Remarks made by 

Philip A. Salem in the opening ceremony, on October 17

Ladies and gentlemen, 

Today we are gathered here to celebrate our love and commitment to our beloved Lebanon, and at the same time to celebrate our gratefulness and thankfulness to America.

We gather at a difficult time for Lebanon. This country has been at war for more than half a century, and now it is navigating through very difficult times and existential challenges. Now, more than ever before Lebanon needs our help. That’s why part of the proceeds of this festival will go toward supporting Lebanese families in need and Lebanese children with cancer. 

This is more than a festival. It is an expression of solidarity, compassion, and our enduring responsibility to our homeland. Today is also a day of joy. We are here to reconnect with old friends, and make new ones. To celebrate our community and share with our children and grandchildren the story of where we came from. Being of Lebanese origin is a great privilege.  As we are descendants of people with great dignity, in spite of economic collapse and conflicts Lebanon had the generosity of hosting refugees from all of the Middle East. Refugees from Palestine, Iraq, and Syria, but Lebanon itself never exported a single refugee to the world. Sixty years of wars, and there’s no Lebanese anywhere in the world who lives in a tent and who is supported by United Nations agencies. There is not a single beggar in the streets of Houston or New York who is of Lebanese origin. 

The Lebanese in diaspora is a story that has not been elegantly told. Lebanese immigrants never went to a country only to make a living; they always helped shape the future of their host countries and made major contributions to the world. Michael DeBakey, one of us here in Houston, who revolutionized heart surgery and was the most famous heart surgeon in the 20th century, this man was a Lebanese from Marjeyoun. Danny Thomas, who founded St. Jude Children's Research Hospital in Memphis, Tennessee, the world's leading children's cancer center, is Lebanese from Bsharri. 

Lebanese immigrants integrated into every community they lived in, and they are loved for their contributions, generosity of heart, goodness, and friendship. At the inauguration of the Lebanese Club in Mexico City, Mexico's president at the time, Adolfo Lopez Mateos, said, “If you don’t have a Lebanese friend, you must  look for one.” 

At the end, I have two messages for you today. 

1. You should be proud of being of Lebanese origin. 

2. I assure you that Lebanon will never die. Through its 6,000-year history, armies marched in, armies marched out, but Lebanon survived.  

Thank you for supporting the American Lebanese Cultural Center (ALCC). Thank you for being here today. Enjoy and have fun.

The ASCO Post, the official publication of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), published an article in its August 25, 2026 edition by Philip A. Salem, MD, President of Salem Oncology Center in Houston, Texas, detailing a cutting-edge therapeutic strategy for patients with advanced, treatment-refractory malignancies.

The strategy, known as ICTriplex, integrates three major therapeutic modalities—chemotherapy, immune checkpoint inhibitors, and molecularly targeted therapy—administered concomitantly within a highly individualized treatment framework.

Developed at Salem Oncology Center, ICTriplex departs from the conventional paradigm in which patients with the same anatomic or histopathologic cancer diagnosis may receive a standardized treatment protocol. The strategy is based on the increasing awareness that cancers sharing the same traditional diagnosis do have substantially different biological and genomic characteristics.

Accordingly, ICTriplex treatment is individualized according to both the conventional diagnosis and the distinct biological and genomic profile of each patient's tumor. Although the therapeutic framework contains chemotherapy, immunotherapy, and targeted therapy, the specific agents and regimen are tailored to the individual patient and to his specific and unique cancer . Thus, two patients with the same anatomic and histopathologic diagnosis receive distinctly different treatment protocols.

The findings described in The ASCO Post were previously presented at the ASCO Breakthrough Conference, held in Singapore from June 25–27, 2026, and were published in a supplement of the Journal of Clinical Oncology*.

The study was conducted at Salem Oncology Center and included patients with advanced malignancies that were refractory to conventional therapy, including individuals who had exhausted standard therapeutic options. In a population with generally low expected response rates to conventional treatment, the outcomes reported with ICTriplex were notable.

The reported overall response rate was 87.6%, including a complete remission rate of 47.9% and a partial remission rate of 39.7%. Lung cancer demonstrated particularly notable sensitivity, with a reported complete remission rate of 64%.

Among an initial group of 16 patients who had been considered terminal and ineligible for additional therapy at major U.S. cancer centers, nine achieved complete remission. Of those nine patients, four were reported to be alive and disease-free at five years.

The data support that ICTriplex is an innovative, precision-based strategy for treating advanced malignancies. They also raise an important clinical question regarding whether such an individualized, multimodal approach may ultimately have a role earlier in the course of metastatic disease rather than being reserved exclusively for patients who have exhausted conventional therapeutic options.

In discussing the significance of this work during an interview with KPRC Channel 2 ( NBC)  in Houston, Dr. Salem emphasized both its promise and its limitations:

“This strategy is a new vision for the treatment of cancer, but it is certainly not a panacea for the disease. What we have done for patients who were considered hopeless and standing in front of the wall of death—we have opened a window in this wall whereby the patient can look through this window at life rather than at death.”

Publication in The ASCO Post brings the ICTriplex strategy and its clinical findings to the extended oncology community. It contributes to the ongoing discussion of precision oncology, therapeutic individualization, and integrating chemotherapy, immunotherapy, and targeted therapy.

*  10.1200/JCO.2026.44.19_suppl.82

Head of the Department of External Relations

Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine (DFLP)

The October 7 war clearly exposed the extent of Israel's influence within Western societies and the deep penetration of the Israeli narrative into political, social, media, cultural, and academic circles. Over the course of more than a century, the Zionist movement has systematically developed and consolidated this narrative, successfully embedding it across a wide range of Western institutions. As a result, for large segments of Western public opinion, the Israeli narrative has become the most widely circulated and influential account of the conflict, and perhaps even the most credible from their perspective. By contrast, the Palestinian narrative has often been marginalized, overlooked, or presented in a fragmented and limited manner. This imbalance has been reflected in the positions adopted by a number of Western governments, institutions, and media outlets throughout different stages of the conflict.

At the same time, the war highlighted the significant influence exercised by pro-Israel lobbying groups in several Western countries and their ability to shape political decision-making, influence foreign policy priorities, and affect the nature of public debate through media organizations, think tanks, and extensive political networks. One consequence of this influence has been the continued political, military, and diplomatic support extended to Israel despite growing international criticism of its policies and actions, particularly regarding the humanitarian consequences of its military campaign in Gaza. This has, in turn, intensified debate over the extent of this influence and its implications for Western foreign policy and political positions.

Among the war's most significant consequences has been the revival of a long-standing debate over the nature of Israel's regional role and the extent to which that role is linked to broader Western strategic interests in the Middle East and beyond. From this perspective, Israel cannot be viewed merely as a state seeking to safeguard its own national interests. Rather, it can also be understood as a key strategic actor performing a function that extends beyond its geographical borders by protecting Western interests and preserving regional balances of power that sustain Western influence in the region. Viewed through this lens, Israel's policies and alliances may be interpreted as part of a broader strategic framework aimed at maintaining regional stability according to Western strategic priorities, thereby serving the political, security, and economic interests of its Western allies.

Furthermore, within the broader Western strategic framework, Israel functions as an advanced deterrent against emerging regional powers. It has also contributed to limiting the growth of liberation, nationalist, and regional projects that sought to reshape the political and economic balance of the Middle East independently of Western dominance. Consequently, Israel occupies a central position in safeguarding Western strategic interests related to energy security, maritime trade routes, and regional security arrangements. This has reinforced its status in strategic thinking that regards it as a cornerstone of the regional order established under Western influence.

Against this background, an important part of the underlying reasons for the persistence of Western support for Israel can be better understood, despite widespread awareness within Western societies of actions and practices attributed to Israel that many critics argue are inconsistent with the values Western governments publicly claim to uphold. Western support for Israel cannot be explained solely by historical, moral, or security considerations; it is also closely tied to long-term geopolitical and strategic calculations. For a number of Western states, particularly those with a colonial legacy, Israel is viewed as a strategic ally that performs functions which these governments believe would entail considerable political, security, and diplomatic costs if undertaken directly.

In this context, it is possible to understand why Israel has been involved in a significant proportion of the wars and military operations that have taken place in the Middle East since the mid-twentieth century. Some of these conflicts have also been closely linked to the strategies and interests of major Western powers, resulting at times in a convergence between Israeli interests and those of these powers, even where their motivations and priorities have differed, as is evident in the current conflict. This convergence helps explain the continuation of Western support for Israel despite mounting international criticism, expanding popular protests, and increasing pressure from human rights organizations during the war. Looking ahead, the future of this support is likely to remain closely tied to Israel's continued ability to fulfill this strategic role and to the extent to which Western capitals continue to conclude that the costs of preserving the alliance remain lower than those of abandoning or fundamentally redefining it.

However, this rationale appears to be losing its persuasive power among broad segments of Western public opinion. In the months following Israel's military campaign in Gaza, a noticeable shift emerged in public perceptions of the conflict, which has been reflected, to varying degrees, in the positions of some Western governments and official institutions. Several governments moved away from initially embracing the Israeli narrative almost unreservedly—following extensive political and media campaigns that promoted claims and allegations used to justify the military operations—and began to subject that narrative to greater scrutiny and reassessment. This shift became more pronounced as reports of civilian casualties, alleged violations, and the worsening humanitarian crisis accumulated, prompting sustained debate over whether Western policies were consistent with the principles of international law and human rights.

Within this context, major cities across Europe, North America, Australia, Japan, and New Zealand witnessed large-scale public demonstrations that extended to university campuses, labor unions, and civil society organizations. These mobilizations increased pressure on governments and parliaments to reconsider their positions and returned the Palestinian question to the forefront of political and human rights debates in a number of countries. This shift in public opinion was reflected, at least in part, in certain official positions, as several Western governments gradually adopted a more critical tone toward Israeli policies than they had during the initial stages of the war.

Nevertheless, despite this relative shift in public opinion and some official positions, a number of Western states continue to provide various forms of political and military support to Israel. This has raised growing questions about the consistency of such policies with the principles of human rights and international law that these governments publicly affirm. At the same time, broad sectors of public opinion and civil society organizations continue to press for more balanced policies focused on protecting civilians, ending Israeli violations, and enabling the Palestinian people to exercise their national rights through the establishment of a genuinely sovereign and independent state free from occupation.

Despite the political and media gains achieved by advocates of freedom, democracy, and progressive and left-wing movements in several Western countries, the extent of Israeli influence within institutions that shape public opinion and policy remains a significant challenge. Consequently, there is an increasing argument that popular mobilization in Western countries should broaden its focus beyond the Palestinian issue alone, particularly as Israeli influence is increasingly perceived by some observers as extending into matters affecting the national interests and sovereignty of Western states themselves. Certain recent developments appear to reflect this trend. Among them is the Netherlands, where, for the first time, the 2025 report of the National Coordinator for Security and Counterterrorism identified Israel as a source of concern for national security and included it among the states accused of exerting undue influence on public institutions. This development has been interpreted by some as reflecting a notable shift in official European perceptions of Israeli conduct.

The relationship between Western countries and Israel increasingly resembles the mythical tale of a creature that ultimately turns against its creator. Since Israel's establishment, Western support—particularly from the United States and Europe—has constituted a fundamental pillar in the development of its military, economic, and political strength. This support has extended far beyond substantial financial assistance and the provision of advanced military systems and technology. It has also included extensive diplomatic and political backing, as well as protection from significant international pressure and accountability in multilateral forums, thereby enabling Israel to expand its strategic room for maneuver and strengthen its regional and international standing.

Yet the very support that for decades served as an instrument of Western strategy in the Middle East has increasingly generated unintended consequences within some of the supporting states themselves. Criticism of pro-Israel lobbying groups has intensified, accompanied by growing concern over their influence on political decision-making, media institutions, and universities. In some Western political and security circles, these concerns have evolved into broader debates about national sovereignty and the independence of democratic decision-making. As a result, the state whose rise and consolidation were made possible through extensive Western support has, in the view of some observers, become a source of political and institutional challenges for some of the very countries that contributed to its emergence.

Israel would not have attained its current level of power without sustained Western support. A substantial part of its military, economic, and political superiority rests upon this exceptional backing. U.S. President Donald Trump has expressed this view on several occasions, most notably when he stated: "Without the United States, Israel would not exist today." Regardless of the accuracy of this assertion, any significant reduction in Western support—or subjecting Israel to the same standards applied to other states—could confront it with profound challenges affecting its ability to preserve its strategic superiority and manage its regional conflicts. Such a development could also expose the extent of its structural dependence on external protection and assistance, which have constituted one of the principal foundations of its strength and continuity for decades.

Conversely, the immense sacrifices made by the Palestinian people and their resilience in the face of Israel's military campaign, together with the ability of Palestinian armed groups to continue operating despite the scale of the military offensive, have contributed to a significant shift in the international political, public, and media landscape. Images and eyewitness accounts from the battlefield brought the realities of the war directly to global audiences, thereby diminishing the effectiveness of the Zionist narrative, which had dominated Western discourse on the Palestinian question for decades.

Both traditional and digital media played a pivotal role in this transformation. Alongside conventional news coverage, social media platforms enabled the widespread dissemination of images, documents, and eyewitness testimonies, allowing millions of people worldwide to access perspectives and narratives that had previously received far less attention in mainstream media. This expanded flow of information contributed to reshaping public opinion among broad segments of Western societies, fostering wider discussions about the nature of the conflict and its historical roots, while also creating greater space for the Palestinian narrative within the global public sphere. It is for this reason that Israel allocated a substantial budget in its 2026 state budget to improve its international image, with particular emphasis on the United States, in an effort to counter declining public support and respond to mounting criticism of its policies.

The decline in popular support for Israel across much of the West has been reflected in growing expressions of solidarity with the Palestinian people, including in countries that have traditionally been among Israel's closest allies.

Despite the shift in Western public opinion regarding the Palestinian issue, a significant Palestinian challenge remains: the limited capacity to translate these changing attitudes into lasting political, diplomatic, and media gains. This limitation stems largely from the continued Palestinian political division, which has increasingly affected the national project and threatens to undermine both political and popular support, as well as the growing international sympathy the Palestinian cause has attracted in recent years. Public solidarity does not automatically translate into official policies unless it is accompanied by a coordinated Palestinian effort capable of engaging Western societies and institutions through their own political, legal, and cultural frameworks, while building partnerships with influential political, civil society, and human rights actors. In this regard, restoring Palestinian national unity, ending internal divisions, and developing a unified national vision have become essential prerequisites for strengthening and sustaining the Palestinian narrative internationally.

The importance of this challenge is heightened by concerns that public solidarity may diminish over time. Public opinion is influenced by shifting priorities and competing global events, while remaining vulnerable to organized media and political campaigns conducted by Israel and its allies that seek to strip international sympathy for the Palestinian people of any meaningful political consequences. This concern explains why many fear that, in the absence of a comprehensive Palestinian strategy, a significant portion of the moral and political gains achieved during the war could gradually be lost.

Preserving the shift that has occurred in Western public opinion requires moving beyond reacting to events toward adopting a long-term strategic approach. This includes developing a coherent political and media discourse, strengthening Palestinian engagement within academic, media, and legal institutions, and deepening relationships with supportive social and political forces to ensure that the Palestinian narrative maintains a sustained presence and that public sympathy is translated into lasting political and institutional influence. It also requires developing more effective tools for communicating with diverse sectors of Western societies, capitalizing on the changes that have occurred in public discourse, and avoiding reliance solely on temporary reactions driven by the course of the war and daily developments.

Accordingly, advocates of freedom and democracy in Western countries, together with political parties, trade unions, human rights organizations, and civil society groups committed to the principles of justice, human rights, and international law, should continue and intensify their efforts and avoid allowing the momentum generated during the past period to dissipate. Sustained public demonstrations, continued pressure on governments and parliaments, support for legal and human rights initiatives, and strengthening the presence of the Palestinian narrative in the media, universities, and research institutions can all contribute to preserving the shift in Western public opinion and transforming public sympathy into policies and positions that are more consistent with the principles of international law and human rights. Maintaining and expanding this movement represents a crucial element in countering attempts to re-establish the dominance of the Israeli narrative and in advancing the prospects for justice for the Palestinian people and an end to the occupation. History has repeatedly demonstrated that organized public pressure remains one of the most effective forces for bringing about change within Western societies and influencing political decision-making, thereby encouraging more balanced approaches to international issues, foremost among them the Palestinian question.

A distinguished gathering of community figures, cultural advocates and legal professionals came together on Friday, 27 February 2026, for a special dinner in honour of Judge Ibrahim Alam, hosted by The Institute of the Development of Poetry and Heritage.

Held at the Salon Dr. Bahia Abou-Hamad for Poetry and Literature in Punchbowl, the evening served as both a celebration of judicial integrity and a reflection on the enduring relationship between justice, culture and community leadership.

The event opened with a reception that welcomed guests from across Sydney’s multicultural landscape. Attendees included members of the literary community, professionals from the legal field, and representatives of various social and cultural organisations — all united in recognising Judge Alam’s contributions and standing.

Organised under the guiding ethos, “The Foundation of Justice is Good Faith”, the evening was not simply ceremonial. It offered a meaningful space to acknowledge the human dimension of justice — the principles of fairness, ethical responsibility and service that extend beyond the courtroom and into society at large.

Judge Ibrahim Alam was honoured for his commitment to upholding justice with integrity and for his role as a figure who bridges professional excellence with community engagement. In an atmosphere enriched by literary and cultural appreciation, the event also reflected the Institute’s broader mission: to promote the harmony between heritage, intellectual discourse and civic responsibility.

Guests shared in a formal iftar dinner that fostered dialogue, connection and mutual respect — reinforcing the importance of recognising leadership that strengthens both institutional trust and community cohesion.

The evening concluded on a warm and reflective note, leaving attendees with a renewed appreciation for the values that underpin both justice and cultural identity.