Netanyahu to brief Trump on Israel’s latest intel on Iran while in DC

Netanyahu to brief Trump on Israel’s latest intel on Iran while in DC, report says

TOI

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu decided to move his meeting with US President Donald Trump to this week in order to deliver an in-person briefing on Israel’s latest intelligence regarding Iran, Channel 12 reports.

According to the news outlet, Netanyahu will deliver the same briefing to Trump that he gave to US special envoy Steve Witkoff when he visited Israel last week.

He is choosing to deliver it himself to ensure Trump receives all the information accurately, the report says, citing an unnamed source close to the prime minister.

The briefing will cover the Islamic Republic’s nuclear and missile programs, as well as its support for regional proxies and the deadly suppression of protesters during recent demonstrations against the regime, Channel 12 adds.

Netanyahu to depart to US on Tuesday for ‘strategy-shaping’ talks with Trump on Iran

ByAMICHAI STEIN

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu will depart on Tuesday for a short visit to the United States. The prime minister will meet with US President Donald Trump and senior members of his administration on Wednesday.

Israeli officials describe the meeting as a “strategy-shaping session,” meaning it will focus not only on the US-Iran negotiations themselves but also on what would happen if the talks fail, including discussions of a potential US military strike. Accompanying the prime minister will be his military secretary, Maj.-Gen. Roman Gofman, and the acting head of the National Security Council, Gil Reich.

US Vice President JD Vance said in Armenia that there are no red lines at this stage, but that Trump is seeking a broad and comprehensive agreement. “If there are red lines in the talks with Iran, Trump will be the one to set them. He wants a meaningful deal. Reaching an agreement with Iran would benefit everyone,” the vice president said.

Meanwhile, the US has issued a warning to vessels flying the US flag to stay as far away as possible from Iranian territorial waters while transiting the Strait of Hormuz, out of concern for potential provocations by Tehran.

At the same time, Iran is hardening its positions. Mohammad Eslami, head of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran, said that Iran may agree to dilute its stockpile of uranium enriched to 60% in exchange for the full removal of all sanctions. Ali Larijani, an adviser to Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, is expected to arrive in Oman on Tuesday to continue discussions on a potential deal with the US.

The Jerusalem Post reported Sunday that the US administration conveyed to Iran that it expects Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi and the Iranian delegation to arrive at the next meeting “with substantive content,” according to two sources familiar with the matter. President Trump’s envoys, Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner, met in Oman with Iranian Foreign Minister Araghchi and other senior officials on Friday, along with the head of US Central Command, Admiral Brad Cooper.

While the first meeting was described as “a good meeting,” focusing mainly on how the negotiations would be conducted rather than on the core issues themselves, US officials now expect the Iranians to come to the next meeting prepared with concessions on the nuclear issue and other matters, according to the same two sources. No additional meeting has yet been scheduled, and the assessment is that one will be set only after the Trump–Netanyahu summit.

Hamas to Trump: We will never disarm

Hamas to Trump: We will never disarm

Ryan Jones

Once again, Hamas has made its intentions crystal clear—and once again, the world will pretend not to hear them.

Speaking Sunday at the Al Jazeera Forum in Doha, senior Hamas leader Khaled Mashaal rejected outright any possibility of disarming as part of US President Donald Trump’s peace plan, instead doubling down on war, jihad, and the violent “resistance” that led to the slaughter of 1,200 people in southern Israel on October 7.

“We will defeat our enemy, Israel, Allah willing,” Mashaal vowed.

Trump’s 20-point roadmap calls for Hamas to lay down its arms under a Phase 2 stabilization plan—backed by the US and Arab partners—which would involve an international force entering the Gaza Strip and a transitional Palestinian body formed without Hamas participation.

Mashaal’s reply was clear: Never.

“As long as our people are under occupation [sic],” he told the forum, “talk of disarmament is an attempt to turn our people into victims, to make their elimination easier.”

He went on to defend Hamas’s Oct. 7 massacre—calling it a strategic victory that “returned the Palestinian cause to the forefront” and made its resolution “a necessity.” No mention was made of the 251 hostages taken. No apology. No regret. Only pride.

Disarmament was never on the table

Though President Trump claimed last month at Davos that “Hamas had agreed to give up their weapons,”this latest speech is just the latest in a long line of categorical rejections by Hamas leaders.

“Not for a single moment did we talk about surrendering weapons,” senior official Musa Abu Marzouk told Al Jazeera on January 28.

Mashaal had already made that position clear at a December summit in Istanbul, declaring that Hamas’s weapons were “the honor and pride” of the Islamic nation and a sacred right of “resistance.”

On Sunday, he reiterated that “resistance is the right of occupied peoples”—explicitly framing Hamas’s actions on October 7, including the slaughter of women and children, as both justified and praiseworthy

Still courted, still platformed

That this speech was delivered in Qatar, on stage at the Al Jazeera Forum, should surprise no one. Doha continues to shelter Hamas leaders, bankroll their operations, and dress up their ideology in media-friendly packaging.

Israel’s Foreign Ministry rightly condemned the forum ahead of time as a “gathering of jihadists and their support staff.”

The invitation list proves the point: Iranian officials, sanctioned UN operatives, and terror leaders like Mashaal—given not only legitimacy, but applause.

“Qatar is a small country,” Mashaal said, “but its role is great and respected.”

Indeed, it is. Respected by Hamas. Resented by Israel. And, for now, tolerated by Washington.

But the bigger issue is not Qatar. It is the international refusal to listen to what Hamas says plainly.

They are not signaling flexibility.

They are openly preparing for the next war.

“The resistance and its weapons are the ummah’s honor and pride,” Mashaal said in December. Sunday’s speech only reaffirmed it.

He also rejected the Trump-backed National Committee for the Administration of Gaza, calling it a form of “foreign rule” and declaring that “we do not accept the logic of guardianship.”

In other words: No to disarmament. No to outside governance. No to coexistence. Yes to endless war.

PA President Abbas receives draft constitution as step towards establishing Palestinian state

PA President Abbas receives draft constitution as step towards establishing Palestinian state

All Israel News Staff

Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas received a draft copy of the "Interim Constitution" aimed at establishing the foundations of a Palestinian state, Palestinian media reported last week. 

The presentation of the 70-page draft constitution occurred during Abbas’ meeting with the committee tasked with drafting the provisional Palestinian constitution, headed by committee chairman Mohammed al-Hajj Qassem, and its members, the Palestinian Authority-affiliated WAFA news agency reported. The draft was finalized after seven months of  consultations, and three months of intensive work, including 54 meetings by the constitutional committee. 

The draft constitution will first be submitted to the Palestinian Liberation Organization’s Executive Committee for review, before being shared publicly, The Times of Israel reported, citing a Palestinian official. 

While the Palestinian Authority often refers to itself as a full-fledged state in official and international statements, it has been operating under a set of basic laws drafted after the PA was formed as part of the Oslo Accords. 

Abbas stated, "This year is the year of democracy. We have set a date for the Palestinian National Council elections, both within Palestine and abroad, as well as for the eighth Fatah conference, in addition to holding local elections next April.” 

The draft constitution is intended to provide a legal foundation for political institutions and to modernize the legislative framework of the Palestinian Authority ahead of an expected announcement of an independent Palestinian state.

The receipt of the draft constitution by PA President Abbas comes amid a growing movement in the international community to recognize a Palestinian state as a means of pressuring Israel into accepting the two-state solution proposed under the Oslo Accords. 

According to Palestinian media, the draft constitution seeks to establish a “modern constitutional and legal framework with both national and international legitimacy.” 

In radio statements, Dr. Ahmed Majdalani, a member of the Executive Committee of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), emphasized that the draft constitution aims to establish a democratic, pluralistic, and civil state. He also claimed its provisions draw upon the latest global and Arab constitutional developments. 

Constitutional committee chairman Mohammed al-Hajj Qassem claimed that the draft “preserves political pluralism and the separation of powers, while also empowering the legislative branch to exercise oversight and legislative authorities.” 

Arab media cited anonymous Palestinian officials who claimed that the draft constitution will serve as a legal roadmap for ending divisions among several Palestinian factions and addressing other internal issues, in order to prepare for comprehensive general elections. 

The draft is expected to be presented to various national groups and political figures within the Palestinian factions for approval or amendment before its official adoption. 

More....

Joel Rosenberg warns on Iran: Trump 'has three choices – and I think he picks number two'

Joel Rosenberg warns on Iran: Trump 'has three choices – and I think he picks number two'

All Israel News Staff

Tensions are rising across the Middle East and all eyes are on U.S. President Donald Trump as he decides whether or not to strike Iran. The issue has prompted sharp criticism and deep divisions among political analysts and commentators. Some warn of escalating regional conflict, while others argue limited force may be necessary to deter Tehran and protect Americans and U.S. allies, which include Israel, among others.

During a recent debate, ALL ISRAEL NEWS Editor-in-Chief Joel Rosenberg sat down with Mario Nawfal, who hosts the largest show on 𝕏 (formerly known as Twitter), and Prof. Glenn Diesen to debate Trump’s next move. To strike or not to strike, that really is the question – and people around the globe are awaiting the answer.

The debate highlighted three potential options facing Trump: pursuing diplomacy without military action, launching a large but limited strike aimed at punishing the Iranian regime, or escalating toward sustained attacks designed to trigger regime change.

Rosenberg predicted that a limited strike is the most likely outcome, arguing that Trump’s credibility could be at stake after strong rhetoric toward Iran and promises of support for anti-regime protesters.

“He has three choices,” Rosenberg said. “He could do nothing… he could do a large but limited strike… or he could go all in for regime change,” he added, “I think he’s going to pick most likely number two.”

Supporters of military action have framed Iran as a long-standing threat to U.S. interests and regional allies, arguing that a targeted strike could degrade missile capabilities and deter further aggression. While some have acknowledged that regime change might be desirable, they have cautioned that such an objective would be difficult to achieve through air power alone.

Prof. Diesen, however, opposes military action, warning that even a limited strike “would escalate the conflict, push Iran toward nuclear deterrence, and risk a regional war driven by security competition.”

Critics have argued that Iran would likely retaliate forcefully against U.S. assets and shipping lanes, potentially shutting down the Strait of Hormuz – a key global energy route with the majority of oil from Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Kuwait, Qatar, and Iran moving through this route.. “No, I don’t think Trump should attack. I think it’s very likely that he will,” Diesen said, adding that Iran could “go all out” in response.

The debate also reflected deep disagreements over whether Iran represents an inherently hostile adversary or a regional power responding to security pressures. Some have argued that U.S. and Israeli policies have fueled tensions and that greater diplomatic engagement could ease hostilities. “If we stop threatening them, perhaps we can get something in return,” Diesen said.

Rosenberg disagreed, arguing the Iranian regime has made itself an enemy through decades of anti-American rhetoric, proxy warfare and regional destabilization. “They don’t have to be an enemy, but the Iranian regime has decided they’re the enemy,” he replied.

There are some concerns from Gulf states, which fear being drawn into a wider conflict even as some regional leaders privately support strong action against Iran. Some political analysts have warned that internal divisions within Iran could make regime collapse unpredictable and potentially destabilizing for the broader region.

At the end of the debate, Nawfal asked whether Trump would strike Iran, and both Rosenberg and Diesen predicted he would, in fact, ultimately “pull the trigger." 

The world now waits to see if that unified prediction will come true.

Turkey deepens role in Gaza’s 'Day After' through contacts with Hamas

Turkey deepens role in Gaza’s 'Day After' through contacts with Hamas

ANNA BARSKY

As Israel continues to firmly oppose Turkish involvement in the administration and reconstruction of Gaza, and amid US President Donald Trump’s declaration that he intends to soon announce a deadline for Hamas to disarm, a coordinated diplomatic initiative has been taking shape behind the scenes in recent weeks.

The emerging move points to a substantial deepening of Turkish involvement in the Palestinian arena and is advancing in clear opposition to Israel’s stated position, rejects any political legitimacy for Hamas, and any role for the organization in a future arrangement.

The first phase of this initiative was revealed through official publications from Ankara. On January 25 and 26, meetings took place between Turkey’s foreign minister and deputy foreign minister and senior members of Hamas’s leadership, including the head of the organization’s Shura Council and members of its political bureau.

These meetings, reported by the Turkish Foreign Ministry itself, are not regarded as routine diplomatic engagements, but rather as a deliberate expression of Ankara’s policy toward Hamas, even after the events of October 7 and amid the ongoing fighting in Gaza.

Shortly afterward, on February 6, the Turkish consulate in Jerusalem began publicizing a series of intensive meetings with senior officials of the Palestinian Authority. These included meetings with the PA’s vice president, senior Fatah figures, and officials directly involved in discussions concerning the “day after” in Gaza.

According to statements issued by the consulate and the Turkish Foreign Ministry, the talks addressed “intra-Palestinian reconciliation,” “the next stage of the political process,” and “comprehensive political arrangements.

When viewed together, however, the combination of overt meetings with Hamas’s leadership and the sustained series of contacts with the Palestinian Authority reveals a broader and more coherent picture.

An examination of the sequence of events and official statements indicates that Turkey is working to advance a framework in which Hamas would be recognized and integrated into any future Palestinian arrangement, both on the political level and within governing mechanisms, including in Gaza.

Within this context, the Turkish consul general in Jerusalem appears to be operating as part of a coordinated diplomatic effort aimed at applying sustained pressure on the Palestinian Authority’s leadership to accept Hamas as a legitimate partner in any unified Palestinian structure.

This pressure is conveyed through repeated references to “national unity,” “intra-Palestinian reconciliation,” and “reconstruction of Gaza,” terminology that obscures the fact that Hamas remains an active terrorist organization that has not abandoned its violent path.

This Turkish initiative does not exist in a vacuum. Ankara is seeking to position itself as a central actor in the Palestinian arena, in line with a neo-Ottoman worldview that identifies Jerusalem as a key strategic hub of influence.

In practice, the Turkish consulate in the city is functioning not only as a consular mission but as an active political arm, creating a diplomatic channel that bypasses Israel, from within Jerusalem itself

From Israel’s perspective, this development is particularly alarming. Any incorporation of Hamas into a future framework for Gaza or the Palestinian Authority contradicts Israel’s official position, which denies legitimacy to a terrorist organization responsible for massacres, kidnappings, and sustained rocket fire at Israeli civilians.

More....