Major General Avi Bluth, commander of the Israeli military’s Central Command, signed the implementing order required to enforce the legislation in the West Bank, according to Israeli media reports.

The measure follows legislation passed by the Knesset in March authorizing capital punishment for Palestinians convicted of attacks resulting in the deaths of Israeli citizens.

Under the military order, courts handling such cases must impose the death penalty as the default sentence unless judges determine that unspecified “special circumstances” justify life imprisonment instead.

Israeli newspaper Haaretz reported that provisions within the legislation make its application overwhelmingly directed at Palestinians. The law requires proof that the accused acted with intent to undermine the existence of the State of Israel or the authority of the military commander in the territory, conditions critics say are unlikely to be applied to Jewish Israeli suspects.

The legislation has prompted legal and diplomatic criticism amid heightened tensions in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the ongoing war in Gaza Strip.
Foreign ministers from Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Jordan, Indonesia, United Arab Emirates, Pakistan, Turkiye and Egypt jointly condemned the measure, warning that it entrenched discriminatory policies against Palestinians.

In a joint statement, the countries described the law as a dangerous escalation and accused Israel of advancing practices amounting to apartheid while denying Palestinians’ rights in the occupied territories.
The ministers also cited what they called credible reports of abuses against Palestinian detainees, including torture, starvation and denial of basic rights, arguing the death penalty law risked intensifying existing tensions.

Israeli authorities have defended the legislation as a counterterrorism measure intended to deter attacks against civilians.

The Rome-based World Food Programme (WFP) said the reduction would lower the number of Syrians receiving emergency food aid from 1.3 million people to 650,000. The agency said 7.2 million people in Syria continue to face acute food insecurity even after conditions stabilized following the end of the country’s civil war.

WFP said the cuts were driven entirely by financial constraints rather than improving humanitarian conditions. The agency added that it required $189 million over the next six months to maintain and restore assistance operations in Syria.

“The reduction in WFP’s assistance is driven solely by funding constraints, not by a decrease in needs,” Marianne Ward, WFP director in Syria, said in a statement issued by the agency.

Ward described the current period as a fragile stage in Syria’s recovery, warning that the withdrawal of food assistance would remove a critical safety net for vulnerable communities.

As part of its food support operations, WFP said it had been supplying fortified wheat flour to more than 300 bakeries across Syria under a bread subsidy initiative designed to keep staple food prices affordable for low-income families.

“The bread subsidy program has been a vital lifeline, keeping this staple food affordable,” the agency said.
The funding shortfall is also affecting Syrian refugees in neighboring countries including Jordan and Lebanon, WFP said, as regional humanitarian programs face mounting financial pressure amid rising living costs and prolonged displacement.

“Across the region, vulnerable families are facing the cumulative effects of prolonged crises, rising costs, and shrinking assistance,” Samer Abdeljaber, WFP regional director for the Middle East, North Africa, and Eastern Europe, said in the statement.

International humanitarian agencies have repeatedly warned that donor fatigue and competing global crises are straining relief operations in Syria and across the wider Middle East, where millions remain dependent on food assistance more than a decade after conflict erupted.

Syrian state TV, citing local sources, said the Jordanian army had likely targeted a headquarters in the village of Shahba that contained weapons and narcotics controlled by rebel groups in the Druze-majority province of Sweida, where large areas remain outside the full control of Damascus.

The report said the strike focused on facilities allegedly used for storing drugs and arms, reflecting ongoing concerns over smuggling routes operating through southern Syria toward Jordan and the wider Gulf region.

In a separate statement, the Jordanian army confirmed it had carried out what it described as a “deterrent operation” against multiple locations used by arms and drug traffickers along the kingdom’s northern border.It did not specify the exact sites targeted or provide casualty figures.

Local sources told an AFP correspondent that a series of airstrikes struck at least five locations, including warehouses in the town of Arman, another area in southern Syria believed to be linked to trafficking activity.

Jordan has repeatedly accused armed groups and smuggling networks operating in southern Syria of using the border region to move large quantities of narcotics, particularly captagon, as well as weapons into Jordanian territory.

Amman has increasingly adopted a more aggressive military posture in recent years, including cross-border raids and airstrikes, arguing that the scale of trafficking has become a national security threat.Sweida province, with its complex tribal dynamics and limited central state authority, has remained a sensitive zone for both Syrian authorities and neighboring Jordan, particularly as security vacuums have enabled illicit trade networks to expand.

The latest strikes come amid wider regional efforts to stabilize southern Syria while containing the spread of organized smuggling operations linked to armed factions and local militias.

Zelensky has conducted a series of high-level visits to Gulf and regional states, including Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Jordan and Syria, positioning Kyiv as a provider of security expertise in a region where influence has often tilted toward Russia.

Analysts say Ukraine’s battlefield experience, particularly in countering Iranian-designed drones used by Russian forces, has enabled it to offer specialized anti-drone capabilities abroad.

Ukrainian officials said more than 200 experts were deployed to multiple countries in response to escalating drone activity during the regional conflict.

Ukrainian Foreign Minister Andriy Sybiga said Moscow was reacting negatively to Kyiv’s expanding ties in the Gulf, accusing Russia and Iran of spreading disinformation aimed at undermining Ukraine’s role in the region.

The diplomatic push marks a shift from 2022, when Kyiv relied heavily on Western partners for military assistance following Russia’s invasion. The proliferation of drone warfare has since allowed Ukraine to develop niche capabilities that are now in demand internationally.

While details of the security agreements remain undisclosed, analysts say Ukraine may seek financial backing from Gulf states to scale its defense technologies. Some observers suggest Kyiv could leverage these partnerships to secure investment and sustain its military innovation sector.

However, analysts caution that the outreach has yet to produce a strategic breakthrough. Many Middle Eastern states have maintained balanced relations with both Kyiv and Moscow, avoiding sanctions on Russia while positioning themselves as mediators in the conflict.

The durability of Ukraine’s expanded role may also depend on the trajectory of the U.S.-Iran ceasefire and continued demand for its defense capabilities in the region.

The legislation, approved earlier this week, allows for capital punishment to be applied as a default sentence for Palestinians in the occupied West Bank convicted of carrying out deadly attacks against Israelis, according to official statements and media reports.

MWL Secretary-General Mohammed Al-Issa said the measure reflects continued disregard for the rights and dignity of the Palestinian people, citing concerns over what he described as repression, racial discrimination and inhumane treatment of detainees.

Under the legal framework, Palestinians in the West Bank are subject to military courts, while Israeli citizens, including Palestinian citizens of Israel, are tried in civilian courts. Critics say the structure effectively results in unequal application of the death penalty.

The MWL expressed support for similar positions taken by foreign ministers from several countries, including Saudi Arabia, Turkiye, Egypt, Indonesia, Jordan, Pakistan, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates.

The law has added to international scrutiny of Israel’s legal and security policies in the occupied territories, particularly regarding the treatment of Palestinians within differing judicial systems.

In a joint statement, the foreign ministers of the UAE, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Indonesia, Pakistan, Turkey, Qatar and Egypt said they supported steps announced by Hamas, including the release of hostages — alive or deceased — and the group’s readiness to transfer administration of Gaza to a transitional Palestinian committee of independent technocrats.

The ministers also endorsed President Trump’s call on Israel to halt its military campaign and begin implementing an exchange agreement linked to the proposal. They described the US leader’s commitment to peace as “an opportunity to achieve a ceasefire and address the critical conditions facing the people of Gaza”.

The ministers urged the launch of immediate negotiations to agree on practical mechanisms for implementing the plan. They stressed the need for unrestricted humanitarian aid deliveries, the prevention of Palestinian displacement, and guarantees for the security of civilians.

The joint statement also called for the return of the Palestinian Authority to Gaza and efforts to unify governance across Gaza and the West Bank.

The ministers underlined that any agreement must include a security mechanism to protect all sides, ensure a full Israeli withdrawal from Gaza, and pave the way for reconstruction. They reiterated support for a “just peace” based on the two-state solution.

The statement marks a rare moment of regional alignment on Gaza’s future, though much depends on whether the proposal gains traction with Israel and key international stakeholders.

White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters on Monday that Trump will hold a multilateral meeting with Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Qatar, Egypt, Jordan, Turkey, Indonesia and Pakistan. A person familiar with the matter said Gaza will be discussed.

Axios reported Trump will present the group with a proposal for peace and post-war governance in Gaza.

In addition to freeing hostages and ending the war, Trump is expected to discuss U.S. plans around an Israeli withdrawal and post-war governance in Gaza, without Hamas involvement, according to Axios.

Washington wants Arab and Muslim countries to agree to send military forces to Gaza to enable Israel’s withdrawal and to secure funding for transition and rebuilding programs, Axios reported.

Trump will address the U.N. General Assembly on Tuesday, a day after dozens of world leaders gathered at the United Nations to embrace a Palestinian state, a landmark diplomatic shift nearly two years into the Gaza war that faces fierce resistance from Israel and the United States.

The nations said a two-state solution was the only way to achieve peace, but Israel said the recognition of a Palestinian state was a reward to extremism.

Israel’s assault on Gaza since October 2023 has killed tens of thousands, internally displaced Gaza’s entire population, and set off a starvation crisis. Multiple rights experts, scholars and a U.N. inquiry assessed it amounts to genocide.

Israel calls its actions self-defense after an October 2023 attack by Palestinian Hamas militants that killed 1,200 people and in which more than 250 were taken hostage. Israel has also bombed Iran, Lebanon, Yemen, Syria and Qatar during the course of its war in Gaza.

Trump had promised a quick end to the war in Gaza, but a resolution remains elusive eight months into his term.

Trump’s term began with a two-month ceasefire between Israel and Hamas, which ended when Israeli strikes killed 400 Palestinians on March 18. More recently, images of starving Palestinians, including children, have sparked global outrage against Israel’s assault on Gaza.

In February, Trump proposed a U.S. takeover of Gaza and a permanent displacement of Palestinians from there. It was labeled as an “ethnic cleansing” proposal by rights experts and the United Nations. Forcible displacement is illegal under international law. Trump cast the plan as a re-development idea.

Many supporters may retreat underground, potentially leading to the radicalization of splinter factions if their political aspirations are completely suppressed.

Jordan’s political landscape witnessed a seismic shift this week as the government formally banned all activities of the dissolved Muslim Brotherhood, a move experts describe as a turning point in the kingdom’s modern history.

Interior Minister Mazen Al-Faraya announced the decision on Wednesday, shortly after the shocking revelation of a foiled plot involving the manufacture of rockets by individuals allegedly linked to the Brotherhood. The disclosure, which sent tremors through Jordan’s security establishment, has fundamentally reframed the national conversation around the role of political Islam within the state.

Arab News senior journalist Hani Hazaimeh captured the gravity of the moment, stating, “Jordan’s decision to formally ban all activities of the dissolved Muslim Brotherhood marks a watershed moment in the kingdom’s modern political history — a decision that could reverberate well beyond its borders.”

Brotherhood’s Complicated Legacy

Since Jordan’s establishment in 1946, the Muslim Brotherhood has been a paradoxical player in the country’s political life — both an ally and a source of friction for the Hashemite monarchy. Unlike in many neighboring countries where the Brotherhood was outlawed, Jordan allowed the group to operate relatively freely, believing it could serve as a moderating influence against leftist ideologies like communism and Arab nationalism.

Over decades, the Brotherhood grew deep roots in Jordanian society. They ran charitable organizations, contested parliamentary elections, and provided social services where the state often fell short. Their advocacy for Palestinian rights, particularly during crises like the ongoing Gaza war, further bolstered their popularity, especially among middle and lower-class Jordanians disillusioned by economic hardship and political stagnation.

However, as Hani Hazaimeh pointed out, the relationship between the Brotherhood and the state was always a delicate balancing act.

“What once served as a pressure valve for societal grievances has, in the eyes of the state, transformed into a potential vector for subversion,” he explained.

The discovery of a clandestine rocket manufacturing operation — allegedly orchestrated by the son of a senior Brotherhood figure — shattered the Brotherhood’s carefully cultivated image of peaceful activism. Despite the group’s leadership quickly disavowing any involvement and reaffirming their commitment to nonviolence, the damage to their credibility was severe and immediate.

A Sweeping Crackdown

The government’s response was swift and uncompromising. Authorities moved to shutter Brotherhood-affiliated offices, freeze financial assets, and prosecute individuals associated with the now-outlawed group. It was made clear that political entities perceived to harbor or inspire threats to national cohesion would no longer be tolerated.

Domestically, this crackdown has reignited a fierce debate. Supporters argue that national stability must come first, especially in a region plagued by insurgencies and ideological extremism. Critics, however, caution against conflating legitimate political dissent with criminal subversion.

For many Jordanians, particularly those who once saw the Brotherhood as a voice for the marginalized, the move is bittersweet. The Brotherhood’s female-led platforms, community initiatives, and calls for social justice once filled a void left by the country’s traditional political parties. Yet the exposure of violent plots irreversibly damaged the group’s moral standing, leaving many questioning whether it can ever reclaim its former legitimacy.

A Broader Geopolitical Signal

Beyond Jordan’s borders, the decision carries significant geopolitical implications. It signals a clear alignment with regional powers such as Egypt and the UAE, both of which have taken hardline stances against Islamist movements.

“Regionally, Jordan’s decision represents more than a domestic policy shift — it is a calculated geopolitical signal,” Hazaimeh emphasized.

At a time when the Middle East is gripped by instability — with the Gaza conflict escalating tensions and Iran-backed militias gaining ground in Syria, Iraq, and Lebanon — Jordan’s leadership is acutely aware of the risks of internal radicalization. The foiled rocket plot was not merely a domestic incident; it was seen as a direct challenge to the state’s monopoly on force and a potential harbinger of wider unrest.

Challenges Ahead

The path forward for Jordan is fraught with uncertainty. Simply outlawing the Brotherhood will not erase its ideological influence overnight. Many supporters may retreat underground, potentially leading to the radicalization of splinter factions if their political aspirations are completely suppressed.

The Jordanian government thus faces a delicate balancing act. It must safeguard national security while still allowing space for legitimate political expression. If all avenues for peaceful dissent are closed off, the risk of pushing frustrated citizens toward extremism only grows.

At the same time, this moment offers a rare opportunity. With the Brotherhood sidelined, there is room for new, reform-minded political movements to emerge — ones that advocate transparency, inclusivity, and genuine democratic engagement.

However, as Hazaimeh rightly cautions, true progress requires more than just removing one set of political actors and installing another.

“The end of the Brotherhood’s formal political role could open space for new, reform-minded movements that advocate transparency, inclusivity and constructive engagement. But such developments will only materialize if the state demonstrates a genuine commitment to democratic renewal, economic equity and responsive governance.”

Without addressing the deep-seated socioeconomic grievances that allowed the Brotherhood to flourish in the first place, Jordan risks repeating the cycle of political repression and radicalization.

A Defining Moment

In essence, Jordan’s decision to ban the Muslim Brotherhood is about more than just one organization. It reflects a broader recalibration of the kingdom’s political identity in an increasingly polarized region. It’s a bold statement about the kind of future Jordan wants — one rooted in stability, security, and closer alignment with regional powers that prioritize order over ideological diversity.

Yet, the ultimate success of this approach will depend on what comes next. Will Jordan open up new pathways for citizen engagement and reform, or will it double down on security-first governance at the expense of political freedoms?

As Hani Hazaimeh poignantly summed up, “Whether this move ushers in a new era of stability or sows the seeds of future discord will depend largely on what the government does next — not just in terms of repression or security, but in its ability to offer a compelling, inclusive vision for the nation’s future.”

Only time will tell whether this bold decision will mark the beginning of a new, more stable era for Jordan — or merely a temporary lull in the kingdom’s ongoing political evolution.

The move comes amid accusations that members of the Brotherhood were planning attacks, with authorities citing national security concerns. Police forces surrounded and searched the headquarters of the Islamic Action Front, the political party affiliated with the Brotherhood, shortly after the announcement.

The Islamic Action Front had secured the largest number of seats in last year’s parliamentary elections, held in the shadow of mass protests across Jordan in response to the Israel-Hamas war.

Although the Muslim Brotherhood was officially banned a decade ago, a splinter faction was licensed, and the Islamic Action Front had continued operating with restrictions. It remains unclear how extensively the new ban will be implemented against the party and its affiliates.

In a statement, the Interior Ministry confirmed the designation of the Muslim Brotherhood as an illegal organization and announced a ban on all political activity connected to the group. Offices linked to the Brotherhood will be closed, and asset confiscation efforts will be intensified.

“It has been proven that members of the group operate in the dark and engage in activities that could destabilize the country,” the ministry stated. “Members of the dissolved Muslim Brotherhood have tampered with security and national unity, and disrupted security and public order.”

The ministry also alleged that the son of a Brotherhood leader was involved in attempts to manufacture and test explosives aimed at targeting security forces. No specific names or further details were disclosed.

Just last week, Jordanian authorities reported the arrest of 16 individuals accused of manufacturing short-range missiles, possessing explosives and automatic weapons, concealing a missile ready for use, and conducting illegal recruitment and training. The suspects were described as being part of “unlicensed groups,” a term widely interpreted to refer to the Muslim Brotherhood. The group has denied the allegations and reaffirmed its commitment to Jordan’s security.

“This marks a pivotal moment for Jordan,” said political analyst Amer Sabaileh. “The relationship with the Muslim Brotherhood has fundamentally changed and will not return to its previous state.”

Jordan, a key Western ally often regarded as an island of stability in the Middle East, shares borders with Israel, the West Bank, Syria, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia. The kingdom hosts hundreds of thousands of refugees from regional conflicts and has long played a strategic role in the region’s geopolitics.

The Muslim Brotherhood, founded nearly 100 years ago in Egypt, has grown into a global network with branches across the Middle East. While its leaders insist they pursue Islamic governance through peaceful, democratic means, governments across the region — especially those with authoritarian leanings — have labeled the group a threat to national security.

The Brotherhood’s double game — peaceful reformist by day, radical ideologue by night — is not new, but it’s growing bolder.

By all measures, the recent arrest of 16 individuals linked to the Muslim Brotherhood in Jordan marks a seismic shift in how the group operates — and how seriously it must be treated. The foiled plot wasn’t a back-alley operation by a fringe group.

According to Dalia Al-Aqidi, executive director at the American Center for Counter Extremism, it was a coordinated network with training and funding allegedly sourced from Lebanon. The arrests unearthed a drone manufacturing site and even a rocket ready for launch — right inside the Kingdom.

This wasn’t just a domestic security scare. It’s a flashing red light to the international community: the Muslim Brotherhood is neither dormant nor defeated. It is evolving.

For Jordan, a country that has maintained a delicate balance of internal stability despite a turbulent neighborhood, this plot comes with chilling implications. Even more so because it arrives just months after the Brotherhood’s political arm, the Islamic Action Front, gained traction in the 2024 parliamentary elections. That coincidence is not lost on observers.

Al-Aqidi is blunt in her assessment: the same organization that runs for office with talk of reform is preparing to launch attacks behind the scenes.

The Brotherhood’s double game — peaceful reformist by day, radical ideologue by night — is not new, but it’s growing bolder. It has long perfected the art of political shapeshifting: invoking religion to gain street-level credibility in the Middle East, while adopting the language of democracy and civil rights in the West.

But as Al-Aqidi argues, this is not benign activism. The Brotherhood’s true objective remains unchanged since its founding: a society governed by Islamist Shariah law. The only difference is that, increasingly, it chooses ballots and influence operations over bombs — until, of course, it doesn’t. Violence remains on the table, as Jordan’s recent near-miss shows.

In the U.S., Canada, and Europe, Brotherhood-linked organizations have taken root in civil society — as charities, student groups, lobbying arms and community voices.

According to Al-Aqidi, these groups silence moderate Muslim voices and weaponize terms like “Islamophobia” to deflect scrutiny. It’s not just rhetoric, she insists — it’s a strategy, one that undermines the foundations of liberal democracy from within.

Even more alarming is what she describes as a “convenience coalition” forming between radical Islamists and far-left activists. Their ideologies may differ wildly, but their shared animosity toward the West — particularly America and Israel — provides a common enemy and fertile ground for coordinated disruption.

Yet, despite mounting evidence and repeated warnings from Middle Eastern allies, the West — particularly the United States — has hesitated to act. Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE have designated the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist organization. Washington has not.

Al-Aqidi argues this is due to “willful ignorance and political convenience” — a misplaced hope that the Brotherhood is a “moderate” firewall against more extreme terror groups.

But history says otherwise. The ideological DNA of terror groups like Hamas, Al-Qaeda, and Daesh can be traced directly back to the Muslim Brotherhood. It is not a firewall — it is the foundation.

The time for diplomatic hedging is over, Al-Aqidi urges. She calls on the U.S. government to designate the Muslim Brotherhood as a foreign terrorist organization and to investigate the network of nonprofits and advocacy groups that operate as its front. The aim, she says, is not to stifle religion but to confront a radical ideology masquerading as reform.

Jordan’s discovery was not just a domestic police action — it was a siren call for the global community. The Muslim Brotherhood remains highly organized, deeply ideological, and dangerously underestimated.

The West cannot afford to keep its eyes shut. Inaction isn’t just apathy — it’s surrender.