Secretary of State Marco Rubio will publicly testify on the Trump administration’s policy in Venezuela Wednesday morning after vowing to lawmakers that no more military action was expected in the region. 

Rubio’s return to the Hill, an increasingly frequent occurrence in recent months, comes after he, President Donald Trump, administration officials and Senate Republican leadership successfully killed a bipartisan push to rein in the president’s war authorities in Venezuela. 

His scheduled appearance before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee Wednesday at 10 a.m. comes just weeks after he helped to convince two lawmakers, Sens. Todd Young, R-Ind., and Josh Hawley, R-Mo., to flip their votes and back the administration. 

Both were concerned about boots on the ground in Venezuela and Congress’ constitutional authority to weigh in on the matter.

They were convinced by Rubio and the administration that no further military action would take place, and that if it were, President Donald Trump would come to Congress first. 

Young said at the time that the effort, spurred by Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., was ultimately just a messaging exercise that never would have survived in the House, nor evaded a veto from Trump. 

‘I had to accept that this was all a communications exercise,’ Young said. ‘I think we [used] this moment to shine a bright light on Congress’ shortcomings as it relates to war powers in recent history.’

Rubio also wrote to Senate Foreign Relations Chair James Risch, R-Idaho, to spell out that the administration would clue in Congress should any future military action take place in the region.

‘Should there be any new military operations that introduce U.S. Armed Forces into hostilities, they will be undertaken consistent with the Constitution of the United States, and we will transmit written notifications consistent with section 4(a) of the War Powers Resolution (Public Law 93-148),’ he said.

However, Rubio’s appearance before the panel comes on the heels of unrest stateside following another fatal shooting in Minnesota, where Alex Pretti was killed in the midst of a Department of Homeland Security-led immigration operation in Minneapolis.

While he won’t have to answer for that situation, it has drastically shifted the Senate’s attention over the last several days. 

It also follows Kaine’s vow to file several more war powers resolutions against Trump, specifically against action in Greenland, Iran and elsewhere. 

Kaine believed that he could take advantage of cracks that formed in Republicans’ unified front earlier this month, when five joined all Senate Democrats to advance his resolution to require any future military action in Venezuela would need Congress’ approval.

‘The way cracks grow is through pressure and the pressure campaign that I sort of decided to launch by use of these privileged motions,’ Kaine said after his initial push failed. 

‘I’m going to file every one I can to challenge emergencies, to challenge unlawful wars, to seek human rights reports, arms transfers if they’re wrong,’ he continued.

The Israel Defense Forces conducted approximately 80 brigade-level counterterrorism operations over the past year in the West Bank — known to Israelis as Judea and Samaria — neutralizing hundreds of terrorists and seizing more than 1,300 weapons, according to data released by the military.

The IDF said overall Palestinian terrorist activity in the area declined sharply in 2025, with incidents down 78% compared to the previous year. Attacks involving firearms dropped by 86%, the data showed.

Security remains essential in Israel’s ancient heartland, home to more than 500,000 Jews and up to 3 million Palestinians, and is at the center of intense political and diplomatic debate. Many Israeli officials argue that Jerusalem must assert sovereignty over the territory. 

Under the 1993 Oslo Accords, brokered during the Clinton administration, the West Bank was divided into three areas: Area A, under full Palestinian control; Area B, under Palestinian civil authority and Israeli security control; and Area C, under full Israeli authority.

A 2020 plan by the Trump administration, known as ‘Peace to Prosperity,’ envisioned Israeli annexation of parts of Judea and Samaria but was shelved in favor of the Abraham Accords, which normalized Israel’s relations with four Arab countries. In July 2024, the Knesset plenum overwhelmingly rejected the establishment of a Palestinian state, and in July 2025, approved a declaration calling on the government to apply sovereignty in Judea and Samaria as well as the Jordan Valley, something Vice President JD Vance described as a ‘very stupid political stunt,’ when asked his thoughts on the vote.

On a visit to Israel, he said, ‘The West Bank is not going to be annexed by Israel… The policy of the Trump administration is that the West Bank will not be annexed by Israel. That will continue to be our policy. And if people want to take symbolic votes, they can do that, but we certainly weren’t happy about it.’

Why Israel Says It Can’t Give Up Judea and Samaria

Focusing on the national security significance of the area, Lt. Col. (Ret.) Jonathan Conricus, a former IDF international spokesperson and now a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, told Fox News Digital that fundamental principles of warfare apply to the area.

‘High ground, or elevated terrain, remains critical and extremely important in defending a country, its people and its sovereignty,’ Conricus said. ‘I cannot identify any credible professional military assessment that would suggest it is wise for Israel to allow a hostile entity to dominate high terrain that controls, by line of sight and fire, most of modern Israel west of the 1949 armistice line, where 80% of Israel’s GDP and 70% of its population reside.’

Conricus said that no Israeli government could relinquish military control over the area without endangering the most basic security of the State of Israel.

He emphasized that the area defines Israel’s eastern border and noted that, while Israel currently maintains strategic peace with Jordan, the kingdom remains unstable and vulnerable to both internal and external pressures.

‘It could be jihadist elements, the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas or the Iranian regime,’ he said. ‘Israel has to have an eastern border that is a natural barrier. The Jordan River is a natural barrier that limits the movement of troops, tanks and vehicles, and provides a border that is defensible,’ he said.

Dan Diker, president of the Jerusalem Center for Security and Foreign Affairs, pointed to the concept of defensible borders that emerged after the 1967 Six-Day War.

‘As a result, Israel gained a major defensive position and strategic depth it had never previously possessed,’ Diker said, noting that Israel had been only nine miles wide at its narrowest point in the north.

After the Hamas-led Oct. 7, 2023, massacre, Diker said its strategic importance has increased amid concerns that a similar large-scale attack could occur there, given the widespread flow of weapons.

‘Although we control between 60% and 75% of the region, Iran has been penetrating the Jordanian border,’ he said, adding that Hamas incitement has energized jihadist networks.

Biblical, Historical and National Identity

Yishai Fleisher, international spokesman for Hebron — the cradle of Jewish civilization located in Judea — told Fox News Digital that the vast majority of events described in the Bible took place in Judea and Samaria.

Hebron, he said, is home to the Tomb of the Patriarchs and Matriarchs, while Jerusalem is where the two Jewish Temples stood and where King David reigned. In Bet El, the Biblical account of Jacob’s dream of the ladder took place.

‘The reason we have national aspirations in the Land of Israel is because of our history,’ Fleisher said. He also cited an initiative to rename Route 60 — which runs through many Biblical cities — the ‘Biblical Highway.’

Who Are the Hilltop Youth — and Why Israel Sees Them as a Problem

Earlier this month, IDF troops were dispatched to the Shavei Shomron Junction following reports that dozens of masked Israeli suspects had vandalized property in the area. Several Palestinian vehicles were torched, and two Palestinians were injured. A day later, IDF troops were dispatched to the area of Jalud following reports that Israeli civilians had vandalized a local school. In a separate incident in the Bizzariya area, several Palestinian vehicles were set on fire and property was damaged.

In 2025, the IDF recorded an increase of approximately 27% in anti-Palestinian crimes.

Governor of Binyamin and Chairman of the Yesha Council Yisrael Ganz told Fox News Digital that Judea and Samaria has been in a state of war since Oct. 7. Over the past year, he said, citing Shin Bet data, there were more than 4,000 attempted attacks against Israelis.

Ganz cited former Shin Bet head Yoram Cohen, who said only 1.5% of Shin Bet cases involve Jews, while roughly 80% focus on Arab terrorism.

‘Yes, there are incidents of violence, but the number of Jews who attack Arabs is negligible,’ Ganz said, condemning extremist youth as a small and unrepresentative minority.

Ganz argued that the absence of Israeli sovereignty creates a legal gray zone that enables extremism.

‘When there is governance, security and economic opportunity, there is no room for anarchy or violence,’ he said, envisioning Judea and Samaria as ‘the Israeli Tuscany.’

Is the Two-State Solution Still Viable — or Just Diplomatic Habit?

Former Israeli Ambassador to the United States Michael Oren told Fox News Digital that the two-state solution was never viable but rather a diplomatic reflex.

‘The Palestinians hold the world record for a people who have been offered a two-state solution and have rejected it,’ Oren said. ‘They rejected it in 1937, the British offer in 1947, the American-Israeli offer in 2001, and the subsequent offer in 2008.’

According to polls, Oren said, most Palestinians oppose a two-state solution and support the Oct. 7 attacks.

‘Rather, the two-state solution is viewed as an interim stage toward a one-state solution,’ he said, a phrase often used as a euphemism for the eventual destruction of Israel through demographic change.

While acknowledging Palestinian self-rule in Areas A and B, Oren said a fully sovereign Palestinian state is impossible.

‘It could not have control over its borders, nor control over strategic affairs, such as entering a defense pact with Iran. It will never be a classic sovereign state, but it could be more than what they have today,’ he said.

While a two-state solution once seemed inevitable, Dan Shapiro — who served as U.S. ambassador to Israel under President Barack Obama and as deputy assistant secretary of Defense for the Middle East under President Joe Biden — told Fox News Digital that it has not been viable for many years and may now be harder to envision than ever, particularly in the aftermath of Oct. 7.

Still, Shapiro said, the framework remains a fixture of Middle East diplomacy due to the lack of viable alternatives for resolving the conflict between two peoples living in one land, each with legitimate claims to a homeland.

‘President Trump includes a credible pathway to a Palestinian state in his 20-point plan to stabilize Gaza and remove Hamas from power. Presidents Biden and Trump have both viewed progress toward a Palestinian state as part of the formula to achieve Saudi normalization with Israel,’ Shapiro said.

‘None of this means it can happen soon, or perhaps at all. If it ever does, it will take longer and look different from earlier efforts. It is not a copy-and-paste of ideas from the Oslo era. But that credible pathway to a Palestinian state — one that would live peacefully alongside a secure Israel — difficult as it is, remains relevant,’ he added.

Shapiro noted that even Israel’s current government — the most right-wing in the country’s history and one that includes multiple proponents of annexation — has stopped short of applying sovereignty across the West Bank, a sign, he said, that the political and diplomatic costs remain too high.

‘President Trump has announced that it will not happen because he promised Arab states — the same ones he does business with and relies on to help stabilize Gaza — that it will not happen, and Netanyahu will not oppose him on it,’ Shapiro said.

Shapiro said that preserving the possibility of establishing a Palestinian state on some portion of the territory — even if it appears distant and would require major changes in Palestinian leadership and society — has remained relevant, even under Israeli governments that profess to oppose any two-state outcome. 

The World Health Organization on Saturday warned that America’s withdrawal from the agency will make the country and the world ‘less safe.’

The globalist body said in part of a January 24 statement that it ‘regrets the United States’ notification of withdrawal from WHO – a decision that makes both the United States and the world less safe.’ 

‘We hope that in the future, the United States will return to active participation in WHO,’ the statement noted.

The U.S. announced its withdrawal from the WHO last week, after President Donald Trump got the ball rolling on his first day back in office last year.

‘Today, the United States withdrew from the World Health Organization (WHO), freeing itself from its constraints, as President Trump promised on his first day in office by signing E.O. 14155,’ U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Secretary of Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said in part of a January 22, 2026, joint statement.

‘Going forward, U.S. engagement with the WHO will be limited strictly to effectuate our withdrawal and to safeguard the health and safety of the American people. All U.S. funding for, and staffing of, WHO initiatives has ceased,’ their statement said.

They claimed the WHO ‘pursued a politicized, bureaucratic agenda driven by nations hostile to American interests.’ But the WHO pushed back.

‘This is untrue. As a specialized agency of the United Nations, governed by 194 Member States, WHO has always been and remains impartial and exists to serve all countries, with respect for their sovereignty, and without fear or favor,’ the WHO said in its statement.

The horrific regime slaughter in Iran and President Trump’s aggressive campaign to acquire Greenland have resulted in the neglect of a major case now underway at the International Court of Justice (ICJ).

The ICJ last week began hearings brought by Gambia against Myanmar alleging genocide against the Rohingya people—about 1.4 million of whom live in Myanmar. Several other states have intervened in support of Gambia, which has presented the court with evidence it contends proves that Myanmar’s military forces committed a genocide against the Rohingya population. Myanmar vehemently denies the allegation.

While this case does not concern Israel directly, the ICJ’s determinations may have major ramifications for the case Israel is now defending at the tribunal against South Africa.

This is especially true since one of the judges hand-picked by Gambia to sit on its ICJ panel is South African national Navi Pillay. That would be the same Navi Pillay who recently rushed to publish a report accusing Israel of genocide before retiring as head of the UN Human Rights Council commission of inquiry—a panel widely criticized for its flagrant institutional bias against Israel and the anti-Semitic remarks of its members.

In reality, South Africa’s ICJ case against Israel is riddled with flaws. It is also pushing to redefine a term that been held sacrosanct since the end of the World War II.

The term ‘genocide’ was coined by Raphael Lemkin, a Holocaust survivor who in 1944 strived for its incorporation into modern international law. That occurred in 1948 via the UN Genocide Convention.

The prohibition on genocide is considered a jus cogens norm—that is, a non-derogable rule accepted by all of the first-world community with no exceptions. The definition of ‘genocide’ requires no law degree to understand, and it should never, ever be politicized.

For a genocide to take place under Geneva, there must be acts committed ‘with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group.’ The phrase ‘intent’ here is of paramount importance.

South Africa’s pending case before the ICJ alleges Israeli intent to destroy the Palestinian-Arab population of Gaza. Israel, by contrast, (correctly) maintains that its recent actions in Gaza have been a just and proper military response to the war of annihilationist jihad and unspeakable atrocities launched against it by the Hamas terrorist organization on Oct. 7, 2023.

Israel’s ‘intent’ is to free Gaza from Hamas, to return hostages abducted and held by Hamas, and to ensure Hamas has no future role in Gaza and cannot undertake another October 7-style massacre. It repeatedly offered to end the war if Hamas laid down its arms and released all hostages.

Hamas, on the other hand, has shown a complete disregard for human life and has openly stated that its sacrifice of Gazan civilians is a cynical strategic necessity to turn public opinion against Israel. It has for years embedded military infrastructure within Gazan civilian infrastructure—schools, hospitals, UN facilities, mosques, and children’s bedrooms. Israel has waged a defensive campaign in one of the most complex operational environments of any modern war.

At the same time, it has worked with states and NGOs to allow and facilitate extensive amounts of humanitarian aid, rebuilt water supplies, coordinated the vaccination of young Gazans against polio, and helped coordinate and approve the evacuation of those in need of urgent medical care.

Israel repeatedly provides advanced warnings of impending military strikes and has held off strikes where intelligence of nearby civilians has come to light. For a fighting party to so often relinquish the element of surprise to reduce harm to the local civilian population of its enemy is extraordinary.

None of this constitutes a ‘genocide’—and clearly shows the lack of any intent by Israel to destroy the local Palestinian-Arab population in Gaza.

Nonetheless, since South Africa brought its case before the ICJ, numerous groups and states have leapt at the opportunity to join in on the anti-Israel campaign. This has ranged from tendentious so-called online genocide scholars to anti-Semitic mobs to deeply politicized NGOs. Amnesty International, for instance, shamelessly waited more than two years before publishing a report focusing on Hamas’ crimes on Oct. 7, while straining to remind readers of its slanderous accusation of genocide made against Israel a year prior.

Together, they have all been involved in a campaign to redefine the term ‘genocide’ to suit their narrative—all while ignoring the reality of Hamas’ own Nazi-esque barbarism.

The politically motivated efforts to undermine the concept should be of grave concern to us all. If successful, it will result in the ICJ’s further self-discrediting as an institution of political point scoring, rather than meaningful justice.

Israel has legitimately responded to genocidal attacks by a terrorist organization that has repeatedly called for its entire annihilation and the murder of all global Jewry—something it broadcast live to the world on Oct. 7, 2023.

The term ‘genocide’ is one too important to be cheapened. Those pushing for its redefinition must be stopped in their tracks.

Chaos engulfing northeastern Syria has sparked fresh security fears after Syria’s new governing authorities moved against U.S.-backed Kurdish forces, forcing the U.S. military to rush ISIS detainees out of Syria and into Iraq.

The U.S. military launched an operation Wednesday to relocate ISIS detainees amid fears that instability could trigger mass prison breaks. So far, about 150 detainees have been transferred from a detention center in Hasakah, Syria, with plans to move up to 7,000 of the roughly 9,000 to 10,000 ISIS detainees held in Syria, U.S. officials said.

The operation comes as Syria’s new government, led by President Ahmed al-Sharaa, ordered the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) — Washington’s longtime partner in the fight against ISIS — to disband following a rapid offensive over the weekend that severely weakened the group.

Syrian government forces have since assumed control of several detention facilities previously guarded by the SDF. At least 120 ISIS detainees escaped during a breakout at the al-Shaddadi prison in Hasakah this week, according to Syrian authorities, who say many have been recaptured. U.S. and regional officials caution that some escapees remain at large.

The deteriorating security situation also has raised alarms around al-Hol camp, a sprawling detention site housing the families of ISIS fighters and long viewed by Western officials as a breeding ground for radicalization.

Kurdish forces announced they would withdraw from overseeing the camp, citing what they described as international indifference to the ISIS threat.

‘Due to the international community’s indifference towards the ISIS issue and its failure to assume its responsibilities in addressing this serious matter, our forces were compelled to withdraw from al-Hol camp and redeploy,’ the SDF said in a statement.

The camp is currently home to about 24,000 people, mostly women and children linked to ISIS fighters from across the Middle East and Europe. Many residents have no formal charges, according to aid groups, and humanitarian organizations have long warned that extremist networks operate inside the camp.

The SDF said guards were redeployed to confront the threat posed by Syrian government forces advancing into Kurdish-held territory. On Tuesday evening, Kurdish forces and Syrian government troops agreed to a four-day ceasefire, though officials warned the truce remains fragile.

Meanwhile, The Wall Street Journal reported that U.S. officials are weighing whether to withdraw the roughly 1,000 American troops still stationed in Syria, raising questions about Washington’s long-term ability to secure ISIS detainees as local alliances shift.

Two U.S. Army soldiers were killed in Syria in December 2025 by a lone ISIS gunman.

ISIS lost its last territorial stronghold in Syria in 2019, when U.S. forces and their SDF partners overran the group’s enclave in Baghouz. While the defeat ended the group’s self-declared caliphate, U.S. and allied officials say ISIS has since regrouped as a decentralized insurgency, repeatedly targeting prisons and detention camps in Syria and Iraq.

Western governments have cautiously backed al-Sharaa — a former militant once designated as a terrorist — since his forces overthrew longtime Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad, framing the support as a pragmatic security calculation rather than an endorsement of his past.

U.S. envoy to Syria Tom Barrack urged Kurdish leaders to reach a permanent deal with the new Syrian government, emphasizing Washington’s focus on preventing an ISIS resurgence rather than maintaining an indefinite military presence.

‘The United States has no interest in a long-term military presence,’ Barrack said, adding that U.S. priorities include securing ISIS detention facilities and facilitating talks between the SDF and the Syrian government.