between Washington and Tel Aviv toward Lebanon has converged noticeably in recent hours. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has issued instructions to dispatch an Israeli representative to Naqoura to begin direct contact with the Lebanese side under the title of “economic cooperation” — a move seen as an initial attempt to pave the way for a disguised normalization track between the two countries.
In parallel, the Lebanese newspaper al-Akhbar reported that President Joseph Aoun informed the United States of his decision to appoint Paul Salem, president of the Middle East Institute in Washington, as Lebanon’s representative in direct negotiations with Israel — a step that has generated tension with Hezbollah and discontent from Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri, particularly amid the absence of internal consensus on the mechanisms and structure of such negotiations.
In a second step, Aoun appointed Simon Karam as ambassador and head of the Lebanese delegation to the Ceasefire Monitoring Commission, in what the Presidency described as a defense of Lebanon’s sovereignty “in response to U.S. efforts.” Reports, however, spoke of direct pressure and threats exerted by Washington on Beirut to initiate this track.
These successive indicators suggest that a negotiation landscape is taking shape amid growing fears that the file may become yet another tool for imposing U.S.–Israeli dictates on Lebanese decision-making at a highly sensitive regional moment.
🔹 The Lebanese street begins to rise up against negotiations with the “Zionist enemy” — as popular groups have started protesting the decision, in solidarity with the positions of opposing political forces and in rejection of any normalization or negotiations with Israel under any pretext.
Please open Telegram to view this post
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
❤3👍2
When the Decision No Longer Resembles Its Owners
134 Days After Sayyed’s Absence… Lebanon Enters Its Most Dangerous Political Turning Point Since 1983
Introduction
Everything in Lebanon changed in just 134 days. From the martyrdom of Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah on September 27, 2024, to the appointment of Nawaf Salam as prime minister on January 13, 2025, it became clear that the political compass was veering away from its traditional orientation. But the most dangerous shift was not the name of the new prime minister — it was the event that erupted unexpectedly from Naqoura: the first official direct meeting between Lebanon and Israel since 1983, and under a government that includes ministers from Hezbollah itself.
The Absence of the Man Who Drew the Red Line
Appointing Nawaf Salam was no simple step. He arrived after the absence of the one man who had, for years, stood as an impenetrable barrier against any attempt to impose a government through external pressure. Sayyed Nasrallah had the power to block entire governmental formations to preserve sovereignty and protect national decision-making. With his absence, Salam’s name passed as a “mandatory solution” under suffocating international pressure and an internally fractured reality — not as a natural political choice but as an act of submission to a new equation.
The background attributed to Salam — including claims about his advisory role during the May 17, 1983 negotiations — has never been presented to the public through official documents, yet he has never categorically denied it. This alone was enough to trigger sensitivity within the Resistance’s base. Nevertheless, the settlement moved forward, ushering in a different political phase.
Naqoura: The Event That Revealed Everything
What happened in Naqoura was neither a “technical committee” nor a “monitoring meeting.” It was the first official direct encounter with Israel since the May 17, 1983 Agreement. And comparing the contexts of 1983 and 2025 exposes the magnitude of the shift.
1983:
In that year, the Lebanese state was almost entirely under the Western axis. The government led by Shafiq al-Wazzan was fundamentally distant from the Resistance project, and Hezbollah had not yet even been born politically. There was no force within the state that expressed the popular sentiment that would later crystallize into an armed resistance. Thus, the May 17 Agreement came within a state leaning toward accommodation with Israel, even at a severe cost to sovereignty.
2025:
Today, however, the meeting took place under a government that includes ministers directly affiliated with Hezbollah — a party that has become an established pillar of political life for years, representing a massive constituency of resistance supporters. For the first Lebanese–Israeli official meeting in forty years to occur under a government containing the party cannot be dismissed as an incidental event or a mere procedural error. It is a genuine political turning point, occurring under an authority expected to represent the environment closest to the Resistance — not a government orbiting the West, as in 1983.
The Deception of Timing: When the Country Is Distracted… the Most Dangerous Steps Pass
The scene became even more alarming because of the way the meeting was passed. It occurred at a moment when all of Lebanon — the public and the media — was absorbed by the Pope’s visit, a monumental spiritual and national event that dominated the country’s attention. Amid this total distraction, the Naqoura meeting was held quietly, wrapped in vague official language about a “technical committee” and “ceasefire monitoring.”
But everything was exposed when Netanyahu emerged with the blunt Israeli narrative:
“This is the beginning of relations and economic cooperation between Israel and Lebanon.”
With that statement, the entire “technical committee” narrative collapsed.
Parliament’s Responsibility… Where Did It Go?
134 Days After Sayyed’s Absence… Lebanon Enters Its Most Dangerous Political Turning Point Since 1983
Introduction
Everything in Lebanon changed in just 134 days. From the martyrdom of Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah on September 27, 2024, to the appointment of Nawaf Salam as prime minister on January 13, 2025, it became clear that the political compass was veering away from its traditional orientation. But the most dangerous shift was not the name of the new prime minister — it was the event that erupted unexpectedly from Naqoura: the first official direct meeting between Lebanon and Israel since 1983, and under a government that includes ministers from Hezbollah itself.
The Absence of the Man Who Drew the Red Line
Appointing Nawaf Salam was no simple step. He arrived after the absence of the one man who had, for years, stood as an impenetrable barrier against any attempt to impose a government through external pressure. Sayyed Nasrallah had the power to block entire governmental formations to preserve sovereignty and protect national decision-making. With his absence, Salam’s name passed as a “mandatory solution” under suffocating international pressure and an internally fractured reality — not as a natural political choice but as an act of submission to a new equation.
The background attributed to Salam — including claims about his advisory role during the May 17, 1983 negotiations — has never been presented to the public through official documents, yet he has never categorically denied it. This alone was enough to trigger sensitivity within the Resistance’s base. Nevertheless, the settlement moved forward, ushering in a different political phase.
Naqoura: The Event That Revealed Everything
What happened in Naqoura was neither a “technical committee” nor a “monitoring meeting.” It was the first official direct encounter with Israel since the May 17, 1983 Agreement. And comparing the contexts of 1983 and 2025 exposes the magnitude of the shift.
1983:
In that year, the Lebanese state was almost entirely under the Western axis. The government led by Shafiq al-Wazzan was fundamentally distant from the Resistance project, and Hezbollah had not yet even been born politically. There was no force within the state that expressed the popular sentiment that would later crystallize into an armed resistance. Thus, the May 17 Agreement came within a state leaning toward accommodation with Israel, even at a severe cost to sovereignty.
2025:
Today, however, the meeting took place under a government that includes ministers directly affiliated with Hezbollah — a party that has become an established pillar of political life for years, representing a massive constituency of resistance supporters. For the first Lebanese–Israeli official meeting in forty years to occur under a government containing the party cannot be dismissed as an incidental event or a mere procedural error. It is a genuine political turning point, occurring under an authority expected to represent the environment closest to the Resistance — not a government orbiting the West, as in 1983.
The Deception of Timing: When the Country Is Distracted… the Most Dangerous Steps Pass
The scene became even more alarming because of the way the meeting was passed. It occurred at a moment when all of Lebanon — the public and the media — was absorbed by the Pope’s visit, a monumental spiritual and national event that dominated the country’s attention. Amid this total distraction, the Naqoura meeting was held quietly, wrapped in vague official language about a “technical committee” and “ceasefire monitoring.”
But everything was exposed when Netanyahu emerged with the blunt Israeli narrative:
“This is the beginning of relations and economic cooperation between Israel and Lebanon.”
With that statement, the entire “technical committee” narrative collapsed.
Parliament’s Responsibility… Where Did It Go?
😱5
The Observer
When the Decision No Longer Resembles Its Owners 134 Days After Sayyed’s Absence… Lebanon Enters Its Most Dangerous Political Turning Point Since 1983 Introduction Everything in Lebanon changed in just 134 days. From the martyrdom of Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah…
One would have expected the political arena to tremble, and the parliamentary blocs aligned with the Resistance to move against a step of this magnitude. But the opposite happened:
– No open debates took place
– No serious accountability was demanded
– No opposition proportional to the gravity of the event emerged
This silence was the real test — not just for the government, but for all the forces that supposedly represent the Resistance’s constituency in Parliament. The event passed without the confrontation its danger required, leaving the door open for those wishing to test Lebanon’s — all of Lebanon’s — ability to accept the first step of disguised normalization.
Iraq… A Glimpse in the Same Direction
In Iraq, a similar indicator appears, though less central to this context. Donald Trump’s statement that Prime Minister Mohammed Shia’ al-Sudani “nominated him for the Nobel Peace Prize,” while Trump is himself wanted by the Iraqi judiciary for the Baghdad Airport assassination, exposes a clear gap between what people expect and the decisions being shaped within the state. It is yet another sign of an era in which authority is managed with a logic that resembles neither its people nor their sacrifices.
Conclusion
Naqoura is not a meeting. It is a political turning point in every sense — a moment that shatters a forty-year-old equation. And when such a step occurs under a government that includes ministers from Hezbollah, its significance multiplies, its responsibility widens, and its danger grows.
When a decision no longer resembles its owners… the road that ends in disaster begins.
🔵 Link to the article in Arabic
🖋 @observer_5
– No open debates took place
– No serious accountability was demanded
– No opposition proportional to the gravity of the event emerged
This silence was the real test — not just for the government, but for all the forces that supposedly represent the Resistance’s constituency in Parliament. The event passed without the confrontation its danger required, leaving the door open for those wishing to test Lebanon’s — all of Lebanon’s — ability to accept the first step of disguised normalization.
Iraq… A Glimpse in the Same Direction
In Iraq, a similar indicator appears, though less central to this context. Donald Trump’s statement that Prime Minister Mohammed Shia’ al-Sudani “nominated him for the Nobel Peace Prize,” while Trump is himself wanted by the Iraqi judiciary for the Baghdad Airport assassination, exposes a clear gap between what people expect and the decisions being shaped within the state. It is yet another sign of an era in which authority is managed with a logic that resembles neither its people nor their sacrifices.
Conclusion
Naqoura is not a meeting. It is a political turning point in every sense — a moment that shatters a forty-year-old equation. And when such a step occurs under a government that includes ministers from Hezbollah, its significance multiplies, its responsibility widens, and its danger grows.
When a decision no longer resembles its owners… the road that ends in disaster begins.
Please open Telegram to view this post
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
🤬5
This media is not supported in your browser
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
Israel’s Channel 14 has revealed that U.S. envoy Morgan Ortagus suggested to Israeli officials that they bomb the funeral of the martyred Hezbollah Secretary-General Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah at Camille Chamoun Sports City Stadium in Beirut this past February.
This is not a “leak.” This is the true mindset of the American-Zionist establishment:
Assassinating the leader is not enough for them… they want to bomb an entire people, desecrate the body of a Resistance leader, and turn his funeral into a massacre.
But what Washington and Tel Aviv still fail to understand is this:
🔸 A man like Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah cannot be killed — he is reborn in an entire nation.
🔸 The Axis of Resistance today is stronger, more solid, and more determined than anything their joint war rooms ever imagined.
🔸 If such an attack on the funeral had taken place, it would have ignited the entire region from sea to river — not because we seek war, but because the Resistance does not remain silent when the sanctity of its martyrs is violated.
Those who propose bombing the funeral of a leader who dedicated his life to defending the dignity of this Ummah… are the same ones who tremble today before the rockets of South Lebanon and the deterrence equations of the Axis of Resistance from Sana’a to Baghdad.
This American-Israeli mentality is precisely what made the Resistance a destiny — and made the path of confrontation a necessity beyond debate.
Please open Telegram to view this post
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
🤬5
The publication of the Iraqi Gazette announcing Decision No. (61) of 2025 by the Committee for Freezing Terrorist Funds—which included Lebanon’s Hezbollah and Yemen’s Ansar Allah among 24 “terrorist” entities—sparked widespread public anger in Iraq.
The committee explained in a statement issued on December 4, 2025, that the inclusion of these entities resulted from publishing the list before its revision was completed. It stressed that Iraq’s approval was limited only to individuals and entities linked to ISIS and al-Qaeda, based on a request from Malaysia and in accordance with UN Security Council Resolution 1373.
The committee confirmed that the error will be corrected in the next issue of the Iraqi Gazette by removing the names of entities not connected to ISIS and al-Qaeda from the list.
Please open Telegram to view this post
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
🤬6