English LCCC Newsbulletin For Lebanese, Lebanese Related, Global News & Editorials
For October 20/2026
Compiled & Prepared by: Elias Bejjani
#elias_bejjani_news

The Bulletin's Link on the lccc Site
https://eliasbejjaninews.com/aaaanewsfor2026/english.october20.26.htm

News Bulletin Achieves Since 2006
Click Here to enter the LCCC Arabic/English news bulletins Achieves since 2006 

Click On The Below Link To Join Elias Bejjaninews whatsapp group
https://chat.whatsapp.com/FPF0N7lE5S484LNaSm0MjW
اضغط على الرابط في أعلى للإنضمام لكروب Eliasbejjaninews whatsapp group

Elias Bejjani/Click on the below link to subscribe to my youtube channel
الياس بجاني/اضغط على الرابط في أسفل للإشتراك في موقعي ع اليوتيوب
https://www.youtube.com/@eliasbejjani8036

Bible Quotations For today
Parable Of The The Widow & The judge who neither feared God nor had respect for people
Luke 18/01-08: “Jesus told them a parable about their need to pray always and not to lose heart. He said, ‘In a certain city there was a judge who neither feared God nor had respect for people. In that city there was a widow who kept coming to him and saying, “Grant me justice against my opponent.” For a while he refused; but later he said to himself, “Though I have no fear of God and no respect for anyone, yet because this widow keeps bothering me, I will grant her justice, so that she may not wear me out by continually coming.” ’And the Lord said, ‘Listen to what the unjust judge says. And will not God grant justice to his chosen ones who cry to him day and night? Will he delay long in helping them? I tell you, he will quickly grant justice to them. And yet, when the Son of Man comes, will he find faith on earth?’”

Titles For The English LCCC Lebanese & Lebanese Related News & Editorials published on October 19-20/2026
The Danger of Hardness of Heart, Death of Conscience, and Absence of Shame: When the Light of God Goes Out in Man/Elias Bejjani/October 18/2026
Bashir Gemayel Academy/ Video and Report on the Massacre in the Town of Al-Aishiya
Abu Arz: How Can We Find Salvation?
Israeli Airstrikes and Artillery Shelling Target Several Towns
US State Department: We urge Lebanon to hold those responsible for the explosives shipment accountable
Netanyahu Doubts Lebanese Government’s Ability to Disarm Hezbollah
French Foreign Minister Discusses Post-UNIFIL Arrangements in Beirut
Hezbollah’s Actions Raise Fears of Internal Escalation in Lebanon
Aoun chairs security meeting, says no leniency with security violators
Hezbollah MPs warn of political 'explosion', slam US interference, 'subservient' state
Gold or Hezbollah arms? What was found in Fanar tunnel?
Lebanon doesn't fully meet minimum trafficking standards but is making progress, US says
Lebanese, Israeli military delegations to meet tomorrow in Tampa
Aoun meets Arab League chief, says Lebanon committed to 'diplomatic solution'

Titles For The Latest English LCCC Miscellaneous Reports And News published on October 19-20/2026
Trump to Netanyahu: I Expect You to Win Landslide Election
From Madman to Great Warrior: Shifts in Trump and Netanyahu’s Relationship
Pressures from Within Washington Upend Trump's Stance on Netanyahu… What Sealed the Support Decision?
US Secretary of War Meets Netanyahu During Unannounced Visit to Israel
Will Trump’s Endorsement of Netanyahu Change Israeli Election Results?
Estimates in Tel Aviv that Netanyahu pledged to fight Iran alone in exchange for White House backing
Netanyahu Raises Confrontation Ceiling Ahead of Election... Preemptive Strike on Iran and Buffer Zones Without Clear Borders
After Tehran's Warning – Netanyahu: "We Are Ready to Strike Enemies at Any Moment"
Bomb Threat Forces Austrian Tel Aviv-Vienna Flight to Land in Bulgaria
At airbase, Netanyahu says Israel ready to strike enemies at moment's notice
Israel Police Arrest Suspects Over Settler Attacks on US Journalist, European Diplomats
UN Experts Urge Israel to Protect West Bank Olive Farmers
UK Urges Firms Not to Take Part in E1 Settlement Tender or Risk Sanctions
Syrian State Media: Armed Groups Ban UN Delegation from Entering Sweida
Iran's Guards Say Oil Tanker on Fire after Hitting Mine in Hormuz
Russian FM arrives in Tehran
Zelensky Speaks to US Envoys as Trump Lashes Out
Rubio Says No Pause in US Intel Sharing with Ukraine
WSJ: Putin Proposes Summit with Trump and Xi to Discuss Ukraine Deal
Police ‘Lost Control’ During French Protests, Says Interior Minister
Louvre Blocked as France Grapples with Unrest

Titles For The Latest English LCCC analysis & editorials from miscellaneous sources published on October 19-20/2026
Kushner Had the Abraham Accords. Boulos Has the Photo Ops. Where Is the Peace?/Robert Williams/Gatestone Institute/October 19, 2026
Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Restoring Red Lines/Ghassan Charbel/Asharq Al-Awsat newspaper/October 19/2026
A New Egyptian Regional Role?/Mamoun Fandy/Asharq Al-Awsat newspaper/October 19/2026
When the Patron Turns into Mediator/Sam Menassa/Asharq Al-Awsat newspaper/October 19/2026
Elections and the Limits of Change in Israel/Nabil Amr/Asharq Al-Awsat newspaper/October 19/2026
The Palestinian Authority's Dangerous Pursuit of Unity with Hamas/Khaled Abu Toameh/Gatestone Institute/October 19, 2026
The Tragedy of the Shiites Today/Colonel Charbel Barakat/October 20/2026
Selected Face Book & X tweets on October 19/2026

Latest English LCCC Lebanese & Lebanese Related News & Editorials published on October 19-20/2026
The Danger of Hardness of Heart, Death of Conscience, and Absence of Shame: When the Light of God Goes Out in Man
Elias Bejjani/October 18/2026
https://eliasbejjaninews.com/2026/10/158366/
Man Between the Light of Truth and the Darkness of Evil
The life we live, with all its details, turns and crossroads, is nothing but a path whose features are determined by the choices we make, by the values we believe in, and by the measure of God’s presence in our conscience and our hearts. Man, whatever his status, however much money, power and influence he may possess, remains accountable before God for his words and deeds, for the good he has done, and the evil he has committed, for the truth he knew and then denied, and for the duty he recognized and then evaded. We are destined to choose between two ways: the way of righteousness, wisdom, and the fear of God, and the way of straying, pride, hardness of heart, and death of conscience. The difference between the two ways is not in outward appearances, nor in the religious slogans a man raises, nor in the number of prayers he recites before others, but in the reality of the heart, the sincerity of faith, the purity of intention, the uprightness of conduct, and the extent of his respect for human dignity and human rights. The man who truly fears God does not content himself with talking about virtue, but strives to practice it. He does not content himself with condemning evil in others, but begins by holding himself accountable. He does not make religion a means to justify his mistakes or cover his interests, but makes it a light to guide him to truth, a voice to deter him from injustice, and a scale by which he judges his own conscience before he judges others. And the Lord Jesus Christ says in the Gospel of Matthew: “Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God” (Matthew 5:8).
Purity of heart is not weakness, nor naivety, nor compromise of truth, but it is a spiritual and moral strength that makes man able to speak the truth without lying, to practice justice without vengeance, to defend himself without injustice, and to confront evil without himself becoming an instrument of evil.
I. Conscience, Shame, and the Tongue: God’s Gifts and Man’s Responsibility
A living conscience, shame at committing wrong, and a tongue that speaks truth are not marginal matters in human life, but are among the most important manifestations of the moral responsibility that God has entrusted to man, distinguished him with, and called him through to discern between good and evil, between truth and falsehood, between love and hatred. Conscience is that inner voice that awakens a man when he errs, disturbs his rest when he oppresses, and calls him to confess his sin and repair what he has corrupted. As for shame, in its noble moral sense, it is man’s sense that his dignity is incompatible with lying, betrayal, treachery, and assault on others. And the tongue is the instrument by which man can console, encourage, reconcile, and bear witness to the truth, just as he can, if he misuses it, wound, insult, incite, mislead, and slander. But the great problem begins when man loses these three restraints: his conscience dies, his shame disappears, and his tongue turns into a weapon directed against others. Then wrong is no longer wrong to him, nor lying a disgrace, nor assault on people’s dignity a cause for remorse; rather, oppression may become for him a means to achieve interests, deception a sign of what he imagines to be intelligence, and insolence an expression of false strength. Here lies the real danger: not that man errs, for man is weak and prone to fall, but that he loses the ability to admit his error, that he justifies his evil, that he refuses repentance, and that he considers anyone who confronts him with the truth to be his enemy.
The Lord Jesus says: “For out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks” (Matthew 12:34).
The tongue often reveals what the heart stores. The words a man chooses in moments of anger or dispute or self-interest may reveal the truth of what governs his behavior. He who is accustomed to lying, slander, and insult, and no longer feels any remorse, should ask himself: What remains of the voice of conscience within me? And what value remains to my words if I use them to destroy others instead of speaking the truth?
The Bible also warns us of the danger of the tongue, as the Book of Proverbs says: “Death and life are in the power of the tongue” (Proverbs 18:21). How many a word has restored hope to a despairing man, and how many a word has crushed a soul, how many a slander has tarnished the reputation of an innocent, how many a lie has divided members of a family, how many a hateful speech has ignited enmity that could have been avoided! A word is not a passing sound that ends as soon as it is uttered; it may leave a wound that lasts for years, it may lead to injustice, and it may destroy trust that is difficult to rebuild. Therefore, the man who fears God watches his tongue, and knows that freedom of speech does not mean freedom to slander, and that frankness does not justify insult, and that disagreement does not grant anyone the right to strip others of their dignity.
II. Hardness of Heart: When Man Sees the Truth and Rejects It
Hardness of heart is among the most dangerous spiritual and moral states a man can reach. The hard-hearted man is not necessarily one who is ignorant of the truth, but may be among those who know it well, and are aware of the consequences of their actions, but refuse to submit to it because their interests or their pride or their grudges are more important to them than the truth. It may begin with justifying a small mistake, then the mistake is repeated until it becomes a habit, then the habit turns into a fixed behavior, until man loses his moral sensitivity towards what he commits. In the end, he may reach a stage where he no longer feels guilt when he oppresses, nor shame when he lies, nor regret when he destroys the lives of others. A hard heart is not formed in a single day, but may be shaped gradually through persistence in evil, rejection of advice, contempt for others, arrogance against truth, and evasion of responsibility. For this reason, the Bible warns us against hardness of heart, saying in the Epistle to the Hebrews: “Today, if you hear His voice, do not harden your hearts” (Hebrews 3:7-8).
This divine call is not directed only to persons far from faith, but to every man who is able to hear the voice of truth and then chooses to ignore it. How many a man hears sincere advice, but rejects it because admitting a mistake wounds his pride? And how many a person realizes he has harmed another, but prefers to persist in stubbornness rather than say a word of apology? Confessing a mistake does not diminish a man’s value, but reveals his courage and maturity. As for persisting in falsehood, while knowing the truth, it is what turns a mistake into a dangerous path of obstinacy and denial.
And the Gospel of Mark presents to us a painful image of hardness of heart, when it mentions that Jesus looked at some of those present “with anger, being grieved by the hardness of their hearts” (Mark 3:5). It is an image that combines anger at evil and sorrow for the man who refuses to see the truth. God does not call man to cruelty, nor does He rejoice in his fall, but wants him to repent and return to the way of life. But refusal of repentance makes man a prisoner of his sin, and deprives him of the inner peace that neither money nor positions nor outward victories can grant.
III. Death of Conscience and Absence of Shame: More Dangerous Than the Mistake Itself
A mistake followed by remorse may become the beginning of reform, while a mistake followed by denial and lying and justification may turn into a door to more evil. A living conscience does not prevent man from falling every time, but it does not allow him to rest in his sin as if nothing had happened. It reminds him of his responsibility, and calls him to retreat from falsehood, to apologize to those he has wronged, to restore rights to their owners, and to bear the consequences of his actions.
But when conscience dies, man becomes able to witness the suffering of others without concern, and to inflict harm upon them without remorse, and to repeat the offense without feeling shame. It may come to the point of turning facts upside down, so he portrays himself as the victim while he is the aggressor, and accuses the oppressed instead of confessing his oppression, and attacks all who expose his mistakes instead of correcting them.
Here the absence of shame becomes a double danger, because moral shame is not merely fear of people’s gaze, but an inner awareness that there are limits that man must not cross without losing respect for himself and for others. However, a distinction must be made between shame that leads to repentance, and disgrace that crushes man and makes him believe there is no hope for reform. The Christian faith does not call to despair, but to sincere repentance and return to God. What is required is not that man remain a prisoner of his mistake, but that he confess it and repair it as much as he can.
Saint Paul says in his Epistle to the Ephesians: “And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather expose them” (Ephesians 5:11).
Silence about evil is not always wisdom, and overlooking injustice is not always love. True love does not mean collusion with the aggressor, nor covering up corruption, nor demanding that the oppressed be silent to preserve the comfort of the oppressor. Rather, it means standing beside truth, defending human dignity, and refusing to turn tolerance into a cover for repeating offense. He who errs and then repents opens a new door for himself, but he who errs and persists and continues to harm others doubles his moral responsibility for every new act he commits.
IV. He Who Sows Evil Cannot Guarantee a Harvest of Peace
It is among the profound moral laws in life that a man’s actions leave their traces, and that injustice leaves wounds, and that hatred breeds enmities, and that betrayal destroys trust, and that lying weakens its owner’s credibility. Results may not appear immediately, and the oppressor may succeed for some time in evading accountability, but that does not turn injustice into right, nor does temporary escape prove innocence.
The Book of Proverbs says: “Whoever digs a pit will fall into it, and he who rolls a stone will have it roll back on him” (Proverbs 26:27). And Saint Paul says: “For whatever a man sows, that he will also reap” (Galatians 6:7). These two wisdoms do not mean that everyone who suffers has committed evil, or that every calamity that befalls man is a direct punishment for an act he did. The Bible itself rejects this simplification, and teaches us that the innocent may suffer, and that the unjust may sometimes enjoy temporary prosperity. But they affirm that moral choices have consequences, and that man cannot build a sound life on deception and aggression and then expect his relationships and his community and his conscience to remain safe from ruin.
As the authentic Lebanese proverb says: “You will surely drink from the same cup you gave others to drink from.” This proverb sums up a deep human experience: he who sows hatred may reap isolation, he who becomes accustomed to betrayal may lose the trust of those closest to him, and he who destroys the dignity of others may one day find himself surrounded by people who neither trust nor respect him.
But justice does not mean that we await the misfortunes of others or gloat over their fall. The believer does not make revenge his goal, nor does he wish evil even on one who wronged him, but he seeks justice, and leaves final judgment to God, and strives to protect the innocent and prevent the repetition of harm.
And the Lord Jesus says: “All who take the sword will perish by the sword” (Matthew 26:52). It is a call to reject the logic of violence and revenge, and to realize that evil is not cured by unleashing similar evil, but by truth and justice and self-control.
V. A Stumbling Block: When Hurting Others Becomes a Way of Life
Undoubtedly, we have all met in the paths of life persons who leave behind them pain and disputes and disappointments. Some of them hurt others out of ignorance or impulsiveness, and may reconsider when they realize the results of their actions. But some others persist in offense, delight in stirring up conflicts, and use hurtful words and rumors and manipulation of situations to weaken those around them, especially members of their family and those close to them. These do not content themselves with inflicting harm, but may try to convince their victims that they themselves are the wrongdoers, and that demanding one’s right is aggression, and that defending dignity is pride, and that exposing the truth is an offense against them. The most dangerous thing in these practices is that they make the harmful person act as if he were above accountability, and turn human relationships from spaces for love and cooperation into arenas of fear and blackmail and enmity. And the Lord Jesus warns of the danger of being a cause for the fall or misleading of others, saying: “Woe to the world because of offenses! For offenses must come, but woe to that man by whom the offense comes!” (Matthew 18:7).
A stumbling block is not only one who pushes others to commit wrong, but can also be one who exploits their weakness, or destroys their self-confidence, or uses his position and authority to humiliate them, or turns his life and the lives of those around him into a series of crises because of his stubbornness and malice. How far is the difference between a man who errs and apologizes, and a man who deliberately offends and then boasts about it! And how far is the difference between one who uses his strength to protect the weak, and one who uses it to subdue them! And how far is the difference between one who disagrees with others and respects their dignity, and one who considers disagreement a justification for insult and defamation and revenge! The believer is called to love man, but he is not called to accept injustice or justify evil. He can forgive, without giving up his right to protection and justice; and he can pray for those who have wronged him, without exposing himself or his family to continued harm.
VI. Pride, Malice, and Envy: Masks Hiding Fragility of Spirit
When pride exceeds the bounds of legitimate self-respect, it turns into a barrier that prevents man from seeing his faults. And malice makes him a prisoner of the past, and envy drives him to resent the success of others, and the desire for revenge deprives him of peace, while love of domination makes him believe that his dignity is not realized except by subjugating others. The arrogant man may appear strong, but he is unable to say the word “I was wrong.” He may talk about morals, but he excludes himself from their rules. He may raise slogans of faith, while his actions contradict the mercy and truth and justice to which faith calls. For this reason, a man’s goodness must not be measured by what he says about himself, but by what he does when truth conflicts with his interest, and by what he says when he is angry, and by how he deals with those who cannot return harm to him, and by his readiness to admit his mistake and correct what he has corrupted. And the Lord Jesus says in the Gospel of Matthew: “You will know them by their fruits” (Matthew 7:16). Man is known by his fruits: by his truthfulness or his lying, and by his mercy or his cruelty, and by his justice or his injustice, and by his loyalty or his betrayal, and by his humility or his arrogance. Not everyone who speaks in the name of God walks in His way, and not everyone who raises the slogan of virtue practices it in his daily life. True faith is not verbal adornment, but a daily commitment to be truthful and just and merciful, to refuse to exploit others, to face one’s mistakes with courage, and to always remember that human dignity is not his property to strip from others.
VII. Judgment: When Masks and Excuses Are of No Use
Among the most dangerous illusions of man is to believe that he can forever escape responsibility for his actions, or that money and influence and connections and the ability to deceive people can grant him immunity before the justice of God. Man may be able to hide the truth from some people, and may succeed in justifying his actions before his surroundings, and may find those who applaud him or defend him, but the truth of faith that must not be ignored is that man is accountable before God for his deeds and his words, and for the way in which he used his freedom and his talents and his position in life. And the Lord Jesus says: “But I say to you that for every idle word men may speak, they will give account of it in the day of judgment” (Matthew 12:36). This verse places the tongue at the heart of spiritual responsibility. A word is not a trivial matter, and slander is not merely a passing dispute, and false witness is not a legitimate means to protect interests. Every man has responsibility for his speech, especially when he deliberately misleads others or defames the innocent or incites injustice. And the Bible also says: “So then each of us shall give account of himself to God” (Romans 14:12). This means that responsibility is personal, and that man cannot justify his sin simply because others have also committed it, nor can he turn following the group or loyalty to a person or party or interest into an exemption from moral accountability. But faith in judgment should not lead us to despair or to issuing final judgments on the fate of others. God alone knows the depths of hearts, and He alone is the just Judge. As for our duty, it is to hold ourselves accountable, to reject evil, to demand justice, and to open the door of repentance before all who want a sincere return to truth.
VIII. Repentance Is Possible as Long as Man Is Ready to Return to God
Despite the seriousness of hardness of heart and death of conscience, the Christian message does not close the door of hope. God does not want the destruction of man, but his repentance and return to the way of life. And the man who has erred is not condemned to remain a prisoner of his past, if he has the courage to confess his sin and seek forgiveness and work to repair what he has corrupted. The Lord Jesus says: “If anyone desires to come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow Me” (Matthew 16:24). Self-denial here means, in its moral essence, that man frees himself from slavery to ego and pride, and stops making his desires and interests the sole criterion of truth. For repentance is not merely words spoken, nor temporary tears, nor an apology aimed at restoring interests, but it is a change in heart and behavior, a readiness to bear responsibility, to restore rights, and to refrain from repeating harm. And among the most beautiful things the Bible declares about God’s mercy is His saying in the Book of Ezekiel: “Therefore thus says the Lord God: Repent, and turn from all your transgressions, so that iniquity will not be your ruin” (Ezekiel 18:30). God calls man to return, not to persist; to confession, not to denial; to repairing what can be repaired, not to hiding behind excuses. And he who sincerely seeks forgiveness must also seek reconciliation with those he has wronged, and restore rights to their owners, and build a new conduct that proves the sincerity of his repentance. As for he who refuses to confess his mistake and insists on harming others, he cannot make the word “forgiveness” a means to silence his victims, nor demand that they forget the harm while he continues to commit it. True reconciliation needs honesty, forgiveness does not abolish justice, and pardon does not mean granting the aggressor a license to repeat his aggression.
Conclusion: Fear God, Keep Your Conscience Alive, and Guard Your Tongue
Man, whatever money or power or fame or influence he possesses, remains poor if he has lost his conscience, and a loser if the sense of right and wrong has died in his heart, and mistaken if he believes that insolence is strength, and cruelty is courage, and the ability to harm others is a sign of superiority. The man who fears God does not measure his success by the number of those he has subjugated, nor by the value of the money he has amassed, nor by his ability to silence those who oppose him, but by the extent of his uprightness, his truthfulness, his justice, his mercy, and his respect for the dignity of others. Remember, O man, that a living conscience is both a grace and a responsibility, and that shame at wrongdoing is not a defect, and that an apology does not diminish your dignity, and that a true word does not become false because people of interests hate to hear it. And remember that the tongue which God created to be an instrument of communication and good can become, if misused, a cause of injustice and division and enmity.
So do not dig a pit for your brother, nor plant thorns in his path, nor make the weakness of others an opportunity to exploit them, nor their love for you a means to control them. And do not imagine that silence imposed by fear is proof that you are right, or that the absence of human accountability means the absence of divine justice. And let us always remember the saying of the Lord Jesus: “Even so, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit” (Matthew 7:17). So let us hold ourselves accountable before we hold others accountable, and let us guard our tongues before we demand that people respect our words, and let us ask God for a humble heart that does not become arrogant against truth, and a living conscience that does not compromise on justice, and a spirit capable of repentance and forgiveness, and a will that refuses to make evil a way of life. And let us raise our hearts in prayer and hope, asking God to bring dead consciences back to life, and hard hearts back to mercy, and lying tongues back to truth, and hateful souls back to love. And let us pray for every man who has lost his way, not to justify his evil, but so that he may return to truth, and stop harming others, and begin the journey of repentance and reform. So fear God, O man, and watch your heart and your tongue and your deeds, and do not allow pride and malice and self-interest to extinguish the light of conscience within you. For life is short, appearances are fleeting, and masks do not last, but man’s responsibility for his choices before God remains a reality worth pausing over every day. And let us conclude with the words of Saint Paul the Apostle: “Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good” (Romans 12:21). Amen.
*The author, Elias Bejjani, is a Lebanese expatriate activist
Author’s Email: Phoenicia@hotmail.com
Author’s Website: https://eliasbejjaninews.com

Bashir Gemayel Academy/ Video and Report on the Massacre in the Town of Al-Aishiya
They displaced the people of Al-Aishiya and killed its inhabitants—was Palestine liberated as a result??? This is the story of a people who chose death over surrender… and the unforgettable heroism of a handful of young men.
They displaced the people of Al-Aishiya and killed its inhabitants—was Palestine liberated as a result???
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dgwhokLCJ68
Bashir Gemayel Academy/October 23, 2022

Abu Arz: How Can We Find Salvation?
October 19, 2026
There is no salvation for Lebanon from its accumulated crises—crises that have branched out and grown so complex over time that they now defy conventional solutions—unless two vital, existential goals are achieved: First: Ending the hegemony of Hezbollah—in both its military and political wings—and dismantling its security apparatus, which has become a cancerous growth devouring the body of the state and threatening its very existence. Second: Uprooting the corrupt political establishment—the very system that transformed Lebanon from a heavenly paradise into a living hell—and replacing it with a cadre of competent, brilliant Lebanese individuals (found in abundance both at home and within the diaspora) who have been excluded from governance in favor of those defined by blind loyalty and cronyism. It must be emphasized that achieving these two goals requires a radical surgical intervention, not merely superficial reforms or patchwork compromises.
In short: Lebanon does not need painkillers that merely prolong the illness; it requires a radical treatment that eradicates the root causes. Otherwise, it will remain a nation with an uncertain future, floundering in its crises until further notice.
At your service, Lebanon.

Israeli Airstrikes and Artillery Shelling Target Several Towns
Southern Lebanon/October 19, 2026
Israeli attacks on towns and villages in southern Lebanon have continued. This evening, Israeli artillery targeted the town of Al-Mansouri. Israeli warplanes also conducted an airstrike on the town of Hadatha, in the Bint Jbeil District, followed by a second strike on the outskirts of the town of Baraachit. Additionally, Israeli aircraft targeted Wadi al-Hujair and the town of Kafr Tibnit, in the Nabatieh District. Another airstrike, carried out in two waves, targeted the vicinity of the town of Talousa. For the second time, the Israeli army carried out a massive, high-intensity explosion in the town of Al-Qantara. This afternoon, the outskirts of the town of Mifdoun were subjected to intermittent artillery shelling, which also extended to the town of Hadatha in the Bint Jbeil District. An Israeli "quadcopter" drone fired a missile onto the roof of a building in the Al-Rajm neighborhood of Mifdoun—a structure that had previously been targeted. An Israeli force entered the outskirts of the town of Kfar Chouba, in the Hasbaya District, and proceeded to search homes. Earlier in the morning, Israeli forces opened fire with machine guns toward Wadi Beit Lif and the vicinity of Sarbine. During the night, Israeli forces deployed illumination flares over the town of Zoutar al-Sharqiya, in the Nabatieh District, while simultaneously conducting "combing" operations—sweeping the area with machine-gun fire—directed toward the town.

US State Department: We urge Lebanon to hold those responsible for the explosives shipment accountable
Al-Markaziya October 19, 2026
A US State Department spokesperson confirmed to "Al-Jadeed" that Washington continues to urge the Lebanese government to hold accountable everyone who ordered, financed, or oversaw the shipment of explosives. The spokesperson added that the tripartite framework stipulates the complete disarmament of Hezbollah throughout Lebanese territory.

Netanyahu Doubts Lebanese Government’s Ability to Disarm Hezbollah
Beirut: Asharq Al Awsat/October 19/2026
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said on Sunday he does not trust the Lebanese government to disarm Hezbollah, affirming that his forces will remain in the security zone in southern Lebanon. The PM’s comments came as the Israeli army raised its alert level over the weekend amid concerns of a possible escalation on multiple fronts. In the south of Lebanon, Israeli forces continue to attack villages, while assessments in Tel Aviv warn that Hezbollah is regrouping, studying Israeli activity, and preparing to mount a significant attack dependent on developments with Iran.
Israel Will Remain in Security Zone
In an interview with Radio North on Sunday, Netanyahu underlined that Israel intends to remain in its security zone in southern Lebanon until Hezbollah is disarmed. “No, I don't trust them to disarm Hezbollah,” Netanyahu told host Gadi Ness when asked if he believes the Lebanese government will disarm the party. “That's why we said that as long as it is not disarmed, we will remain in this zone that changed the situation in the north.” He explained that Israel’s military presence is aimed at preventing Hezbollah from rebuilding its military capabilities and threatening northern Israeli communities. Netanyahu also said Israel created a security zone free of all terrorist systems, affirming that “a large part of the villages were simply terrorist strongholds and they are no longer there.”The Israeli PM said Israel would continue its military operations against Hezbollah “as much as necessary” and vowed to ultimately eliminate the group.“We will eliminate Hezbollah, although it is weakened and a shadow of itself,” he said, adding that Israel also needed to address the threat posed by Hezbollah's drones.
Israel Raises State of Alert
Meanwhile, Maariv newspaper reported Saturday that the Israeli army had placed the 36th and 91st divisions on what it described as “an extremely high state of operational alert.”The newspaper said the army deployed two divisions in the Golan Heights and southern Lebanon. “Hezbollah was recruiting members and strengthening its defensive positions in the Bekaa Valley, along the coast and in Beirut’s southern suburb,” the report said. It also cited Israeli assessments suggesting that the party might launch an attack targeting an Israeli military site or patrol, or even attempt to kidnap soldiers.
The newspaper then cited an Israeli military source as saying that Israel had raised its alert level to prepare for a prolonged period of heightened readiness, amid reports that Iran was seeking to create a regional crisis involving multiple fronts.
Ongoing Israeli Attacks
At the field level, Israeli forces continued their attacks on several areas in southern Lebanon. Artillery shelling targeted the town of Al-Mansouri and the outskirts of the town of Zibqin in the governorate of Tyre. A massive explosion was heard in the town of Al-Qantara in the Marjayoun district, while Israeli forces carried out a violent demolition in the town of Al-Khiam at night, destroying Al-Mabarrat School building.

French Foreign Minister Discusses Post-UNIFIL Arrangements in Beirut
Beirut: Asharq Al Awsat/19 October 2026
French Foreign Minister Jean-Noel Barrot continued talks in Beirut on Sunday over the future of the international presence in South Lebanon after the UN peacekeeping mission's mandate ends, as Paris seeks to prevent a security vacuum and preserve international oversight of UN Security Council Resolution 1701. Accompanied by Alice Rufo, French Minister Delegate to the Minister of the Armed Forces and Veterans, Barrot met Prime Minister Nawaf Salam and Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri, a day after holding talks with President Joseph Aoun. The discussions focused on strengthening international support for Lebanon, securing Israel’s full withdrawal from Lebanese territory and reinforcing the Lebanese Army amid concerns that the departure of the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) could leave a security vacuum before Resolution 1701 is fully implemented. At the Grand Serail, Salam received the French delegation in the presence of French Ambassador Patrick Durel and Culture Minister Ghassan Salameh. The prime minister stressed the need to preserve an international presence in South Lebanon capable of monitoring developments, reporting on violations and maintaining communication under a new Security Council mandate. Such arrangements, he argued, were essential to preventing a security vacuum or the emergence of a new security situation along the border. Salam welcomed France’s continued support, particularly its efforts to secure Israel’s complete withdrawal and help Lebanon extend state authority across its territory through its own forces. He also emphasized the importance of strengthening the Lebanese Army’s capabilities so it could assume its security responsibilities. The talks addressed recovery and reconstruction in the south, including restoring essential services, helping residents remain in their communities and reinforcing the presence of state institutions. Economic discussions focused on the government’s financial and economic reforms and the importance of reaching an agreement with the International Monetary Fund. Barrot reaffirmed France’s commitment to Lebanon’s sovereignty and stability, pledging continued support for the state and its armed forces. He also expressed Paris’ readiness to help shape future international security arrangements while supporting reforms, economic recovery and reconstruction.
Berri insists on preserving UNIFIL’s role
Later Sunday, Berri received the French delegation, accompanied by Durel, for discussions covering political and security developments, bilateral relations and Lebanon’s determination to maintain UNIFIL’s presence. Berri thanked France and President Emmanuel Macron for their support, paying tribute to the sacrifices of French peacekeepers and the contribution of UNIFIL personnel over more than 48 years in implementing international resolutions, particularly Resolutions 425 and 1701. He emphasized that the peacekeepers’ role extended beyond military and security operations to humanitarian, cultural, economic and social activities. According to Berri, Lebanese authorities and the public were united in their support for keeping the international force in place. He called for coordinated French, European, international and regional efforts to prevent a vacuum if UNIFIL’s mandate expires before Resolution 1701 has been fully implemented. Berri maintained that Lebanon had complied with the resolution while Israel continued to violate its provisions, carry out military operations and occupy parts of South Lebanon. International efforts, he argued, should focus on ending Israeli attacks and compelling Israel to implement UN resolutions rather than undermining them.
Aoun open to alternative arrangements
During Saturday’s meeting with Barrot and Rufo, Aoun welcomed French diplomatic efforts at the United Nations and Security Council to establish arrangements that would prevent a security vacuum. While reiterating Lebanon’s preference for extending UNIFIL’s mandate, he expressed willingness to consider alternatives that would preserve an international presence in the south. Aoun stressed the importance of avoiding a situation in which the Lebanese Army would find itself in direct confrontation with Israeli forces in occupied areas. The discussions come as Lebanon and its international partners prepare for UNIFIL’s departure following a Security Council decision in August 2025 to end the mission’s mandate by the close of 2026. France and Italy announced in June their intention to work toward establishing a multinational force to succeed the UN mission.
Paris has since underlined the need for a new international framework to support Lebanese sovereignty and prevent a security vacuum that could threaten stability in South Lebanon.

Hezbollah’s Actions Raise Fears of Internal Escalation in Lebanon
Beirut: Caroline Akoum/Asharq Al Awsat/19 October 2026
Fears of renewed internal tensions are growing in Lebanon as Hezbollah steps up its confrontational rhetoric toward the authorities and its supporters take to the streets of Beirut and its southern suburbs.Against a backdrop of regional upheaval and mounting pressure on Iran, the developments have raised questions about whether Hezbollah is seeking to challenge the government’s authority or preparing further moves at home in response to shifting regional dynamics. Ministerial sources told Asharq Al-Awsat that while the possibility of escalation remained a concern, there was no indication that any such move was imminent. The sources insisted that security agencies would continue enforcing government decisions, regardless of Hezbollah’s objections, and ruled out concessions over recent security and judicial measures.They described the Iran-backed group’s increasingly defiant statements, particularly over a seized explosives shipment last week, as a reaction to the authorities’ actions rather than a reason to reconsider them. President Joseph Aoun is due to chair a meeting of security chiefs at the presidential palace Monday afternoon to review recent developments, including the explosives shipment. Prime Minister Nawaf Salam, meanwhile, reaffirmed that lasting stability depends on extending state authority throughout Lebanon, even if gradually, through its own security forces. Decisions on war and peace, he stressed, must remain exclusively with the state and its constitutional institutions. Salam contacted Army commander Gen. Rodolphe Haykal and Internal Security Forces chief Maj. Gen. Raed Abdallah to commend the reinforced security presence across Greater Beirut following nighttime gatherings that had unsettled residents. He also met Justice Minister Adel Nassar and Prosecutor General Rami al-Hajj to follow up on investigations into the explosives seized at Dahr al-Baidar and subsequent incidents, including efforts to arrest those involved in possessing or transporting illegal weapons.
He stressed that all action would be governed by the law.
Government refuses to back down
The government’s determination to retain exclusive control over weapons was echoed by Foreign Minister Youssef Raggi during the 52nd meeting of foreign ministers of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation in Iraq. Raggi recalled the August 2025 decision to impose state monopoly over arms and extend state authority across the country. He argued that sovereignty could not coexist with competing armed forces, nor could stability be achieved while decisions affecting the country were taken outside state institutions. The increasingly tense atmosphere has also prompted warnings from Lebanese political figures. MP Ibrahim Mneimneh suggested that the mobilization of Hezbollah supporters could be intended to prepare the ground for action at the right circumstances. In remarks to Asharq Al-Awsat, he argued that Hezbollah appeared to be seeking a return to the situation that prevailed before the government’s decisions on weapons monopoly, while demonstrating that those measures carried little practical weight. He did not rule out a link to Iran’s regional calculations or the broader political and security arrangements taking shape in the region. For Mneimneh, the decisive issue was how the state would respond to any challenge. Unless it seriously addressed weapons outside its control, he cautioned, “Lebanon would remain hostage to the same circumstances.” He urged the authorities to begin implementing their decisions, particularly the pledge to keep Beirut free of weapons, describing it as an “essential step toward restoring state authority in the capital.”Lebanese Forces MP Antoine Habchi, for his part, accused Hezbollah of invoking the threat of civil war to buy time. “Any internal fighting at this stage would be disastrous for Hezbollah itself, calling for the government’s decisions to be implemented without ambiguity,” he urged.
Tensions on the ground
The Lebanese Army has deployed heavily in Beirut for several days, particularly around the southern suburbs and their entrances, amid concerns that Hezbollah supporters could stage further demonstrations. The deployments coincide with ongoing investigations into the explosives seized at Dahr al-Baidar and a warehouse containing expired medicines. On Friday evening, young men on motorcycles attempted to obstruct an Internal Security Forces patrol during a raid on the warehouse near the entrance to the southern suburbs. The army intervened, allowing the patrol to seal the premises. Although Hezbollah denied any connection to the warehouse, reports alleged that a son of its secretary-general, Naim Qassem, was a partner in the business. MP Paula Yacoubian repeated the allegation on Al Jadeed television Sunday, saying the other partner was the candidate backed by the Shiite political alliance for Lebanon’s pharmacists’ syndicate. Qassem’s son denied involvement, saying the case was now in the hands of the relevant security and judicial authorities. Hezbollah nevertheless protested the raid, insisting that operations in sensitive areas follow previously agreed coordination procedures - an apparent reference to arrangements that existed before the government’s recent decisions concerning its weapons. The confrontation followed another dispute over a truck carrying around 780 kilograms of explosives seized by authorities at a Dahr al-Baidar checkpoint. Hezbollah acknowledged ownership of both the truck and its cargo, demanding their return and the release of those detained. Hezbollah MP Hassan Fadlallah initially declared that the group “would not tolerate measures targeting it to satisfy US demands.”On Sunday, he shifted responsibility for the mounting tensions onto the state, accusing the authorities of pushing Lebanon toward internal confrontation under American pressure.He questioned who stood to benefit from such a confrontation and why the government appeared determined “to provoke tensions rather than defuse them.”

Aoun chairs security meeting, says no leniency with security violators
Naharnet/October 19, 2026
President Joseph Aoun stressed during a security meeting in Baabda on Monday the necessity of “strictly enforcing laws, preventing armed appearances, confiscating weapons and ammunition, expediting investigations, and referring violators to the competent judiciary to take the necessary action.”He also emphasized that the current phase requires meticulous monitoring of the situation and taking essential proactive measures, in addition to “preventing any exploitation of the economic situation to turn it into a breach of security.”"There can be no leniency with any attempt to disrupt security or compromise the country's stability. The current phase demands the highest levels of readiness and coordination among the security and military agencies, continuous information sharing, and a precise evaluation of developments, avoiding any duplication of roles or conflict of authority," the president added. He also requested reinforcing the presence of the Internal Security Forces, General Security, and State Security in southern villages and towns not under Israeli occupation, to provide “reassurance to the residents and facilitate administrative services for them.”
Moreover, Aoun commended the work of the army and security forces, praising their “readiness, swift action, and effectiveness in detecting crimes, tracking down perpetrators, and arresting them.”
The security meeting, which brought together the chiefs of the country’s military and security agencies, comes amid Hezbollah-related tensions in the country and fears of a regional conflagration that might affect Lebanon. Hezbollah has acknowledged that a truck full of explosives seized by Lebanese authorities belongs to the group and said the explosives were intended for use against Israeli forces in southern Lebanon. The truck, which was stopped at a checkpoint on the main highway linking Beirut with the eastern Bekaa Valley, was carrying 780 kilograms of explosives, including 250 kilograms of TNT and 250 kilograms of C-4 plastic explosives, according to judicial officials. Two men were arrested when the truck was stopped, and Lebanese authorities launched an investigation. They said that security agencies will go after other people involved in the shipment.
The news of its seizure has generated heated public discussions, with many accusing Hezbollah of planning to carry out assassinations of domestic opponents at a time when the group is under increasing pressure to disarm. Hezbollah has requested Lebanese authorities to hand the shipment over to them and release the two people who were detained. The incident has highlighted growing tensions between Hezbollah and the Lebanese government. For years, Hezbollah had moved weapons freely in parts of Lebanon. That changed in March, when the Lebanese government declared all military activities by the Iran-backed group "illegal." That decision came hours after Hezbollah fired rockets into northern Israel, triggering a war that has killed nearly 4,000 people in Lebanon and resulted in Israeli forces occupying a large swath of southern Lebanon. The group fired the rockets two days after Israel and the United States launched a war on Iran, its main backer.Hezbollah has refused to recognize the government decision outlawing its military wing.

Hezbollah MPs warn of political 'explosion', slam US interference, 'subservient' state
Naharnet/October 19, 2026
Hezbollah MPs on Monday condemned American "interference" in Lebanese affairs and slammed the Lebanese authorities for being "subservient", "acquiescent", "irresponsible", and "foreign-dependent".MP Ali Fayyad blamed the Lebanese authorities for "bringing the country to a point of dangerous internal tension," while MP Ibrahim al-Moussawi warned that "an explosion is on the brink." He said the ruling authority is pressuring and bullying Hezbollah's supporters. Fayyad warned that the state bears full responsibility for the consequences. Moussawi also condemned American interference, stating that the United States imposes dictates that serve its own interests and Israel's interests. They are not a true state, he said. "They must admit that they are an incompetent, lost, failed, and corrupt authority that accepts nothing but dictates.""For years on end, the ruling authority failed to protect the people, and we stepped up to defend all of Lebanon; we filled a vacuum with our sacrifices and steadfastness," Moussawi said. The MPs' remarks came after U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio called President Joseph Aoun and pressed him not to return not return several hundred kilograms of explosives seized from Hezbollah, while also asking him to cancel a 1955 boycott law banning direct relations with Israel.Fayyad said the state lacks independent, sovereign national decision-making and has given the enemy pretexts for its aggression and continued occupation of Lebanese territory. Head of Hezbollah's parliamentary bloc Mohammad Raad said "attempts to demonize and defame" Hezbollah are a "national and moral crime", committed in compliance with the directives of the Americans "who are partners and supporters of Israel". MPs Hussein Hajj Hassan and Hassan Ezzeddine also condemned "American dictates" and "blatant interference," stating that U.S. interests are Israel's interests and that the Lebanese authorities bear full responsibility for the repercussions of their actions.

Gold or Hezbollah arms? What was found in Fanar tunnel?
Naharnet/October 19, 2026
A small tunnel found Monday in the Northern Metn town of Fanar, near the pre-dominantly Shiite neighborhood of Zoaitriyeh, has sparked fresh controversy in the country amid tensions over Hezbollah and its weapons. “Specialized army units conducted an inspection of the tunnel found in the Fanar area, Northern Metn. It was revealed that its total length is approximately 13 meters (5 meters vertically and 8 meters horizontally) and that it contains no weapons or military equipment,” the army said in a statement. “Several individual digging holes were found inside the tunnel, and one suspect involved in its excavation was detained. Investigations are ongoing to determine its intended purpose,” the army added. Fanar municipal chief Michel Salameh meanwhile reassured residents, in remarks to An-Nahar newspaper, noting that “the digging works were aimed at searching for gold” and denying the presence of any arms or narcotics at the site. Adding that the “tunnel” had no exit, Salameh said the municipality will close the pit. Media reports had said that the tunnel was discovered in a pine forest between Fanar and Zoaitrieh in the Metn. The reports said the tunnel’s entrance was discovered by a person passing in the forest, who reported it to municipal police. The reports also said that an unidentified individual fled the scene upon the arrival of security personnel, who could possibly be the suspect who was eventually arrested. Kataeb Party chief MP Sami Gemayel had earlier said that he contacted Defense Minister Michel Menassa and requested that the army and security forces conduct a comprehensive sweep of the Rweissat-Jdeideh area and its surroundings. “A tunnel in Metn, an explosives shipment in Dahr al-Baidar, and a standoff with security forces in Dahieh. These are dangerous indicators that necessitate putting a definitive end to the duplicity of arms and the military organization of Hezbollah across all Lebanese territory," Gemayel wrote on X. He concluded: "The continued operation of illegal weapons and Hezbollah's military and security structure poses an imminent danger, and the state must take decisive action to safeguard Lebanon."

Lebanon doesn't fully meet minimum trafficking standards but is making progress, US says
Naharnet/October 19, 2026
The Lebanese government continues to make progress in combatting human trafficking but remains on Tier 2 in the latest global assessment by the U.S. Department of State. According to the Department of State report, state capacity to implement anti-trafficking policies was heavily strained by the recent war between Israel and Hezbollah, which displaced over one million people and triggered a massive humanitarian crisis. Despite these challenges, authorities increased trafficking investigations and convictions, launched comprehensive standard operating procedures to identify victims, and introduced new regulations to strengthen protections for domestic workers. The state also cracked down on fraudulent recruitment agencies. However, significant systemic gaps remain. Lebanon still lacks an approved national action plan and a central interagency task force, leaving law enforcement data fragmented. Furthermore, inconsistent screening led to the potential penalization of trafficking victims for unlawful acts committed under coercion. Experts also noted that the employer-based visa system continues to leave migrant workers vulnerable to exploitation, while Lebanese law still fails to criminalize the confiscation of workers' passports.

Lebanese, Israeli military delegations to meet tomorrow in Tampa
Naharnet/October 19, 2026
Technical talks between Lebanese and Israeli military delegations will take place on Tuesday and Wednesday at the headquarters of U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) in Tampa, Florida, LBCI reported on Monday. The news channel learned from official sources that U.S. Marine Corps Major General Joseph Clearfield is expected to lead the American delegation. According to LBCI, the Lebanese delegation plans to raise Israeli violations in southern Lebanon's pilot zones, including cross-border attacks, troop incursions, and the killing of a Lebanese civilian.

Aoun meets Arab League chief, says Lebanon committed to 'diplomatic solution'
Naharnet/October 19, 2026
President Joseph Aoun on Monday emphasized that "Lebanon adheres to the diplomatic solution despite its difficulty,” because it is “far less costly than a devastating war for which the Lebanese -- and especially the people of the South -- are paying the price.”
“It is time for Lebanon to find peace," Aoun added, in a meeting with visiting Arab League chief Nabil Fahmy. The president welcomed any effort and endeavor by the Arab League "to help Lebanon overcome this difficult phase it is going through." He pointed out that Israel has not committed to the framework agreement, and that the South remains subject to daily violations. He noted that “while this will lead nowhere -- and will only increase the Lebanese people's attachment to their land and rights -- it does not help the Lebanese state achieve its designated goals.”In turn, Arab League chief Fahmy affirmed his complete support and commitment, as well as that of the Arab League, "to the Lebanese state and its institutions, and to not compromising the sovereignty of this country."He also revealed that he will visit the war-hit South on Tuesday. "I am ready to make all necessary contacts, from my position as Secretary-General of the League, with Arab and Western countries to support Lebanon and the Lebanese," Fahmy added. "My presence here is a positive message toward Lebanon. When I leave Lebanon after completing the visit tomorrow, I will be carrying additional responsibilities in light of what I heard from the president, what I will hear from other officials, and my meetings with several Lebanese politicians."

The Latest English LCCC Miscellaneous Reports And News published on October 19-20/2026 (Some of the News reports below are translated from Arabic by AI)
Trump to Netanyahu: I Expect You to Win Landslide Election
Riyadh - Al Arabiya.net/October 19, 2026
US President Donald Trump told Benjamin Netanyahu that he expects him to achieve a "landslide" victory in next week's election, in a phone call broadcast by the Israeli Prime Minister on Monday, the day after Trump announced his endorsement of him.
One day after Trump declared his support for Netanyahu in the upcoming October 27 election, the Israeli Prime Minister posted a video featuring the two men exchanging praise during a phone call. Trump can be heard in the call, which Netanyahu placed on speakerphone, saying, "I think you're going to win in a landslide, actually." Addressing Netanyahu by his nickname, Bibi, Trump added, "You're the guy I want by my side, Bibi." During the call, Trump was described as "the greatest friend Israel has ever had, by far." While Netanyahu cautioned the US President that the call was on an open line, he praised Trump for joining Israel in striking Iran—a goal Netanyahu pursued for decades. "Donald, we have a job to get done. We're going to get it done together. We're going to get it done, and nobody else is going to do it," Netanyahu said. The Israeli Prime Minister did not provide specifics but repeatedly described the regime in Iran as "the greatest danger."

From Madman to Great Warrior: Shifts in Trump and Netanyahu’s Relationship
Riyadh - Al Arabiya.net/October 19, 2026
US President Donald Trump's shifting stances toward Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu have placed the relationship between the two men before a striking political paradox. After months of sharp criticism over his military decisions and accusations of jeopardizing negotiations with Iran, Trump initially withheld his electoral endorsement before fully backing him just one week before the Israeli election. Last June, Trump called Netanyahu a "madman," only to reverse course four months later by praising him as a "great warrior prime minister." This raised questions over whether the shift reflected a change in the US President's calculations or a prioritization of political interests over his disagreements with Netanyahu regarding war management and regional settlements. One of the most openly tense moments between Trump and Netanyahu occurred last June over Israeli operations in Lebanon coinciding with US negotiations with Iran. In a phone call, Trump sharply criticized Netanyahu over continued Israeli strikes, calling him "madman" and using profane language to express his anger at his military decisions, as first revealed by Axios and later confirmed by the US President. Trump then told Netanyahu he was unsatisfied with his actions, asking, "What the hell are you doing?", and arguing that the deadly strikes targeting Beirut should not have been carried out while Washington was nearing an agreement with Tehran, according to a Fox News interview. Trump's objection was less about military operations themselves and more about their timing and implications for the diplomatic track, believing that ongoing escalation in Lebanon could threaten prospects for a settlement with Iran. He emphasized that Israel has the right to defend itself, but should not undermine an opportunity that could open the door to "a long and beautiful peace."
In subsequent statements, Trump remarked that "when you ask Netanyahu to do something, he does it," pointing to his leverage over the Israeli Prime Minister. Conversely, reports indicated that Trump told Netanyahu—who pushed for expanded attacks on Iran—that "the war is no longer his war."
Tensions were not confined to war management, extending also to Trump's assessment of Netanyahu's political choices and ability to manage relations with the United States. In mid-August, senior US officials reported that Trump still admired the Israeli Prime Minister but grew increasingly frustrated by his decisions and policies, according to Axios. Two people who spoke with the US President regarding Netanyahu quoted Trump as saying, "Bibi is his own worst enemy," reflecting a gap between his personal regard for Netanyahu and his objections to certain political choices.
Also striking was Trump asking Netanyahu about his poll numbers ahead of the election during their late July Oval Office meeting. When the Prime Minister hesitated to answer, an advisor intervened, saying, "Mr. President, he is winning."
Things did not stop there. Disagreements over the future of the Gaza Strip demonstrated that divergences between the two men extended beyond managing the confrontation with Iran to their visions for regional settlements. Netanyahu publicly rejected a US plan to implement the next phase of Trump's Gaza peace proposal, arguing that an Israeli withdrawal could not precede handing over Hamas weapons and dismantling its tunnels. Prior to Netanyahu's rejection, Trump emphasized that the Hamas disarmament framework was a "historic breakthrough," while the Prime Minister stressed during a cabinet meeting that Israel could hold its ground even against its closest allies, reflecting differing priorities between Washington and Israel. Trump wanted to make progress on his plan and showcase his ability to end the war, while Netanyahu clung to security and political conditions he deemed necessary before moving forward with a withdrawal. With the Israeli election approaching on October 27, the divergence shifted from military and diplomatic files to the stance on Netanyahu's political future. In a 75-minute interview with Time magazine published in early October, Trump avoided repeated questions on whether Israelis should re-elect the Prime Minister, stating, "I can only say I am no longer involved in politics."Later, days after, Trump resolved his stance by declaring explicit support for Netanyahu nine days before the Israeli election. In a post on his "Truth Social" platform, he described him as a "strong, brave, and brilliant" prime minister, praising his performance in facing major opposition and declaring his full support for his re-election. A high-ranking US official revealed intense pressure on Trump in the weeks prior to push him into endorsing Netanyahu, according to the Israeli site Walla. The official noted that pressure came from advisors and close aides to the US President, alongside messages received from various entities within the Israeli political system. However, these efforts lacked consensus within Trump's inner circle, as several advisors opposed the step, warning of its political ramifications. The report noted that some of Trump's associates believed endorsing Netanyahu could harm the president, particularly with rising criticism within sectors of the US right regarding the war with Iran and its costs, including the deaths of American soldiers and soaring fuel and food prices. Conversely, the US official pointed to contacts with figures close to former Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett and former Chief of Staff Gadi Eisenkot, reflecting American circles' openness to alternative figures in the Israeli political landscape.

Pressures from Within Washington Upend Trump's Stance on Netanyahu… What Sealed the Support Decision?
Janoubia/October 19, 2026
An Israeli report revealed behind-the-scenes details of US President Donald Trump's decision to endorse Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in the upcoming election, noting that the step was not settled from the outset. Instead, it followed intense pressure from within Trump's inner circle, despite objections from several advisors warning of potential political fallout. According to the report published by the Israeli site Walla, citing a high-ranking US official, Trump faced significant pressure over past weeks to endorse Netanyahu via close advisors and aides, alongside private discussions addressing the future relationship with the Israeli Prime Minister. The US official explained that Trump made his decision after a period reviewing messages and stances from various elements within the Israeli political system, at a time when several advisors strongly opposed announcing the endorsement, warning it could inflict political damage on the US President. The report indicated that a broad sector within Trump's circle viewed the decision as ill-advised amid growing resentment toward Netanyahu among figures on the US right, especially after they concluded the war on Iran failed to deliver the goals promised by the Israeli Prime Minister, alongside casualties among US forces. The report pointed out that criticisms were not limited to war outcomes but extended to what some of Trump's associates described as recurrent pressure exerted by Netanyahu to push the US administration into intervening in various files. According to the report, some believe Netanyahu's actions create the impression he is attempting to influence and control Trump's decisions, also holding him partly responsible for surging fuel and food prices in markets. Parallel to ongoing close ties between Washington, Netanyahu, and his circle, the US official disclosed that US governmental quarters had contacted figures close to former Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett and former Chief of Staff Gadi Eisenkot. These contacts, the report noted, reflect ongoing American communication with various players in the Israeli political landscape amid divergences over the Israeli government's performance and future leadership. Despite accumulated discontent in Washington regarding certain Israeli government decisions, Trump ultimately chose to announce his support for Netanyahu after withholding similar backing in previous months. This shift gains extra significance, per the report, because just three days prior to declaring his stance, Trump was unprepared to clearly voice support for Netanyahu during an interview with Newsmax. This development unfolds amid escalating political competition in Israel as Netanyahu seeks to cement his position in the upcoming election amid domestic and external pressures and widening divergences over his relationship with the US administration. Between objections inside Trump's circle and American contacts with other Israeli figures, the report highlights the circumstances surrounding the endorsement decision and the political balances governing Washington-Tel Aviv relations at a sensitive juncture.

US Secretary of War Meets Netanyahu During Unannounced Visit to Israel
Tel Aviv/Asharq Al-Awsat/October 19, 2026
The news site Axios, citing two knowledgeable sources, reported that US Secretary of War Pete Hegseth met with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Monday during an unannounced visit to Israel. Reuters could not immediately confirm the visit. The US Department of War (Pentagon) declined to comment. The Israeli embassy in Washington has not yet responded to a request for comment. News of Hegseth's trip follows a day after US President Donald Trump announced his endorsement of Netanyahu in next week's Knesset election in Israel. It is the first election held there since the October 7, 2023, attack led by the Palestinian Hamas movement—an event that shook Israel and plunged it into wars in Gaza, Lebanon, and Iran, driving the region into turmoil. Polls indicate that the religious-national coalition led by Netanyahu is expected to lose its ruling majority, though the opposition may also struggle to form a government. US Vice President JD Vance declined to endorse Netanyahu in an interview on Monday, stating he does not interfere in Israeli elections.

Will Trump’s Endorsement of Netanyahu Change Israeli Election Results?
Estimates in Tel Aviv that Netanyahu pledged to fight Iran alone in exchange for White House backing
Tel Aviv: Nazir Majli /Asharq Al-Awsat/October 19, 2026
There is no doubt that US President Donald Trump’s endorsement of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in the upcoming October 27 election benefits the ruling right-wing camp. Netanyahu and his supporters in the Republican Party fought tenaciously to secure this stance. According to Israeli Channels 12 and 13, White House leaders agonized considerably before arriving at this conclusion. En route to the decision, they held numerous meetings with officials across the Israeli coalition and opposition, requested their own opinion polls, and ordered deep polling. Knowing that Trump dislikes losers and prefers backing strong leaders, Netanyahu set up a special team tasked with convincing Americans that his standing had improved. On the other side of the political map, the opposition "Change Camp" consistently requested that Americans stay out, a task spearheaded by former Prime Minister Yair Lapid, who met with several US officials from both the Republican and Democratic parties, pledging that a change government would be closer to the Trump administration and more cooperative in implementing the president's peace plan. However, Washington's proposal for a "unity government" comprising Netanyahu and his main rival, Gadi Eisenkot, made the change camp appear fragmented, hesitant, and uncooperative—apparently angering Trump and prompting his endorsement of Netanyahu's re-election.
How Will Netanyahu Benefit from Trump's Support?
It is important to note that Trump's endorsement does not benefit Netanyahu among the general public, but primarily within the right wing. Since Trump's election to a second term, Israelis' views toward him have varied with sharp rises and falls. In 2024, Trump enjoyed support ranging between 60 and 72 percent of Israelis. In early 2025, 61 percent said they saw Trump as a preferred American president serving Israeli interests. However, analysis of the results showed this satisfaction reached 96 percent on the right, 52 percent in the center, only 30 percent on the left, and 32 percent among Arab citizens.
In early 2026, trust in President Trump rose to 75 percent in March. But in polls published that same summer following the US administration's agreement with Tehran, trust in President Trump plummeted to 26 percent. 81 percent of the left, 73 percent of center forces, and 65 percent of the right stated that Israel's security was not a priority for Trump. Additionally, the Israeli media covers Trump with considerable skepticism and even mockery due to his fickle views. The right was deeply annoyed by his statements toward Netanyahu. In 2025, when Netanyahu objected to the US negotiation plan with Iran, Israeli media outlets reported threats from Trump demanding Netanyahu submit to the US vision, telling him: "You and your whole group you call a cabinet and government need to get in line; you are part of my plan now, not the other way around." In June 2026, Axios and CNN revealed the substance of a phone call where Trump screamed at Netanyahu, using sharp, profane language to protest the striking of Beirut and attempts to obstruct US negotiations with Iran: "You're completely crazy," "If it weren't for me, you'd end up in prison... I'm the one covering your ass," and "Everyone hates you now... and hates Israel because of your policy."Therefore, since Netanyahu has lost half his electoral strength so far (his Likud party currently holds 36 Knesset seats while polls grant him 18 to 21), the Israeli right is gladdened by Trump's words, and his endorsement may influence them to return "home." Yet this does not necessarily affect those holding a negative view of the US President—some on the right and a larger share in the center. In the Israeli media, largely belonging to the opposition "Change Camp" and viewed as part of the deep state apparatus, Trump's endorsement is downplayed. Some analysts quipped that the endorsement is a bad omen, noting that Trump previously endorsed Hungarian leader Viktor Orban and he lost the election, and backed Bolsonaro in Brazil and he lost.
What Can Netanyahu Offer in Exchange for Trump's Support?
Hebrew analyses of Trump's pro-Netanyahu stance are anchored on several goals sought by the US President, with expectations revolving around multiple projects. First, Trump received a pledge from Netanyahu to carry out a strike on Iran unilaterally with distant backing from US forces rather than a partnership, as occurred last June. Trump confirmed this himself, explaining that Netanyahu is the only Israeli prime minister who can and wants to strike Iran, adding that he, Trump, could strike Iran but is not interested in doing so. Second, Trump's support aligns with the US project to form a unity government in Israel post-election, incorporating Netanyahu and Eisenkot to share the premiership. President Trump wants Israel to have a strong government with a right-wing character reflecting the Israeli political majority to make fateful decisions regarding the implementation of his "peace" plan.
For all these reasons, the estimation is that Netanyahu, armed with Trump's endorsement statement, has been handed an opportunity to achieve an "October surprise" in the style of US elections. In the United States, it is customary for each president to establish a special team focused on driving a profound shift in poll results in their favor during the final month of an electoral battle. Since US presidential campaigns there typically occur in early November, the campaign to pull off a surprise kicks off in October. Netanyahu must now prove he is strong enough to drive this change. On Sunday evening, immediately following Trump's endorsement, Netanyahu appeared in a Telegram video showcasing the US President's words, saying: "Look closely at President Trump's words and listen to them carefully." Fifteen minutes later, Netanyahu published another video clip addressed to Israelis, stating: "I ask you to listen closely to the statements made tonight by President Trump; he gave me unconditional support and explained the reasons that drove him to do it."He added: "He said that together we achieved wonderful accomplishments, crushed Iran, crushed the Iranian axis, and warded off the imminent danger of nuclear bombs. But there is still a task to complete, and he stated that this completion will be done side by side (with Netanyahu)."He continued: "I cannot do this with anyone else, but our partnership that bore all these achievements will continue with me to eliminate the Iranian threat definitively over the next two years, or perhaps sooner."
Shock in the Opposition
Opposition leaders were shocked by Trump's announcement. A source close to Yair Lapid stated that he had spoken with Trump's associates on Sunday morning, who told him the US president had stated earlier that he would not interfere in Israeli elections. The official added: "As we understand it, announcing support for Netanyahu is compensation from Trump to the prime minister after refusing to launch an attack on Iran."According to him, the "Change Bloc" was surprised by Trump's Sunday evening announcement. A source close to Eisenkot said there is confusion within the "Change Bloc" between ignoring the US President's announcement to maintain good relations with the US administration or publicly arguing that "Netanyahu promised in exchange to make Israeli concessions, including pushing forward with Trump's Gaza plan and accepting a Palestinian state," as they claimed.
Vehicles passing beneath an electoral billboard bearing pictures of current Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his prominent rival...Later, Eisenkot himself stated at Tel Aviv University on Sunday evening: "I hold deep appreciation for the US President for his valuable contribution to the security of the State of Israel and the completion of the hostage deal. At the same time, the State of Israel is a democracy, and only its citizens will decide the prime minister and government." He added that "the US administration will know how to cooperate with any elected government in Israel."
A source close to Eisenkot's campaign told Hebrew media that "Netanyahu can benefit from Trump's statement in one case: if we fail to expose the threads behind this endorsement. Israeli voters are not stupid. Days ago, Trump was asked about his trust in Netanyahu and whether he supports his re-election, and he replied: 'I don't trust politicians; why did he change his mind?' Because something happened. It cannot be that Netanyahu begged him; rather, major promises were made by Netanyahu to Trump that made him back him. These promises, when exposed—and they will be exposed—and when proven related to Israel's security, Trump's statements will boomerang against Netanyahu and inflict damage on him. Therefore, we must roll up our sleeves and expose everything."

Netanyahu Raises Confrontation Ceiling Ahead of Election... Preemptive Strike on Iran and Buffer Zones Without Clear Borders
Janoubia/October 19, 2026
Days ahead of the Israeli election scheduled for October 27, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu put forward a new national security document adopting an approach of preemptive strikes, expanding buffer zones, and strengthening military and technological superiority. It places Iran at the forefront of threats while simultaneously drawing sharp criticism from the opposition, which accused him of offering electoral slogans rather than a comprehensive security strategy. The document arrives as Netanyahu's camp declines in opinion polls, coinciding with US President Donald Trump declaring his full support for his re-election. Concurrently, Syria emerges as an arena of Israeli-Turkish friction amid American efforts to prevent competition between the two from turning into a direct confrontation, while Israeli incursions and attacks continue inside Syrian territory, according to the newspaper Al-Modon.
Netanyahu presented the document during a security press conference in what Israeli radio described as the first document of its kind issued by him in about a decade. The document consists of three pages, including the cover, and comprises ten central principles outlining Israel's national security vision. At the top of its priorities, Netanyahu placed the Iranian threat, declaring Israel's readiness to launch a preemptive strike against the Iranian nuclear program even without American support or prior coordination with Washington. The Israeli Prime Minister justified this approach with the ramifications of the October 7, 2023 attack, claiming that military operations carried out by Israel in Gaza, Lebanon, Iran, and Yemen warded off what he described as "an imminent nuclear annihilation threat" and dismantled the "noose" that the Iranian axis allegedly imposed on Israel.
The document pushes toward a change in security doctrine by prioritizing threat prevention and attacking threats before they develop, rather than merely containing or defending against them. According to the principles put forward, this means expanding the margin of Israeli military action to include preventive strikes against what Tel Aviv describes as emerging threats. The document is not limited to Iran; it calls for preserving Israeli military superiority, enhancing deterrence and early warning capabilities, establishing buffer zones where necessary along borders, and protecting the home front from surprise attacks. It also mentions building a wall on the eastern border to prevent land infiltration and drone use, as Israeli radio cited Netanyahu's warnings of potential large-scale cross-border attacks. Other priorities include developing local military industries to reduce reliance on external weapons sources, enhancing technological capabilities—particularly in artificial intelligence, quantum computing, and space—as well as expanding regional and international alliances. However, the document did not specify the geographical locations of the proposed buffer zones or the countries along whose borders they might be established, nor did it include a detailed operational plan for dealing with Iran, leaving open questions regarding the scope and limits of applying these principles.
A Regional Map Raising Questions… Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Pakistan
In a visual presentation of threats Israel claims to face, a geopolitical alliance map of the Middle East bearing the Friedrich Ebert Foundation logo appeared, showing Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Pakistan within a bloc dubbed the "Sunni Diamond Alliance," while Iran and its allied groups were listed under what the map termed the "Axis of Resistance." The slide also included references to the "Shiite and Iranian Axis" and "Terrorism and Internal Enemies," according to the designations in the Israeli presentation. However, the display does not prove Netanyahu classifies all countries shown on the map as hostile to Israel, nor does the use of these labels necessarily imply official military alliances among the listed nations. This presentation gains significance amid rising competition for regional influence, particularly in Syria, which has become a friction arena between Israel and Turkey. According to Al-Modon, Netanyahu seeks to impose factual realities on the ground via continued incursions, expanding occupation, and intervention in As-Suwayda, amid US efforts to prevent a direct clash between Ankara and Tel Aviv. The document drew sharp criticism from opposition leaders Yair Lapid and Gadi Eisenkot, who considered that it offers no genuine security strategy but attempts to deflect attention from the failures of Netanyahu's government, chief among them the October 7, 2023 attack. Lapid described the document in an X post as superficial and bizarre, viewing it as if written using a free version of an AI chatbot. He accused Netanyahu of covering up his failures, pointing to his refusal to form an official inquiry commission into October 7, his failure to expand normalization agreements, and the harming of Israel's international relations and deepening of domestic divisions. For his part, Eisenkot described the document as "two blank pages full of slogans," viewing it as reflecting a strategic vacuum and noting that publishing it before the election, nearly three years after October 7, was an attempt to divert attention from government failures. Eisenkot accused Netanyahu of failing to achieve the war's goals, including eliminating the military and governmental capabilities of Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad, deterring Hezbollah, and preserving stability in the West Bank and internal unity. He also said Hamas still retains armed forces in Gaza and Hezbollah continues rebuilding its capabilities. Eisenkot pledged that a government sought by the opposition would formulate an official national security strategy and pass it within 150 days of taking office. The document comes amid an electoral campaign where Netanyahu's camp's results are declining, according to an Israeli Public Broadcasting Corporation poll published Sunday. The poll showed Netanyahu's camp dropping from 53 to 51 seats, against an rise for the opposition camp led by Eisenkot from 50 to 52 seats. Eisenkot also advanced in the question of the most suitable persona for premiership, garnering 43 percent support among respondents compared to 35 percent for Netanyahu, whose support dropped from 38 percent in the previous poll. Despite the opposition camp's lead, neither camp holds the required absolute majority of 61 seats out of 120 in the Knesset to form a government. Netanyahu recently admitted he is not confident of winning, while the election represents a fateful test for his political future amid ongoing corruption prosecution and an arrest warrant issued against him by the International Criminal Court in November 2024 over Gaza war allegations.
Trump Enters the Electoral Fray... Eisenkot Clings to Israeli Decision
In a development raising the race's significance, US President Donald Trump announced his full and absolute support for Netanyahu's re-election, warning Israelis against choosing another leader and tying continued US-Israeli cooperation in confronting Iran to the current prime minister remaining in office. Trump described Netanyahu as a "great warrior prime minister" and a partner in peace against Iran, while Netanyahu thanked him for his support, stressing the two sides will continue joint work. Conversely, Eisenkot stressed that Israelis alone decide the identity of the next prime minister and government. He said he appreciates Trump's role in Israel's security and completing the hostage deal, but emphasized that Israel is a democracy and the decision to form its government belongs to the voters.
Security Doctrine or Electoral Paper?
Netanyahu's document places preemptive strikes, buffer zones, and military and technological superiority at the core of Israel's national security vision, but lacks sufficient operational details to specify how these principles will be implemented or their geographical scope. While the government presents the document as a framework for strengthening Israel's security and confronting threats, the opposition views it as lacking an integrated strategy and serving to cover past failures and influence voters.As the election date nears, the debate over the future of Israel's security doctrine intertwines with a fierce political struggle, while Iran, Syria, and regional borders remain main arenas testing the approaches put forward by Netanyahu and their viability in moving from general slogans to actionable policies.

After Tehran's Warning – Netanyahu: "We Are Ready to Strike Enemies at Any Moment"
Riyadh - Al Arabiya.net/October 19, 2026
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu pledged not to hesitate in striking enemies at any moment required, eight days ahead of a closely contested election and following his warnings to Iran. In a video statement on Monday, Netanyahu said he spoke with the commander of an unnamed military base and reviewed "Israel's ability to strike enemies the moment it is required." He added, "I tell our enemies: do not test us, for you will receive blows even harsher than those you have suffered so far."In remarks delivered yesterday, Netanyahu laid out what he termed a new security doctrine, noting that "continuous fighting, from Gaza to Yemen, from Lebanon to Iran, enabled Israel to successfully avert an imminent nuclear threat and remove the noose imposed by the Iranian axis," in his words. He also considered that the war necessitated updating several core principles in traditional Israeli national security doctrine, among them prioritizing offense over containment and defense. Furthermore, Netanyahu reiterated that his primary goal lies in preventing a nuclear Iran and toppling the regime, noting that the task is not yet finished but will be executed sooner or later. In indirect response, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi affirmed that his country also has unfulfilled tasks and goals. These statements come as Israel anticipates legislative elections on the 27th of this month, where Netanyahu, facing fierce opposition competition, seeks to court additional hardline right-wing votes.

Bomb Threat Forces Austrian Tel Aviv-Vienna Flight to Land in Bulgaria
Asharq Al Awsat/October 19/2026
A bomb threat forced an Austrian Airlines flight carrying 57 people from Tel Aviv to Vienna to divert to the Bulgarian capital, Sofia, late on Sunday, though a search found no danger, the airline and Bulgaria's BTA news agency said. We confirm that there was a threat against flight OS82 on October 18, 2026, from Tel Aviv to Vienna (TLV to VIE), which made it ‌necessary for ‌the flight to make an ‌intermediate ⁠landing in Sofia (SOF)," the ⁠airline said in a statement on Monday. "During the search of the affected aircraft, the passengers, and the crew, no danger was identified," it said, adding that the flight continued from Sofia to Vienna with all passengers after reboarding. BTA said the ⁠flight’s crew reported receiving a bomb ‌threat when the aircraft was ‌approaching the Romanian border, and the Bulgarian Air Force ‌scrambled MiG-29 fighter jets. The Lufthansa Group, which ‌owns Austrian Airlines, Vienna Airport and the Austrian interior ministry did not respond to requests for comment. The Austrian and Bulgarian interior ministers were due to hold a previously ‌scheduled press conference in Vienna later on Monday at 11 a.m. (0900 GMT). The incident ⁠came less ⁠than three weeks after a co-pilot on an Israel-bound flydubai jet allegedly attacked the captain with an axe in an attempt to crash the plane. The UAE attorney general said last week that an Omani flydubai co-pilot had intended to seize the September 30 Dubai-Tel Aviv flight and crash it into a terminal at Israel’s Ben Gurion Airport in a suicide attack, before he was thwarted by the captain.

At airbase, Netanyahu says Israel ready to strike enemies at moment's notice
Agence France Presse/October 19, 2026
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu vowed Monday that Israel will not hesitate to strike its enemies at a moment's notice, eight days before a tight election and following his warnings to Iran.
Netanyahu said he spoke to the commander of an unspecified base and saw Israel's "capability to strike our enemies the moment it is required.""I say to our enemies: Do not test us -- you will receive harsher blows than you have suffered to date," he said in a video statement from the base.

Israel Police Arrest Suspects Over Settler Attacks on US Journalist, European Diplomats
Asharq Al Awsat/October 19/2026
Israeli police said on Monday they had arrested 10 suspects as part of an investigation into violent incidents in the occupied-West Bank over the weekend, including separate attacks on a Washington Post photojournalist and European diplomats. The arrests were made after calls from the United States, Israel's closest ally, to crack down on settler violence and for the perpetrators of the attack on the Washington Post photojournalist to be jailed. France, Belgium and Poland, whose diplomats were attacked, have ‌also called on ‌Israel to take action. Police said the suspects were arrested in ‌a ⁠pre-dawn operation on suspicion ⁠of involvement in acts of violence, violating a closed military zone order and illegal construction. The suspects, who police have not identified, have been taken into custody for questioning. Israel's Army Radio reported that the suspects were Israeli citizens. Prosecutions of Israeli settlers are rare. A video released by the police of the pre-dawn operation appeared to show two slingshots, which are used to hurl stones, being found at one property. Police, military forces ⁠and the Shin Bet domestic security service took part in the ‌operation. Referring to the West Bank by its ‌biblical name "Judea and Samaria", Israeli police commissioner Daniel Levy said the law applies to everyone, "regardless of ‌identity or affiliation". "The Israel Police is committed to professional, equal, and impartial law ‌enforcement, based on evidence and in accordance with the law," he said in a statement announcing the arrests.
MASKED SETTLERS
Masked Israeli settlers were filmed on Friday assaulting Washington Post photojournalist Heidi Levine, a US citizen, who was covering a Palestinian olive harvest in the West Bank. Levine was ‌hospitalized after sustaining a number of injuries in the attack and underwent surgery on a finger.
On Saturday, French, Belgian and ⁠Polish diplomats as ⁠well as a French mayor were attacked by masked settlers in another part of the West Bank. A Belgian diplomatic vehicle was also damaged. Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Saar and the military have blamed "Israeli rioters" for the attack on the diplomats. However, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, whose religious-nationalist coalition is projected to lose its governing majority at the October 27 election, has been more circumspect. He has said the diplomats entered a "sensitive area with a history of confrontations" and without coordinating with the military. He has also said that the facts of the attack on Levine were "unclear". Levine has said she was attacked by settlers and Israel's President Isaac Herzog has apologized. Settler attacks on the Palestinians are surging, with at least 170 since September 27, according to Yesh Din, an Israeli human rights group. Journalists, Israeli activists and foreign observers have also been targeted.

UN Experts Urge Israel to Protect West Bank Olive Farmers
Asharq Al Awsat/October 19/2026
UN rights experts on Monday called on Israel to protect Palestinian farmers in the West Bank as settler attacks worsen with the annual olive harvest. "Palestinian farmers must be protected and able to access their land safely. Yet, year after year, the violence, destruction and restrictions intensify," the experts said in a statement. "The olive harvest should be a time when farmers can enjoy, in safety and dignity, the food and livelihoods their nature and land provide, not another season of fear, loss, violence and destruction." The experts urged Israel to ensure that its forces protect Palestinian farmers from settler attacks and refrain from interference with their access to land. They also urged the international community to "exercise maximum pressure to protect Palestinian civilians", reported AFP. Israel has occupied the West Bank since 1967. About 500,000 Israelis live in the West Bank, alongside three million Palestinians. Violence is surging in the territory ahead of Israel's bitterly fought October 27 elections. The vote coincides with Palestinians' annual olive harvest which has been repeatedly disrupted by Israeli settlers as Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu seeks to shore up his pro-settlement right-wing base. According to the UN humanitarian agency OCHA, 178 settler attacks related to the 2025 olive harvest were recorded in the West Bank, affecting 88 Palestinian communities. More than 6,000 trees and saplings were "vandalised", it said -- nearly double the number in 2024 and the highest figure in six years. "The olive harvest is an essential source of food, income and livelihood for thousands of Palestinian families," the UN experts said. "Olive trees take years to mature and can sustain families for generations. Their destruction deprives families of far more than a single harvest: it undermines local food systems, cultural practices and ways of life, as well as the right to food and the food sovereignty of Palestinian communities."The seven signatories to the statement include Sofia Monsalve Suarez, special rapporteur on the right to food; and Francesca Albanese, special rapporteur on human rights in the occupied Palestinian territories. The special rapporteurs are independent experts mandated by the Human Rights Council. They do not speak for the United Nations itself.

UK Urges Firms Not to Take Part in E1 Settlement Tender or Risk Sanctions
Asharq Al Awsat/October 19/2026
British foreign minister Ed Miliband on Monday urged companies and individuals not to proceed with bids for the E1 West Bank settlement project on Monday, warning those involved in the ‌construction of ‌illegal settlements could face ‌sanctions. "We ⁠urge businesses and ⁠individuals not to proceed with bids for E1 construction tenders," Miliband said in a statement. "They should be ⁠aware of legal ‌and ‌reputational consequences, including the risk ‌of involving themselves in ‌serious breaches of international law."The E1 project would bisect the Israeli-occupied West Bank and ‌cut it off from East Jerusalem, fragmenting ⁠the ⁠land Palestinians hope will form the heart of a state. Many Western states and campaign groups have opposed the project over concerns that it could undermine a future peace deal with the Palestinians.

Syrian State Media: Armed Groups Ban UN Delegation from Entering Sweida
Damascus: Asharq Al Awsat/October 19/2026
Groups described by Syrian state media as operating outside the law prevented a joint UN humanitarian delegation from entering the southern Syrian city of Sweida on Sunday, citing a lack of coordination with them, according to Syria’s Al-Ikhbariya television channel. The delegation included representatives of the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) and international organizations. Its visit had been coordinated with the Sweida branch of the Syrian Arab Red Crescent, whose team was expected to accompany the delegation on field visits to Sweida city, Shahba and the village of Ara. Al-Ikhbariya reported that the groups stopped the delegation at the Umm al-Zeitoun checkpoint for two to three hours before informing its members that entry was prohibited. The delegation had earlier passed through the Al-Matouna checkpoint, operated by the Sweida Security Directorate. The broadcaster also recalled that groups affiliated with Druze spiritual leader Sheikh Hikmat al-Hijri had blocked commercial trucks carrying essential goods and fuel from entering Sweida province on September 10. According to Al-Ikhbariya’s correspondent at the time, the restrictions on commercial convoys coincided with the groups preventing approximately 12,000 students from reaching examination centers to sit special make-up exams for students in Sweida.

Iran's Guards Say Oil Tanker on Fire after Hitting Mine in Hormuz
Asharq Al Awsat/19 October 2026
Iran's Revolutionary Guards said Monday an oil tanker caught fire in the Strait of Hormuz after hitting a mine, the latest such incident since Tehran tightened its grip of the waterway. Iran seized control of the strait after war broke out against the United States and Israel late February, choking off the vital shipping route which normally carries about a fifth of the world's oil.The Iranian republic has demanded that all ships seek its authorization before transiting. "An oil tanker, which was in violation, struck a naval mine south of the Strait of Hormuz, resulting in an explosion and a fire in its engine room," Iranian state media quoted the Guards as saying. The tanker was travelling in the strait's "unauthorized southern route" and had disabled its positioning and navigation systems, the statement said.It came a day after the Guards said two oil tankers caught fire in the strait, both after hitting mines. The Guards' naval commander Admiral Ali Ozmaei warned this week that any vessel that deactivated its navigation systems would be considered "hostile".The United States has imposed a naval counter-blockade on Iranian oil exports in response to Tehran's blockade on the waterway.

Russian FM arrives in Tehran
Agence France Presse/19 October 2026
Russia's foreign minister has arrived in Tehran for his first visit since the outbreak of the Middle East war, Russian news agencies reported on Monday, as Moscow seeks to play a mediating role.
Arriving from Bahrain, Sergei Lavrov was scheduled to meet with Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian and Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi. His visit comes after Russian President Vladimir Putin told his Iranian counterpart earlier this month that Moscow was prepared to contribute to mediation efforts.

Zelensky Speaks to US Envoys as Trump Lashes Out
Asharq Al Awsat/19 October 2026
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky spoke with top US envoys Sunday to try to ease tensions, as Donald Trump accused his counterpart of not wanting to end the war with Russia. Zelensky spoke to US officials Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner as both Russia and Ukraine hit each other's energy sites, with Moscow leaving thousands without power and Kyiv carrying out the largest drone attack on Saint Petersburg since the start of the war in 2022, said AFP. Trump and Zelensky have clashed as the US president blocked new sanctions on Russia and struck a diesel deal with Moscow, fueling fears in Kyiv and Europe that the White House was steering towards Moscow. A Wall Street Journal report that Russian President Vladimir Putin proposed a meeting on Ukraine with Trump and Chinese leader Xi Jinping -- but not Zelensky -- has set off more alarm bells. On Sunday, Trump wrote on his Truth Social platform that he was in the process of negotiating peace between Russia and Ukraine and making "great progress," but claimed: "Zelenskyy doesn't care, and frankly, with all of the money that Europe is famously giving him... he doesn't want to end this war, and probably never did." "Zelenskyy is using Diesel Refineries in Russia as a target, knowing that these attacks are seriously hurting the world diesel markets, including those in the United States," Trump said. Earlier, after speaking to Trump's business partner Witkoff and son-in-law Kushner, Zelensky said "a lot depends" on the US position in the war but that "it is clear that there are many things that matter to all of us and that this war must be brought to an end." Ukraine was ready to work "constructively" and "honestly", he said. "We expect exactly this approach from all our partners -- both from the Europeans and, of course, from the American side."
He said he discussed deliveries of US Patriot air defense systems, as Kyiv struggles to counter Russian missiles. Zelensky earlier told US broadcaster NBC it would be a "historic mistake" if Washington formally supported Russia and that he hoped Trump would "change his decisions."
But he also said he was "thankful" the United States resumed intelligence sharing after a pause that left his country vulnerable to Russian missile strikes.
Thousands without power -
A US-led push to end Europe's deadliest conflict since World War II has so far not brought about a breakthrough and Trump has in the past grown frustrated with both Zelensky and Putin because of their lack of progress. Zelensky spoke to the American officials as he accused Russia of breaking Trump's "energy ceasefire" 76 times and warning Moscow planned to deprive Ukrainians of heat and electricity before winter. Russian strikes left "tens of thousands" without power in several regions, he said, with Ukrainian officials reporting three people had been killed. Ukraine's army launched drones at Putin's hometown of Saint Petersburg late Sunday, setting an oil refinery ablaze and killing one person, Moscow said. Russia's VKontakte social network said its data center was hit and Ozon -- Russia's second largest retailer -- also reported a strike on its logistics center. The head of the wider Leningrad region, Alexander Drozdenko, said air defense shot down 144 Ukrainian drones, with state media saying this was the largest attack on the city since the start of the war.
'Dreadful routine of war' -
The Kremlin, however, said Ukrainian attacks on its cities will not change its war aims.
Putin has repeatedly said Moscow intends to seize the rest of eastern Ukraine and, in a fifth year of war, few see a way out of the conflict. "There's a general feeling: they're attacking, we're attacking -- it's become the dreadful routine of war," 58-year-old Galina told AFP in Saint Petersburg.
Moscow has rained drones and missiles on Ukrainian cities daily and Kyiv says its strikes are fair retribution. Sergei, another Saint Petersburg resident who is also 58, said he felt his apartment block shake and quickly realized it was a drone attack."I don't know if I was scared, what must be will be," he said. Ukrainian strikes caused nationwide fuel shortages in Russia earlier this year.

Rubio Says No Pause in US Intel Sharing with Ukraine
Asharq Al Awsat/19 October 2026
US Secretary of State Marco Rubio denied on Monday that there had been any suspension of intelligence sharing with Ukraine and called on President Volodymyr Zelensky to "focus" on ending the war with Russia. "There has been no pause," Rubio told reporters when asked about Ukraine's claims that the United States had briefly halted the sending of intelligence to help counter Russia's missile attacks.The Ukraine leader told US media on Sunday that the move had been "deblocked by the American side" after a three-day suspension. Rubio, who is in Uzbekistan for talks with Central Asian officials, said that President Donald Trump wanted Zelensky and Russia's President Vladimir Putin to concentrate on ending the Russian invasion, now into its fifth year."What he (Zelensky) should be focused on and what we want to be focused on is bringing an end to this war," Rubio said. "That's what we want everybody to be focused on. That's what we want the Russians to be focused on. That's what we should be focused on. That's what the president has made a priority: is trying to bring a war and an end to this war," the top US diplomat said. Trump, who says he has made a deal with Russia to secure fuel exports in exchange for the easing of sanctions, has made renewed attacks on Zelensky in recent days over the war. The US leader wrote on his Truth Social platform on Sunday that he was making "great progress" in negotiating peace between Russia and Ukraine, but claimed: "Zelenskyy doesn't care, and frankly, with all of the money that Europe is famously giving him... he doesn't want to end this war, and probably never did." "Zelenskyy is using Diesel Refineries in Russia as a target, knowing that these attacks are seriously hurting the world diesel markets, including those in the United States," Trump said.

WSJ: Putin Proposes Summit with Trump and Xi to Discuss Ukraine Deal
Asharq Al Awsat/19 October 2026
Russian President Vladimir Putin has proposed a summit next month with US President Donald Trump and Chinese leader Xi Jinping to negotiate an end to the four-year-old Ukraine conflict that would favor Moscow, the Wall Street Journal reported on Sunday, citing people familiar with the discussions. The proposed summit comes amid warming ties between Trump and Putin especially after the US President announced a deal to buy Russian diesel and signed ‌an order ‌on Friday waiving key sanctions on Moscow. Citing ‌a ⁠former Russian intelligence ⁠officer briefed on the matter, the paper said that Putin's suggestion came in an October 9 telephone call with Trump that also yielded the diesel deal between the two countries.The White House did not immediately respond to a Reuters request for comment, while the Kremlin could not ⁠be immediately reached outside regular business hours. The ‌Russian and Chinese embassies in ‌Washington did not immediately reply to requests for comment. The Kremlin has ‌suggested holding the trilateral dialogue on the sidelines of ‌the upcoming Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit, the WSJ report said, citing people familiar with the discussions. That summit is set to take place on November 18 to 19 in Shenzhen. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov ‌confirmed to the Journal that discussions were taking place over a potential meeting. “There is ⁠no clear ⁠understanding yet regarding the meeting itself or its potential agenda, although all three parties acknowledge the hypothetical possibility of such a meeting taking place,” he told the Wall Street Journal. A senior US official told the Journal that Trump had not agreed to such a summit, but he could be receptive to the idea. Trump's diesel deal with Putin and the executive order waiving sanctions on Moscow have drawn criticism from Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy, who has warned it would embolden Putin and prolong the war.

Police ‘Lost Control’ During French Protests, Says Interior Minister
Asharq Al Awsat/19 October 2026
French police "lost control" during nationwide protests marred by violence over the weekend, the interior minister admitted Monday, with President Emmanuel Macron calling for a security review. Macron also refused Interior Minister Laurent Nunez's resignation even as he acknowledged security and intelligence failures in the government response. Saturday's demonstrations saw some half a million people turn out across France to protest the cost of living, but morphed into some of the worst violence to rock the country in years, with town halls and shops looted and set ablaze. More than 2,500 people were arrested, while almost 1,000 members of the security forces were injured. Injuries were also reported among protesters, with one demonstrator's hand blown off by a police crowd-control grenade. "On Saturday, in some major cities, you couldn't look shopkeepers in the eye after hundreds of shops had been looted and tell them we hadn't lost control," Nunez said. Nunez acknowledged a "lack of anticipation" in the deployment of security forces on Saturday, whose numbers were insufficient to deal with the large crowds of rioters and looters on the fringes of the demonstrations. He estimated that some 60,000 law enforcement personnel had been deployed across the country that day. "Given the damage that has been caused, it was only right that I should hand in my resignation," Nunez said. The presidency said in a statement that Macron had rejected the resignation, however, citing "the necessity for continued leadership of law enforcement". Instead, Macron ordered Nunez to "take all necessary steps to ensure transparency over the failures in planning and intelligence that led to the violence". To end the "barricades and looting, he also requested that the interior minister promptly implement new operational methods for security forces to use on the ground in combating rioters," the statement added. Looting continued on Sunday, with Paris Mayor Emmanuel Gregoire saying Monday that around 30 shops had been targeted in the capital the previous day, describing the scenes as "unbearable". Nunez said some 350 people had been arrested in Paris on Sunday and overnight. Nationwide, more than 2,330 people were taken into police custody over the weekend, 70 percent of whom were adults, Justice Minister Gerald Darmanin said Monday. More than 2,000 shops were expected to have been affected by the weekend's violence across France, with damage running into "hundreds of millions of euros", according to chamber of commerce president Alain Di Crescenzo. In an address to the nation Sunday evening, Macron slammed the "unbridled" violence and said local authorities would be able to ban -- "if necessary" -- certain rallies in coming days. But he stopped short of announcing drastic measures, such as a state of emergency or curfew. Saturday's protests followed four weeks of high school student protests that at times also turned violent.

Louvre Blocked as France Grapples with Unrest
Asharq Al Awsat/19 October 2026
Protesters blocked the entrance to the Louvre in Paris on Monday, as French authorities scrambled to stem public discontent fueling mass cost-of-living demonstrations that over the weekend spilled over into some of the worst street violence in recent years.
President Emmanuel Macron ordered a security review as the country's interior minister admitted that the police "had lost control" during the weekend's unrest. Undeterred, the Yellow Vests movement which organized the weekend's rallies called for a new round of protests Saturday, said AFP. Italy, Spain and Portugal, where anger over rising prices has also led to protests, were keeping a nervous eye on the developments after smaller clashes broke out in Milan over the weekend and protests about housing costs persisted in Spanish cities.Some half a million people turned out across France to protest the surging cost of living, a culmination of four weeks of protests that began with high school students demanding better conditions at their schools. What started as peaceful demonstrations morphed into violence in some places, as masked groups on the sidelines of the protests attacked law enforcement, broke into town halls and other public buildings, setting many of them ablaze, looted shops, and set fire to cars, bicycles and scooters on the streets. Interior Minister Laurent Nunez offered to resign on Monday after more than 2,500 people were arrested and nearly 1,000 members of the security forces injured. Protesters were also hurt, with one demonstrator's hand blown off by a police crowd-control grenade. "On Saturday, in some major cities, you couldn't look shopkeepers in the eye after hundreds of shops had been looted and tell them we hadn't lost control," Nunez said.
Macron refused Nunez's resignation, even as he acknowledged security and intelligence failures in the government response, despite the some 60,000 law enforcement personnel deployed across the country on Saturday. Nationwide, more than 2,330 people were taken into police custody over the weekend, 70 percent of whom were adults, Justice Minister Gerald Darmanin said Monday. More than 2,000 shops were expected to have been affected by the weekend's violence across France, with damage running into "hundreds of millions of euros", according to chamber of commerce president Alain Di Crescenzo.
In an address to the nation Sunday evening, Macron slammed the "unbridled" violence and said local authorities would be able to ban -- "if necessary" -- certain rallies in coming days.
But he stopped short of announcing drastic measures, such as a state of emergency or curfew. City authorities in Marseille said on Monday that public gatherings would be banned from noon to 08:00 pm (1000-1800 GMT).
Louvre blocked
The public discontent showed no signs of subsiding on Monday, with demonstrators blocking the entrance to Paris's iconic Louvre Museum, the most visited in the world. "We are proud to announce that we are blocking the world's largest museum," read a leaflet posted outside the museum, as management and unions said the protest was led by students from Ecole du Louvre. Rising prices have fueled anger in France, where diesel prices have jumped nearly 40 percent and petrol by 25 percent since March and where food prices have risen by 25 percent since 2021.
Elections
The unrest in France has flared just months before a key presidential election where centrist Macron cannot stand again and Marine Le Pen, the far-right presidential candidate for the National Rally party, is riding high in the polls. Ministers have blamed "ultra-left" groups for the violence, while Le Pen claimed that the party of her far-left rival for the presidency, Jean-Luc Melenchon, had "legitimized the violence". The left has accused Macron of ignoring protesters' demands, while the right is calling on him to take a firmer line.
Europe
With costs of living rising across Europe, smaller demonstrations have broken out in other countries.
During the weekend, clashes broke out on the sidelines of a cost-of-living demonstration in Milan, with Mayor Giuseppe Sala warning: "I'm very worried because it's a new phenomenon, which also originates from an international scenario and therefore feeds itself." In Spain, hundreds of tents have occupied Madrid's central Puerta del Sol square since September, when the eviction of an 87-year-old woman from her lifelong flat sparked nationwide protests in a country with soaring housing costs. Dozens of tents have also sprung up in Portugal's main cities of Lisbon and Porto, with protesters demanding action over rising costs of housing.

The Latest English LCCC analysis & editorials from miscellaneous sources published on October 18-19/2026
Kushner Had the Abraham Accords. Boulos Has the Photo Ops. Where Is the Peace?
Robert Williams/Gatestone Institute/October 19, 2026
https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/22926/kushner-boulos
Six years later, despite regional wars, those relationships [of the Abraham Accords] endure. The Abraham Accords produced something more valuable than a ceremony: a measurable change in relations between states. That is the standard by which presidential advisers should be judged.
Consider Sudan. Its war between Abdel Fattah al-Burhan's regime-aligned Sudan Armed Forces (SAF) and Hemedti's Rapid Support Forces (RSF) has killed and displaced civilians on a staggering scale. Washington sanctioned both commanders, accused the RSF of genocide and the SAF of committing war crimes, and determined that the regime's forces had used chemical weapons. [Senior Advisor to the President for Arab and African Affairs Massad] Boulos has promoted a 90-day humanitarian ceasefire; no durable ceasefire has emerged.
Does Boulos have a strategy to prevent Sudan's Red Sea coastline from becoming another arena of Iranian influence? The United States cannot afford an approach that treats every armed faction as an equally acceptable partner simply because each controls territory. Diplomacy must distinguish between temporary contacts and legitimizing forces that threaten long-term security.
The reported American proposal [in Libya] envisages a power-sharing arrangement between the Haftar and Dbeibah families, alongside the unification of state institutions and opportunities for American investment in Libya's energy sector.
Washington, however, must confront a more fundamental question: How can a genuine national unity government emerge in Libya when one of the negotiating parties operates within a political environment deeply entangled with armed militias, Muslim Brotherhood-linked networks and hardline Islamist factions?
[T]he underlying problem remains: Who would actually exercise power inside a supposedly unified Libyan government? Would Washington be helping establish a sovereign state with a unified national army, accountable institutions and civilian authority? Or would it be legitimizing an arrangement in which entrenched political families divide state resources while armed factions and Islamist networks retain influence behind the scenes?
How... can [President Trump's] own representatives pursue deals that risk preserving the influence of armed Islamist networks while the president promises to confront them?
In Sudan, Yemen and Libya, American national security is too important for strategic ambiguity masquerading as balance.
Trump does not need an envoy whose chief asset is proximity to presidential power. He needs results consistent with his stated strategy: stronger allies, weaker terrorist networks, less Iranian influence and durable peace.
Kushner had the Abraham Accords. What will Boulos leave behind? The photograph should document a victory — not substitute for one.
Jared Kushner had the Abraham Accords. What will Massad Boulos (Senior Advisor to the President for Arab and African Affairs) leave behind? The photograph should document a victory — not substitute for one.
Two Trump family advisers received extraordinary access to presidential power. One helped change the Middle East. What has the other changed?
On September 15, 2020, US President Donald J. Trump hosted the signing of the Abraham Accords. The United Arab Emirates and Bahrain normalized relations with Israel; Morocco followed. Jared Kushner helped translate a strategic opening into diplomatic recognition, trade and security cooperation. Six years later, despite regional wars, those relationships endure. The Abraham Accords produced something more valuable than a ceremony: a measurable change in relations between states. That is the standard by which presidential advisers should be judged.
Kushner had a recognizable professional identity long before marrying Ivanka Trump in 2009. He was active in real estate and had acquired The New York Observer in 2006. He was not a trained diplomat, but his public record was identifiable.
What comparable record did Massad Boulos (Senior Advisor to the President for Arab and African Affairs) possess before his son married Tiffany Trump? He worked in business in Nigeria, maintained Lebanese political connections. None is evidence of experience ending civil wars. In 2024, journalistic investigations also questioned widely repeated descriptions of Boulos as a billionaire lawyer commanding a vast business empire; he and Trump's team disputed the criticism. Yet a more consequential question remains: Why was someone with no established record of resolving international conflicts entrusted with Sudan, Congo and Libya?
Consider Sudan. Its war between Abdel Fattah al-Burhan's regime-aligned Sudan Armed Forces (SAF) and Hemedti's Rapid Support Forces (RSF) has killed and displaced civilians on a staggering scale. Washington sanctioned both commanders, accused the RSF of genocide and the SAF of committing war crimes, and determined that the regime's forces had used chemical weapons. Boulos has promoted a 90-day humanitarian ceasefire; no durable ceasefire has emerged.
The Sudan conflict also reaches far beyond the country's borders. Iranian-made drones have strengthened the SAF. In March 2026, Washington designated the SAF-allied Sudanese Muslim Brotherhood a Foreign Terrorist Organization due to its violence against civilians and the support it receives from Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.
Iran's support for Yemen's Houthis has already exposed how militants can threaten Red Sea shipping.
Does Boulos have a strategy to prevent Sudan's Red Sea coastline from becoming another arena of Iranian influence? The United States cannot afford an approach that treats every armed faction as an equally acceptable partner simply because each controls territory. Diplomacy must distinguish between temporary contacts and legitimizing forces that threaten long-term security.
Libya raises an equally serious question about the direction of American diplomacy. Boulos has pursued negotiations aimed at reconciling the rival authorities associated with Khalifa Haftar in eastern Libya and Abdul Hamid Dbeibah in Tripoli.
The reported American proposal envisages a power-sharing arrangement between the Haftar and Dbeibah families, alongside the unification of state institutions and opportunities for American investment in Libya's energy sector.
Washington, however, must confront a more fundamental question: How can a genuine national unity government emerge in Libya when one of the negotiating parties operates within a political environment deeply entangled with armed militias, Muslim Brotherhood-linked networks and hardline Islamist factions?
The influence of these networks in western Libya cannot simply be ignored. Dbeibah's administration has depended on shifting alliances with powerful armed groups, while political figures associated with the Muslim Brotherhood have maintained connections within Libya's fragmented power structure. Their relationships may be complicated and sometimes adversarial, but the underlying problem remains: Who would actually exercise power inside a supposedly unified Libyan government?
Would Washington be helping establish a sovereign state with a unified national army, accountable institutions and civilian authority? Or would it be legitimizing an arrangement in which entrenched political families divide state resources while armed factions and Islamist networks retain influence behind the scenes?
A government of national unity cannot succeed if it merely unites the political elites while leaving the forces that divided the country untouched.
Trump has repeatedly confronted Iran and his administration has formally designated specific Muslim Brotherhood branches accused of supporting terrorism.
How, then, can his own representatives pursue deals that risk preserving the influence of armed Islamist networks while the president promises to confront them?
In Sudan, Yemen and Libya, American national security is too important for strategic ambiguity masquerading as balance.
Trump does not need an envoy whose chief asset is proximity to presidential power. He needs results consistent with his stated strategy: stronger allies, weaker terrorist networks, less Iranian influence and durable peace.
*Kushner had the Abraham Accords. What will Boulos leave behind? The photograph should document a victory — not substitute for one.
*Robert Williams is based in the United States.
© 2026 Gatestone Institute. All rights reserved. The articles printed here do not necessarily reflect the views of the Editors or of Gatestone Institute.

Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Restoring Red Lines
Ghassan Charbel/Asharq Al-Awsat newspaper/October 19/2026
The position announced by President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi regarding the Houthi attacks on Saudi Arabia constitutes a remarkable development in the current crisis, which transcends Yemen's borders to form a regional crisis that has lived for decades on the embers of successive Iranian coups. There is no surprise in this position; Egypt is a major Arab state that cannot abdicate its role in defending national security and its direct interests. It is no exaggeration to say that Egypt and Saudi Arabia are the backbone of any firm Arab stance aimed at preserving Arab rights in the region.
Egypt dealt with the Iranian momentum in the region with a great deal of wisdom and patience. It wagered on diplomacy and time, hoping that Tehran would halt its repeated attempts to encircle Arab decision-making centers and alter the balance of power within several territories and across the entire region. Years ago, I met with President Sisi and asked him about Egypt, its economy, and the region's situation and security. He said: "The forces targeting Egypt are targeting the region as well. They are the forces of evil, consisting of extremist organizations or regional states seeking to destabilize and overturn equations. Our decision to confront these attacks and attempts is decisive, and our will is solid." "As Arab nations, we must stand together in defense of our national security and stability against attempts to partition our countries, plunge them into chaos, and drain their economies and opportunities for progress. I am fully confident that, together with our brothers in the Gulf states and other Arab nations, if we unite our efforts, we can confront whoever targets our countries, our region, and our role," he added.
Sisi stressed in his remarks that the relationship with Saudi Arabia is "deep and strategic, serving the interests of both countries and Arab national security." He said: "In all honesty, I say that our brothers in Saudi Arabia manage matters with wisdom and firmness, and that is why I tell them we are always together." Sisi was decisive in stating that "the stability of the Kingdom is stability for Egypt, and vice versa."It was notable in the interview published by Asharq Al-Awsat that the Egyptian president was careful not to mention Iran by name, even though he meant it when referring to the forces of evil that attempt to destabilize and overturn equations. It appeared clear that Sisi wanted to keep the window of dialogue open to give diplomacy the widest opportunity to rationalize Iranian behavior in the region, despite Tehran's continuous violation of "red lines" on Arab soil.
Saudi Arabia has also dealt with long patience Iranian incursions in the region. It has consistently attempted to keep the window of diplomacy open, both before and after the Beijing Agreement. However, Saudi Arabia committed to the constants of its policy; namely, respecting the "red lines" imposed by international law in interstate relations, as well as the "red lines" drawn by the principle of good neighborliness for those who commit to it in word and deed.
In this context, Egyptian and Saudi approaches generally aligned in supporting legitimacies - the Palestinian legitimacy, the Lebanese legitimacy, and the Yemeni legitimacy - and encouraging the Iraqi legitimacy to restore state institutions at home and reclaim Iraq's role within the Arab fold.
During the major turning points witnessed in recent turbulent decades, the Egyptian and Saudi wills converged. This alignment occurred when Saddam Hussein’s forces invaded Kuwait, and when Egypt took to the streets after Muslim Brotherhood rule raised fears over its identity, stability, and role. At the time, Saudi Arabia acted out of its conviction in the interconnectedness of its own security and stability with those of Egypt. Similarly, Egypt acted based on its conviction that destabilizing Saudi Arabia would cause catastrophic damage to Egypt, the Gulf, the Arab and Islamic worlds, as well as the global economy.
Regional coexistence depends on states honoring clear red lines: respecting international borders, engaging with official governments, and upholding the right of every nation to choose its own policies and orientations in accordance with applicable laws and norms. Conversely, the encirclement of states, the violation of their borders and security, and the erosion of their independent decision-making capacity and ability to defend their sovereignty and interests directly contradict these conditions for coexistence.
It is clear that the policy of the Houthi "Ansar Allah" organization is fundamentally based on violating all red lines both internally and externally. This approach extends from undermining legitimacy within Yemen and assassinating former President Ali Abdullah Saleh, to holding the Bab al-Mandeb Strait hostage, and reaching the barbaric bombardment that targeted civilians at Riyadh airport. Iran, for its part, has practiced continuous violations of red lines on the territories of others; establishing militias, arming them, seizing control of their decision-making, and tasking them with regional missions as part of destabilization operations. Amid the major turmoil in the region, the Egyptian president's position is a strict warning message: Egypt is prepared to engage in defensive missions that help in curbing the destabilization. The convergence of Egyptian and Saudi capabilities forms the foundation for gathering an Arab, Islamic, and international stance that helps restore red lines and rein in attempts to overturn the regional equation.
A wider war is brewing in the region amid a thick fog of uncertainty. The absence of a dangerous player like Netanyahu, should it occur, is not enough to conclude that Israel will be less aggressive. Furthermore, it remains difficult to predict the conclusions Trump might draw from any potential electoral setback for his party in the midterm elections. Compounding these dynamics, escalatory Iranian behavior in the Strait of Hormuz could accelerate the arrival of even more volatile conflict, as Iran has changed neither its language nor its approach.
The Arab official smiled at length upon hearing from Abbas Araghchi that his country had exerted efforts with both Saudi Arabia and the Houthis to halt the escalation, but that neither party responded. Araghchi also insisted that "the Houthis make their decisions independently." This "clever" remark only deepened the Arab official's pessimism.

A New Egyptian Regional Role?
Mamoun Fandy/Asharq Al-Awsat newspaper/October 19/2026
In his address at the Military Academy, President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi declared Egypt's readiness to defend Saudi Arabia. "In accordance with the directives of King Salman and Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, I will carry out any measure to protect you or defend you," he said. "This requires the approval of the Egyptian parliament, and I hope parliament will convene in an emergency session to give us this mandate should it be requested of us." The heart of his remarks was defense, not attack, and parliament will give him the mandate he wants.
The more important question is whether this marks the start of a new Egyptian regional role, or the activation of an old conception of national security, one that sees the security of the Gulf, and of Saudi Arabia above all, as an extension of Egypt's own.
Some date Egypt's military presence in the Gulf to the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, when Hosni Mubarak sent Egyptian forces to join the Arab coalition in Saudi Arabia. It goes back further. When Iraqi Prime Minister Abd al-Karim Qasim threatened to annex Kuwait after its independence in 1961, Gamal Abdel Nasser sent troops as part of an Arab League force to protect Kuwait's independence and deter the threat. The aim was to prevent annexation by force without a return to British protection. Three decades later, Mubarak committed large Egyptian forces to the coalition that freed Kuwait from Saddam's occupation. Today Sisi declares his readiness to defend Saudi Arabia. The line runs from Nasser through Mubarak to Sisi. Leaders changed; Gulf security stayed a constant in Egypt's strategic calculations.
What is new in Sisi's remarks, then, is not the principle but the nature of the threat. In 1961 the danger was one state's claim on another. In 1990 it was outright military occupation. Today states and militias overlap, and missiles and drones let armed groups outside any state inflict strategic damage on states far stronger than they are. The Houthi threat to Red Sea shipping has crippled its commercial function and turned it into a daily test of states' ability to protect their interests.
Seen this way, Saudi and Egyptian security have become conjoined, in material terms and not merely in rhetoric. Prime Minister Mostafa Madbouly said earlier that Suez Canal revenues had fallen by nearly $6.7 billion, a direct and painful blow to the Egyptian economy. That is not the price of solidarity with an ally. It is a price Egypt is already paying for a disrupted regional environment. When the Houthis can throw this vital resource into turmoil, the security of Bab al-Mandeb becomes part of Egypt's economic security.
Still, readiness to defend the Kingdom is one thing, and shaping a new security order is another. Sisi's request for a parliamentary mandate can be read as a deterrent message: Egypt has the political and institutional readiness to act militarily if it must. Deterrence works not only when force is used, but when the other side is convinced that its use would be legitimate, possible, and costly. Wars never follow governments' plans. An uncalculated incident, such as a drone strike on two ships in the port of Damietta, could widen the confrontation without anyone having decided to. I suspect the president is anticipating this kind of unintended escalation, and the mandate may be preparation for possibilities beyond the declared defensive mission.
The broader test is whether Egypt can turn its military weight into lasting political influence, given its economic burdens and the pressure on its other borders, in Sudan, Libya, Gaza, and the Red Sea. Military power makes presence possible, but it is not enough on its own. It needs a capable economy and a diplomacy that sets the rules of the regional balance. The Saudi-Egyptian partnership can lighten that load. From Nasser to Mubarak to Sisi, the question is not whether Egypt is returning to the Gulf. Strategically, it never left. The question is whether it will move from defending the region's existing balances to shaping new ones. A regional role is measured not by how many troops a state can send, but by its ability to build a security that makes sending them less necessary. The saying goes that the Arab nation flies on two wings, Egypt and Saudi Arabia. Will the flight plan begin with this mandate?

When the Patron Turns into Mediator
Sam Menassa/Asharq Al-Awsat newspaper/October 19/2026
The Houthi attacks on Saudi airports and passenger terminals go beyond political messaging. They endanger civilians and strike at security and economic life. This escalation by an armed group outside the state raises a question larger than how to stop the attacks: can it be treated as a confrontation between Saudi Arabia and the Houthis alone, while Iran's role in building the group's capabilities and supplying its means of attack is ignored? These attacks are hardly a Houthi product detached from their regional context. UN experts have documented the role of Iran's Revolutionary Guard, Hezbollah, and Iraqi experts in developing the Houthis' capabilities, turning a group of limited means into a force capable of cross-border operations. That support does not prove Tehran ordered every attack. But ignoring Iran's role in supplying the means is a misleading reduction of the problem.
The difficulty lies in apportioning responsibility between executor and patron, and in the political consequences of doing so. The Houthis' local interests and their margin of independent decision do not cancel their place in a network that supplies weapons, expertise, and coordination. Nor does that network absolve them of their own actions. Carrying out an attack and supplying its means are different kinds of responsibility, but neither can be dropped from the political reckoning. Both parties must be held to account for their roles, and the Houthis' supposed independence cannot be used to shift responsibility away from the patron. Saudi Arabia chose diplomacy to reduce the risk of conflict with Iran, a choice embodied in the 2023 agreement brokered by China, which committed both sides to respect for sovereignty and non-interference. Attacks by an armed group backed by Tehran test the credibility of those commitments. The restoration of relations loses much of its value if armed pressure continues through parties Iran supports, and no one is held to account for the gap between declared de-escalation and continuing threat. Saudi restraint reflects a concern to protect people, installations, investments, and development plans, and to avoid widening the war. But the approach succeeds only if partners tie de-escalation to dealing with the instruments of escalation and the networks behind them. Washington, for its part, needs to align its objectives on Iran with its commitments to its partners and its stated opposition to weapons outside the state. If the pursuit of a quick, marketable achievement wins out, de-escalation may amount to no more than freezing the confrontation while its causes and instruments survive. Limited settlements risk entrenching armed groups as parties that disrupt security and are then negotiated with to restore it. Escalation becomes a source of gains, and building an authority that monopolizes the decision of war and peace becomes harder. The danger reaches beyond Yemen to Lebanon, Iraq, and perhaps Palestine, where stability depends on placing weapons and security decisions under state institutions. Such settlements could let these forces recover influence lost in the war since "Al-Aqsa Flood," through political recognition that offsets some of their military losses and fixes their place in the arrangements to come.
The most telling paradox is Iran's offer to facilitate dialogue between the Kingdom and the Houthis. It lets Tehran step into the role of mediator without answering for its part in building the group's strength. Mediation can help if it comes with verifiable commitments to halt military support and prevent renewed attacks. Without them, it hands the patron new leverage, letting it manage the settlement of a crisis its own support helped inflame.
The question, then, is what the dialogue covers and who guarantees its results. A settlement that separates the attacks from the sources that enable them may produce a truce, but it leaves security hostage to pressure and bargaining. A durable peace requires protecting civilians, holding perpetrators and backers to account, stopping the flow of weapons, and a Yemeni settlement that returns decision-making to state institutions and preserves the rights of all Yemenis. It also requires the affected states to have a say in the guarantees, so that the boundaries of their security are not drawn by agreements concluded between others on their own priorities. On those terms, dialogue can address the causes of the crisis rather than granting those who helped create it the right to manage its end.
The test of any settlement is whether it reduces the capacity for blackmail, and stops armed groups from being put to use again whenever negotiations stall or interests shift.

Elections and the Limits of Change in Israel
Nabil Amr/Asharq Al-Awsat newspaper/October 19/2026
Early indications suggest a strong possibility that Israel's upcoming elections will bring about a change in government, with Benjamin Netanyahu and his coalition removed from power and replaced by an alternative alliance, most likely led, according to current projections, by General Gadi Eisenkot.
In Israel, where opinion polls tend to provide a reasonably accurate picture of the relative strength of the main political forces, whoever forms the next government will inevitably find himself constrained by the competing agendas of the parties making up his coalition.
Consider the prospect of Eisenkot forming a government with the parties whose support enables him to win. How much change could he realistically deliver, given that his prospective coalition is united on just one point, "No to Netanyahu," while virtually everything else remains a matter of disagreement? Eisenkot's position would be markedly different from that of Netanyahu, who governed Israel for many years with a coalition characterized by strict loyalty to his leadership. Every partner knew that remaining in power depended on standing firmly behind Netanyahu, who, in turn, skillfully tailored Israeli policy to accommodate their political preferences and agendas. They stood by him in every decision he made. Even when he dismissed generals and politicians who disagreed with him, his coalition provided unwavering protection, not necessarily because its members approved of his actions, but because their own political survival depended on keeping him in office. Netanyahu succeeded in satisfying the leading figures in his coalition to such an extent that each came to feel like a prime minister within his own sphere of influence.
Bezalel Smotrich exercised real authority as finance minister while enjoying considerable influence within the Defense Ministry. Itamar Ben-Gvir, as national security minister, directed the police even in matters extending beyond their legal powers and established practices.
When Ben-Gvir stormed Al-Aqsa Mosque, for example, and attacked worshippers, damaging Israel's relations with Jordan, Netanyahu looked the other way. His silence amounted, in effect, to political cover for Ben-Gvir's conduct, because Netanyahu knew that his government could not survive if Ben-Gvir withdrew from the coalition.Netanyahu's alliance was built on a network of mutual interests between himself and his coalition partners, giving it the cohesion and staying power needed to complete its term without losing a single day. Eisenkot, however, would face an entirely different situation. His government's only agreed political platform would be opposition to Netanyahu. Indeed, the seeds of future disputes among Eisenkot's prospective coalition partners have already been sown, even before the elections.
Naftali Bennett, for example, believes he has the strongest claim to the premiership, despite trailing others in the polls. After all, he has already held the position through his power-sharing arrangement with Yair Lapid. That experience gives him a credential that distinguishes him from Eisenkot, a general still relatively new to politics and government.
The same applies to Avigdor Lieberman, whose positions are even further to the right than Netanyahu's. Lieberman, an immigrant from Russia, considers himself well qualified to become prime minister. He believes he alone can succeed Netanyahu as the leader of Israel's entire right wing, including Likud.
Nor does Lieberman lack the experience to support his ambitions. He has served as defense minister, foreign minister and in several other cabinet positions. The struggle over who should lead the government has been postponed for now to ensure that the opposition can secure the majority needed to remove Netanyahu. But once victory is achieved, the contest for the top position will almost certainly resume. Each coalition heavyweight will retain his own agenda, waiting for the right moment to make his move. Israeli politics has witnessed such struggles many times before.
Assuming Eisenkot wins and succeeds in forming the next government, he will face another serious challenge: how to deal with Arab lawmakers, whose votes are often the deciding factor in forming an Israeli government. Here, the issue is not simply a collection of parliamentary votes available to the highest political bidder. Arab lawmakers have established conditions governing whom they will support and to whom they will provide a parliamentary safety net. Among those conditions is the opening of a political path toward resolving the Palestinian question. This may prove the most difficult demand of all, given the prevailing Zionist consensus against the establishment of a Palestinian state.
How can Eisenkot resolve this dilemma?
So far, he has kept his cards close to his chest.
Yet the calculations made before an election rarely survive unchanged once the votes have been counted. What matters during a campaign is assembling enough support to win. Afterward, the overriding priorities become forming a government and keeping it alive.
Within a few days, much of what remains uncertain will become clear, and questions that the candidates have found it necessary to avoid during the election campaign will finally demand answers.
One thing, however, is certain: change is coming.
The question is how far that change can go.

The Palestinian Authority's Dangerous Pursuit of Unity with Hamas
Khaled Abu Toameh/Gatestone Institute/October 19, 2026
https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/22927/palestinian-authority-hamas-unity
Why is Fatah treating Hamas as a legitimate political partner before the group has demonstrated a willingness to abandon terrorism, surrender its weapons, and relinquish its independent military forces? The question is particularly urgent as the international community seeks to establish a different future for the Gaza Strip, one that would prevent Hamas from restoring its military capabilities and ensure that the territory is no longer controlled by an armed organization. What happens when Hamas refuses to surrender its weapons and accept the authority if a single Palestinian government? The issue... is whether the terrorist organization Hamas should be permitted to retain the weapons and military infrastructure that enable it to impose its will on Palestinians and launch more attacks against Israel, not to mention its own civilians.
A general commitment to national dialogue does not establish that Hamas is prepared to disarm, dismantle its military infrastructure, or accept the binding authority of a unified government. Hamas's own account of the Cairo meetings... emphasized the need for elections, which Hamas would no doubt win, and a unified strategy combining political and "field action" against Israel. The phrase "field action" requires clarification. Does "field action" mean peaceful political activity, or does it leave room for armed operations by factions that retain their own weapons and military chains of command?
The Palestinians do not need another agreement filled with general declarations whose meaning each faction can interpret according to its own interests. They need clear, verifiable commitments that establish who exercises authority, who controls weapons, and who is responsible for security.
A government cannot exercise sovereignty if another organization retains the power to undermine its decisions by force.
The Palestinians... do not need another agreement that allows Hamas, an armed Islamist group committed to the destruction of Israel, to retain its weapons while acquiring renewed political legitimacy.
The Trump Administration's 20-point Gaza initiative and the Board of Peace have placed questions of security, demilitarization, and Gaza's future governance at the center of the debate. Fatah's negotiations with Hamas should be judged against those objectives, not simply by whether Palestinian factions can reach another "unity" agreement.
Why is the Palestinian Authority's ruling Fatah faction treating Hamas as a legitimate political partner before the group has demonstrated a willingness to abandon terrorism, surrender its weapons, and relinquish its independent military forces?
More than three years after the October 7 massacre, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas and his ruling Fatah faction are still pursuing reconciliation with Hamas, the Iran-backed terrorist group that led the assault on Israel.
Instead of making Hamas's disarmament and the dismantling of its military infrastructure prerequisites for Palestinian political unity, Fatah officials are traveling to Cairo to negotiate ways of incorporating the terrorist group into a unified Palestinian political system.
The latest round of talks, sponsored by Egypt, once again raises a fundamental question: Why is Fatah treating Hamas as a legitimate political partner before the group has demonstrated a willingness to abandon terrorism, surrender its weapons, and relinquish its independent military forces?
The question is particularly urgent as the international community seeks to establish a different future for the Gaza Strip, one that would prevent Hamas from restoring its military capabilities and ensure that the territory is no longer controlled by an armed organization.
Fatah, however, appears determined to pursue reconciliation with Hamas, even as the fundamental disagreements that have divided the Palestinian political system for nearly two decades remain unresolved.
In an interview with the Palestinian newspaper Al-Quds, Jibril Rajoub, secretary of Fatah's Central Committee, described the recent meetings with Hamas as taking place in a "highly positive atmosphere." He said the discussions were intended to establish common ground on the Palestinian political program, the nature of the struggle against Israel, and the future structure of the Palestinian political system.
Rajoub also announced that Egypt was evaluating previous rounds of Palestinian national dialogue before inviting the Palestinian factions to another conference in Cairo. He portrayed the initiative as an opportunity to overcome what he called the "strategic paralysis" of the Palestinian political system through political and judicial reform, elections, and the establishment of a Palestinian state based on the rule of law.
These objectives might sound reasonable: A political system based on the rule of law, democratic elections, and a single authority responsible for security is exactly what Palestinians need.
The problem is that such promises have been made repeatedly over the years, while the underlying question remains unanswered: What happens when Hamas refuses to surrender its weapons and accept the authority if a single Palestinian government?
According to Rajoub, the recent discussions with Hamas focused on developing a common political, national, and organizational framework.
Hamas, however, has maintained its own armed wing and has rejected the political framework associated with the Oslo Accords that were signed between the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and Israel in 1993 and 1995. Its participation in Palestinian political institutions cannot, by itself, resolve the contradiction between a political system based on a single authority and an armed terrorist organization that retains the capacity to act independently of that authority.
If Abbas's Fatah genuinely believes in one authority and one armed force, it should insist that Hamas disarm and dismantle its military infrastructure before being admitted into a new political arrangement.
Otherwise, "unity" risks becoming a formula for legitimizing the continued existence of a terrorist group that can challenge any Palestinian governing authority that disagrees with its decisions.
The issue is not whether Hamas representatives should be allowed to attend meetings. It is whether the terrorist organization Hamas should be permitted to retain the weapons and military infrastructure that enable it to impose its will on Palestinians and launch more attacks against Israel, not to mention its own civilians (here, here, here and here) .
The distinction is essential. Political participation without enforceable conditions could give Hamas a route back into Palestinian institutions without requiring it to abandon the means through which it has exercised coercive power.
Rajoub's interview contains another apparent contradiction. He said that, in the aftermath of October 7 and its consequences for international opinion, peaceful and nonviolent struggle had become a strategic necessity for the Palestinians. He declared that continued bloodshed was no longer an acceptable option and called for political and diplomatic engagement with the international community. He also described a future Palestinian state as one governed by the rule of law, with a single authority and a single armed force.
These statements raise an important question: Have Hamas and other Palestinian terrorist factions participating in the Cairo discussions explicitly accepted this approach, including the practical consequences of abandoning terrorism?
Rajoub described Hamas as showing openness and a willingness to develop a common political and national platform. The atmosphere in a meeting room, however, is not evidence that the parties have resolved their fundamental disagreements.
A general commitment to national dialogue does not establish that Hamas is prepared to disarm, dismantle its military infrastructure, or accept the binding authority of a unified government.
Hamas's own account of the Cairo meetings reinforces the need for clarity. The terrorist group presented the talks as an effort to reform the Palestinian Authority political system so that it would encompass all Palestinian factions and provide them with a role in national decision-making. It also emphasized the need for elections, which Hamas would no doubt win, and a unified strategy combining political and "field action" against Israel.
The phrase "field action" requires clarification. Does "field action" mean peaceful political activity, or does it leave room for armed operations by factions that retain their own weapons and military chains of command?
The Palestinians do not need another agreement filled with general declarations whose meaning each faction can interpret according to its own interests. They need clear, verifiable commitments that establish who exercises authority, who controls weapons, and who is responsible for security.
A government cannot exercise sovereignty if another organization retains the power to undermine its decisions by force.
Hamas seems to be hoping to copy the Hezbollah model, where the Iran-backed Shiite militia in Lebanon operates as a state-within-a-state.
Hamas should not be allowed to use participation in Palestinian institutions as a means of acquiring political legitimacy.
The focus on reconciliation also raises questions about the Palestinian Authority's own responsibilities. Rajoub acknowledged that the Palestinian political system suffers from "strategic paralysis" and requires structural reform and elections. Yet the pursuit of unity with Hamas should not distract from the Palestinian Authority's longstanding governance problems, its lack of democratic legitimacy, and the need for accountability and transparency.
The Palestinians need accountable institutions and a government that exercises real authority and refrains from glorifying violence and terrorism. They do not need another agreement that allows Hamas, an armed Islamist group committed to the destruction of Israel, to retain its weapons while acquiring renewed political legitimacy. The Trump Administration's 20-point Gaza initiative and the Board of Peace have placed questions of security, demilitarization, and Gaza's future governance at the center of the debate. Fatah's negotiations with Hamas should be judged against those objectives, not simply by whether Palestinian factions can reach another "unity" agreement.
*Khaled Abu Toameh is an award-winning journalist based in Jerusalem.
*Follow Khaled Abu Toameh on X (formerly Twitter)
© 2026 Gatestone Institute. All rights reserved. The articles printed here do not necessarily reflect the views of the Editors or of Gatestone Institute.

The Tragedy of the Shiites Today
Colonel Charbel Barakat/October 20/2026
https://eliasbejjaninews.com/2026/10/158430/
The Shiite community is the one of which former Israeli Prime Minister Shimon Peres said in the fall of 1982 that it constitutes our 'closest neighbor' with whom we ought to coordinate. Dialogue with them was subsequently carried out by the 'Lebanon Bureau,' which was managed by the late Ambassador Uri Lubrani for eighteen years, and later led General Barak—dubbed by some as the 'Little Napoleon'—to adopt the idea of a unilateral withdrawal, meaning even without coordination with the Lebanese state, whose decisions were constrained by the Syrian occupation. At the time, it was not in Syria's interest for Israel to withdraw, as some said, so that Syria would not be forced to follow suit and carry out a withdrawal of its own.
This noble community was once one of the most open communities toward other Lebanese, the most accepting of critical thought, and the furthest removed from religious extremism, especially among its intellectuals who turned toward science and knowledge to increase their employment opportunities and enter the upper echelons of national leadership through the widest door. However, the influence of political parties led a large faction of them astray—to the point of supporting Nasserist ideology, which contradicted their national aspirations in 1958, followed by Baathist, nationalist, and communist ideologies that swept them toward rowdy leftist movements to support the Palestine Liberation Organization against their own interests, nearly causing them to lose their national identity. Then came the Revolutionary Guard, following the agreement between Assad and the mullahs' regime (which abandoned Baathism to enjoy balanced support between Arabs and Persians) believing it could enjoy bounty without having to make a clear choice. This bound them with the fetters of Khomeini's ideology, which seeks to transform the entire Middle East into a Persian empire akin to the conquests of Cyrus the Great and his successors. Consequently, it indoctrinated them to become tools within the grand project, having no dream other than securing satisfaction tied to the will of God and operating through divine assignment (taklif shar'i), thus casting aside reason, burying logic, and buying consciences. Enlightened individuals were no longer able to pass the light on to new generations; instead, they settled for whatever accompanied the flow of 'halal' money, the goodness of which spread to everyone in its own way. The professor (Berri) who fought political feudalism became the largest financier in the state, and after the fighting between the Party and Amal, he was permitted to take charge of state outputs and distribute some to his group, while the Party—under Iranian orders—monopolized the bounties of the mullahs' regime and the flowing goodness, being the most crucial arm in the structure of the Quds Force and its combat groups.
The Iranians made Lebanon's Shiites an essential part of their strategic plans; they are the elements who train and lead among Arab groups from Iraq to Yemen, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, and the rest of the Gulf countries, and even in Egypt, Sudan, Algeria (with the Polisario and others), Venezuela, the rest of Latin America, and certain European countries. Hence the importance of this affiliation and the value of the funds lavished by
financial, medical, educational, and especially combat-oriented institutions. In their plans, they consider Lebanon to be the advanced front line for defending the imperial expansion of the Khomeini republic, not only regarding Israel, but also in fighting the West, headed by the United States. Their plans include expelling 'foreign' armies from the Middle East and replacing them with the armies of the Revolutionary Guard and its proxies. This is what drove them to build military arsenals in every village and town inhabited by Lebanese Shiites, and across all Lebanese regions. They convinced certain prominent figures within the community to work toward taking over Lebanese regions inhabited by other groups, under the slogan that these were once Shiite areas, building upon them and seizing control so they can impose their military plans across the entirety of Lebanese geography, as these are mountainous regions where fighting is difficult and defending those entrenched within them is easy.
The Iranian project does not take into account the interests of the Shiite community in Lebanon, but rather what it can offer to support and execute imperial expansion. In their plans, Israel is not the primary enemy, but the vehicle to rally other components around them to facilitate control over the entire Middle East. This explains their long-term patience, their manipulation of short-term state interests to gain time, and their focus on the nuclear program, which alone grants them sufficient protection to maintain control.
What can Lebanon do to bring the Shiite community back to the bosom of the homeland and prevent its exploitation and squandering for Iran's interests?
- First, the control of the Party—which is an essential part of the Iranian project—must be ended by any means possible, and it must not remain an armed party capable of exerting influence on the ground.
- Second, the Party and its leadership must be exposed and barred from playing any national role; it is an Iranian arm with nothing to do with Lebanon, and it harms the Shiite community by turning its sons into fuel for the Iranian project with no voice of their own.
- Third, the remaining Shiite parties and groups must abandon the Party, highlight the danger it poses, and seek to change the concepts the Party has accustomed the community to circulate.
- Fourth, the state must undertake a comprehensive and meticulous rehabilitation of all elements who have undergone brainwashing, returning to a political platform away from the exploitation of religion and sect, building upon rapprochement among Lebanese.
- Fifth, the funds, institutions, and capabilities used by the Party to convince people that it contributes to aiding them must be confiscated and handed over to the state, so that the state can play the role of assisting in reconstruction, housing the displaced, and alleviating people's suffering.
- Sixth, Al-Mahdi schools and similar institutions must be closed across all Lebanese territories, work in religious seminaries that graduate those who claim jurisprudence (as they are all hirelings) must be halted, and their educational curricula must be reconsidered.
- Seventh, the situation of the Shiites in Lebanon must be swiftly repaired and freed from the control of the 'Duo,' because the practices of President Berri and
his crew have harmed the community by handing its authority over to the Party and embracing and institutionalizing corruption. Therefore, a council must be formed comprising zealous members of the community whose hands have not been tainted by Iranian money—which humiliated the community and subordinated it to the mullahs' regime—even if they do not reside in Lebanon. They should contribute to rebuilding the foundations upon which the community must rest, particularly education and rehabilitation, which must reach all positions no matter how high, as corruption has taken root in many civil and religious joints.
Only then will the ordinary citizen understand that everything told to them was unrealistic, everything they endured was abnormal, and that hope for change and the future is built upon correct foundations rather than compounding mistakes and endless patching. Until then, we hope the situation in Lebanon stabilizes, the ruling authority learns from its mistakes so it steps forward without fear, takes charge and masters matters, and then opens the door to permanent peace and cooperation with neighbors to build normal relations that contribute to reconstruction once and for all. Wars having ended and conflicts having receded, the focus will turn solely to crafting the future, so that everyone may dream of a proud homeland and institutions that advance its people.

Selected Face Book & X tweets on October 19/2026
Dany A.Khalek
From the Middle East to Europe: The Strategic Cost of Silence on Political Islam
Today, European civilization and democracies face a genuine threat from extremist ideologies. The unrest, acts of violence, and tensions linked to the Palestinian cause witnessed in France and Italy should prompt European policymakers to reconsider their approach of containing rather than confronting this threat, and to re-examine the potential links between the political left and Islamist organizations. The deeper danger lies not merely in the radical slogans raised during acts of destruction, arson, and vandalism, but in the interaction of three converging dynamics. The first is the ideological expansion of religious extremism into Europe and other democratic countries. The second is the demographic change that Islamists pursue as a means of consolidating their presence in these societies. The third is the scale of financial support underpinning alliances between political Islamist groups and certain political leaders in these countries.
European, Australian, and American societies should learn from the harsh experiences of religious and ethnic minorities in the Middle East, which have paid a heavy price for the rise of jihadist movements and for Western policymakers’ subsequent policy of accommodating them, following decades of efforts to combat them. Western political support for jihadist ideology in Syria has contributed to the global resurgence of jihadist thought, transforming it into a transnational phenomenon amplified by the digital sphere. It has also eroded the boundaries between terrorism and political violence. Evidence of this can be seen in how radical Islamist movements have emerged as major beneficiaries of popular demonstrations in France and other European countries, exploiting them to legitimize and mainstream their radical ideology. Policymakers in Europe, the United States, and Australia must recognize that stability cannot be built on appeasing or politically accommodating radical ideologies, nor on the assumption that granting them a share of political power will necessarily make them more moderate.
The experience of the Middle East has demonstrated that the transition of extremist movements from armed terrorism into the political arena can provide them with opportunities to rebuild their influence, turn state institutions into instruments serving their own interests, and gain access to legitimate resources that were previously beyond their reach. This poses a grave threat to the peoples of the free world…A threat they can no longer afford to ignore and to which it is high time they awakened.

Morgan Ortagus
My favorite event of the year is always the Al Smith Foundation gala, as Antoun is on the board and is deeply involved in their Catholic charitable causes. It was a beautiful evening to be surrounded by family and friends and to hear people of all faiths being honored and discussing their dedication to New York City. Cardinal Dolan’s speech was beautiful and a reminder that we should all strive to have a life dedicated to faith and service to our community.

Antoun Sehnaoui
We were grateful to attend the 81st Annual Al Smith Foundation Gala, which honored our friend Cardinal Timothy Dolan for his fifty years of dedicated service to the Catholic Church. Having served for several years on the Board of the Al Smith Memorial Foundation, I was especially pleased to share in this tribute. Cardinal Dolan has always been a steadfast advocate for peace and unity in Lebanon. His instrumental role in establishing the Chapel of Saint Charbel at St. Patrick’s Cathedral helped create a lasting spiritual home for Lebanon’s heritage in one of America’s most important cathedrals. May we all strive to follow his example of faith, compassion, and service.

Dr Walid Phares
President Obama, your administration and bureaucracies targeted me because I opposed your "Iran Deal." They spied on me during my international travels and within the homeland. Then sent your agencies to spy on me, and cripple my lifeline. What they've done to me was an operation to silence your foreign policy critics. All of this scandal is coming out soon sir. I totally reject political persecution but that's exactly what your agencies have done to me.
Quote
Barack Obama
It is a basic principle of American democracy that the government can’t selectively target individuals simply because of their political beliefs or what they say. But that’s exactly what the Trump Administration is doing to Congresswoman Ilhan Omar of Minnesota.

Israel-Alma
Are some members of Lebanon’s Shiite community beginning to fear Israel more than they fear Hezbollah? Is Hezbollah becoming a liability rather than an asset for Nabih Berri and the Amal Movement? A series of confrontations in Shiite villages affiliated with Amal, local opposition to Hezbollah’s military presence, and emerging differences between the leaderships of the two movements may indicate the beginning of a shift. The fear of another war, the expansion of Israeli ground operations into the Nabatieh area and further north, and the potential loss of homes and livelihoods could alter the balance of fear. This is not a Shiite uprising against Hezbollah, but rather the possible emergence of a sentiment favoring the removal of Hezbollah from civilian areas and communities affiliated with Amal. Is the realization beginning to take hold among Nabih Berri and his associates that Hezbollah poses a greater threat to the Shiite community than the protection it claims to provide? Could the fear of another war with Israel succeed in restricting Hezbollah’s activities in Shiite areas that are not part of the organization’s core support base? Read more in Alma Research and Education Center’s special report.

Ronnie Chatah
Remember the crowd that supported & stood by Michel Samaha
The intelligentsia of Hezbollah & years of terrorism they defined as resistance. Desperate for relevancy, then & today And remember the brave men that paid their lives for this country
Wissam al-Hassan
19 October 2012

Hiba Nasr
in an interview with Breitbart : Traditionally, the American political class thought that peace in the Middle East, a core central issue is the Palestinian question. It’s an important issue. It’s not irrelevant. I’m not saying that it’s irrelevant. But I think what President Trump has exposed is that the number one driver of instability and war and conflict, and the number one obstacle to peace in the Middle East, is the Islamic regime in Tehran. And I think the evidence bears it out.
In Lebanon, why is Lebanon a country that’s used as an attack point against Israel and other interests? Who sponsors Hizballah? Hizballah is 100 percent an agent of Iran. In Iraq, why does that country still have terrorist militias that operate from their territory and launch missiles against Saudi Arabia, against Israel? Who sponsors them? They are Shia militias sponsored by Iran, which is the only country in the region that has launched not simply proxy attacks but direct attacks. Direct attacks against Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Kuwait, Jordan – I’m probably leaving somebody out. Who’s launched them? The only country in the region that’s done that: Iran – direct attacks, in addition to what their proxies have done. By the way, with the Houthis now and Saudi Arabia, who is the number one sponsor of the Houthis? Iran.
So if you look at all the things that are going on in that region and all the flash points that exist there, they all track back to the Islamic Republic of Iran, to the clerical – radical clerics that run Iran from Tehran. They are the central problem in that region. If there was no Islamic clerics, these radical Shia clerics in Iran, if they didn’t exist, if that wasn’t there, none of these problems would exist. You may still have the Palestinian issue. I would argue that issue would be easier to deal with if Iran didn’t exist. So, they’re at the core of all of these problems, and I think correctly identifying who it is that’s driving instability and war in the Middle East is important in order to solve it. And that issue has to be confronted, and I think what’s happened in the last few months has revealed it for the world to see.

Hussain Abdul-Hussain
To understand how complicit Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF) is with Hezbollah:
Police arrested a Lebanese digging a tunnel. LAF showed up, took custody of the suspect, said he was using “personal tools” with which he dug an 8 meter long tunnel at a depth of five meters. LAF said was investigating “the purpose of use” of the tunnel.
But how common is it for any citizen, anywhere, to dig a tunnel that’s 5 meters deep? Who in Lebanon (and Gaza) digs tunnels?
Must be a really mind-bidding riddle.
LAF thinks that uttering the name Hezbollah, let alone disarming it, causes civil war.
Meanwhile, while Hezbollah digs new tunnels and moves around explosives, President Aoun, PM Salam and LAF have not yet uttered the name Hezbollah. They blame Israel, instead, for its “aggression” on Lebanon and for “not upholding its part of the deal.”
Quote
الجيش اللبناني
بتاريخ ٢٠٢٦/١٠/١٩، أجرت وحدات مختصّة من الجيش كشفًا على النفق الذي عُثر عليه في منطقة الفنار - المتن الشمالي، وتَبيّن أنّ طوله الإجمالي يبلغ نحو ١٣ مترًا (٥ أمتار عموديًّا و٨ أمتار أفقيًّا)، وأنّه لا يحتوي على أي أسلحة أو عتاد عسكري.وقد ضُبطت داخل النفق عدة حفر فردية، كما أوقِف