GEOFF BENNETT: Good evening.

I'm Geoff Bennett.

Amna Nawaz is away.

On the "NewsHour" tonight: After much wrangling, Congress moves to avoid a government shutdown with a new funding bill.

Top U.S. diplomats meet the new leaders of Syria who overthrew the Assad regime and are now attempting to rebuild the war-torn country.

And life in the West Bank following the October 7 Hamas terror attacks has been brutal and unpredictable.

YOUNES HASSAN, West Bank Resident (through translator): We have no future now.

Even for my daughter, she has no future.

If they had destroyed the house with us inside, it would have been better.

GEOFF BENNETT: Welcome to the "News Hour."

Days of chaos and uncertainty on Capitol Hill appear to be winding down.

A bill backed by president-elect Donald Trump to keep the government open was rejected by the House last night, but this afternoon a breakthrough on a very similar agreement was announced by House Speaker Mike Johnson.

REP. MIKE JOHNSON (R-LA): We will not have a government shutdown and we will meet our obligations for our farmers who need aid, for the disaster victims all over the country and for making sure that military and essential services and everyone who relies upon the federal government for a paycheck is paid over the holidays.

GEOFF BENNETT: And moments ago, the House passed the bill with bipartisan support.

It now heads to the Senate with just hours until the midnight deadline.

Lisa Desjardins has been tracking it all on Capitol Hill.

So, Lisa, where do things stand right now?

LISA DESJARDINS: Right.

Let's take a quick look at the House floor.

That vote just completed.

This could very well be the last House vote of this Congress.

I want to tell you the vote total, 366 votes for this spending bill that would kick things down the road.

I will talk about the details in a second.

All of the no votes, 34 of them, were Republicans.

So Democrats really helped get this across the finish line here in the House.

So what's in this exactly?

Let's take a look.

First of all, this bill would extend the funding of government funding until about mid-March.

It has $100 billion about that for disaster aid.

It has $10 billion for farmers.

There is not an increase in the debt ceiling.

You might be wondering, Lisa, doesn't that look just like a graphic you used the other day?

Why, yes, it does.

This bill is incredibly similar to a proposal that failed earlier, except for the debt ceiling has been removed.

Now, remember, this has been a problem for Republicans up and down.

Talking to them this morning, coming out of their caucus meeting, it was clear they were very eager to be unified and to be positive.

GEOFF BENNETT: And what did you hear from Democrats in terms of how they were able to get to yes?

LISA DESJARDINS: Right.

Well, I want to talk about the Democrats say that they want to make sure that government doesn't get shut down.

I think part of this was, coming out of that Republican meeting, I mean, Republicans were trying to be unified and to be positive and to get Democrats on board.

Let's listen to what they said.

REP. DAN MEUSER (R-PA): I think we came together.

I think Speaker Johnson did a great job come the end of the day.

I think there's very good communication happening with the White House, and which is crucial.

LISA DESJARDINS: Now, what's notable here, Geoff, is when they say the White House, House Republicans are talking about president-elect Trump.

So, throughout all of this, it was as if Trump was already president.

But I want to note, in the end, he did not get what he wanted.

Here's what Trump posted on social media just in the last day about what he wanted.

He wrote on social media -- and I want to show you exactly what he wrote.

Here it is.

He wrote: "Congress must get rid of the ridiculous debt ceiling.

Without this, the Republicans should never make a deal."

Well, in the end, they did make a deal.

Now, part of this deal is a handshake agreement between House Republicans and Trump to increase the debt ceiling next year by $1.5 trillion, but also have some cuts that would go along with it.

GEOFF BENNETT: So what does all what does all of this mean for the House speaker, Mike Johnson, his leadership moving forward?

LISA DESJARDINS: Yes, we're waiting to see what the Senate does tonight.

I want to update folks on the shutdown itself, because that is coming at midnight.

The Senate could move quickly.

It is possible the Senate could pass this deal by midnight or shortly after.

So it looks like, if we have a shutdown, it could be a technically short one.

That's if the full Senate goes along, so we need to watch that carefully.

But Mike Johnson, absolutely, he is not out of hot water yet.

At least one of his Republican members today, Thomas Massie of Kentucky, told me he is a hard no on Johnson continuing to be speaker.

Let's listen to what he said.

REP. THOMAS MASSIE (R-KY): You can change the name over the speaker's office, but until you change the way this place works, you're not really going to get different results.

I have a different operating theory on this speaker's vote, which is Mike Johnson is not qualified to be speaker.

LISA DESJARDINS: Now, with the margin that Johnson will have in the next session, he really cannot lose any more members and keep the speakership.

So, over the course of this recess, there will be an important moment for the speaker.

I did confirm that in one of the meetings in the past day with his number two, Steve Scalise, next to him, Johnson half-joked, half didn't joke, if anyone else can get 218 votes, meaning a majority, God bless them.

Steve Scalise is someone who has eyed the speakership before.

He's not the only one, but there will be a real moment on January 3, when the next Congress begins, a test for him.

GEOFF BENNETT: So, Lisa, help us understand.

Despite the chaos we have seen over the last few days, it appears Congress has voted and approved -- at least the House so far has voted and approved a spending bill that for the most part mirrored what they started with, minus this effort to raise the debt ceiling is that right?

LISA DESJARDINS: That's exactly correct.

And I'm glad you're pointing this out.

Two things here.

First of all, the House knew this was coming since September.

All of Congress knew this was coming since September.

And so did president-elect Trump.

Now, what happened here is, there was a very large bill that Speaker Johnson negotiated with Democrats that he presented to his chairmen, but did not get them to weigh in on.

That bill had essentially these items in it, plus more policy, a little bit, a bunch more spending in it and some health care policy.

Then president-elect Trump and Elon Musk weighed in.

They wanted the debt ceiling.

So, speaker -- Trump, Speaker Johnson added that.

That didn't work.

Now that's been taken out.

Essentially, we have gone through all of this as a sort of learning curve for both Speaker Johnson and president-elect Trump as to how the House can work and also how it doesn't work.

One other thing I want to hit on really quickly in the end here is about the debt itself.

This was a pervasive and important substantive issue to many of the Republicans who were negotiating here with their own party.

And looking at this debt deal, I want to describe what their handshake deal is with president-elect Trump.

They made a deal to increase the debt ceiling, or they said they would try, by $1.5 trillion in the spring or in January or so.

And in exchange, they want to find $2.5 trillion in mandatory spending cuts.

That's a level we have never seen before.

That may not be easy to do.

And, of course, they would need agreement from the Senate as well.

But this is the deal they have with Trump.

Now, a reminder to folks.

Currently, the U.S. national debt stands at $36 trillion.

And that level is going up and up.

The interest on the debt is nearing a trillion dollars a year.

So that's why this is a concern.

It is a substantive issue for many of these Republicans.

And that's not going to go away, nor will the complexity of dealing with it in the next Congress.

It may only get harder.

GEOFF BENNETT: Lisa Desjardins, our deep thanks to you, as always.

All right, for more insight, let's bring in Congressman David Schweikert of Arizona, who joins us now.

Congressman, thanks so much for being with us.

REP. DAVID SCHWEIKERT (R-AZ): Geoff, thank you for having me.

And Lisa is truly one of the very best here.

GEOFF BENNETT: Well, I'd have to agree with you on that.

Thanks for making note of it.

So, help us understand.

You opposed the first two funding bills, but you voted in support of the funding bill tonight.

Why?

REP. DAVID SCHWEIKERT: The debt ceiling was removed from it.

For those of us -- I will hopefully be chairing the Joint Economic Committee, but I'm also on Ways and Means.

The opportunity to now step in and say, here's the modernizations, here's some of the spending reductions, those things, I now have a path to move those things forward.

And let's be honest.

The previous setup on the vote had all sorts of things that I believe were Christmas-treed in, and then functionally a substantial increase in the debt ceiling with actually no understanding of that that's a stressor around here.

And we almost only do our work when there's a stressor.

GEOFF BENNETT: The version of the bill that failed last night, the bill that had the debt ceiling increase that Donald Trump supported, 38 Republicans voted against it.

You were one of them.

What should we take away from that?

I mean, does it show the limits of Mr. Trump's influence and power among the House GOP?

REP. DAVID SCHWEIKERT: No, Geoff, I would actually take you a slightly different direction.

In some ways, it was less about President Trump or even Mr. Musk.

It's the fact of the matter is we now live in a time where so far this fiscal year -- so, what, we're 70 days into this fiscal year.

We're borrowing over $100,000 every second.

It's demographics.

It's the interest on the debt now is starting to chew us up.

And it's constantly this battle of people want things.

There's lines of lobbyists and groups in these hallways wanting things, and almost no one wants to actually talk about how do we pay for it.

GEOFF BENNETT: You mentioned Elon Musk.

I mean, given that you are a vocal fiscal hawk, what do you make of the fact that you have this unelected multibillionaire with a number of vested interests, many would argue conflicts of interest, calling the shots on something that should be the prerogative of elected members of Congress?

REP. DAVID SCHWEIKERT: I'm -- actually think it's wonderful.

If you have someone with a... GEOFF BENNETT: Really?

REP. DAVID SCHWEIKERT: Yes.

If you have someone with a freaky high I.Q.

who's willing to, in some ways, evangelize, saying we need to modernize how we deliver health care, how we deliver government, what we do, because the fact of the matter is, intellectually, Congress, the reporting class, others, are almost fearful to tell the public just the scale.

Look, we're borrowing so far this fiscal year $8.7 billion every single day.

And yet the triteness of so many of the solutions we get, if this actually raises the profile -- look, I know people want to take a shot at someone because of what they do and those things, but how much of the public actually understands we're clicking off a trillion dollars of borrowing about every 118 days?

If this actually sharpens the mind, sharpens the intellect to actually deal with the reality of our demographics, 100 percent of the debt so today through the next 10 years, is interest and health care.

It's demographics.

It's not Democrat.

It's not Republican.

It's what we are as a society.

GEOFF BENNETT: I take your point about shaking up the status quo.

What about the process?

For Americans watching this new era of GOP control start with really chaos and manufactured crisis, you could argue, what should the American people take away from that?

REP. DAVID SCHWEIKERT: In some ways -- oh, God, forgive me if I'm going to say this.

This is the reality when you don't have bundles of free cash to hand out to people to buy their votes.

In a previous era, when you had someone that wanted something, you say, all right, we will build that bridge.

We will do that road.

And that's how you took care of their desires for their vote.

Today, we don't have that bank account to buy votes.

Now we have to deal with the honor, the facts of the math, and the math will always eventually win here.

So things are going to be more difficult, but this is the reality of the avoidance of the last decade of telling the truth, what our demographics have brought us.

GEOFF BENNETT: What's your assessment of House Speaker Mike Johnson's leadership so far?

REP. DAVID SCHWEIKERT: He's done fine.

Look, building -- one of the things.

And, forgive me, I might be a bit pathological optimistic here.

One of what we went through in the last 36 hours was building a rhythm of, how do you deal with very difficult math when you have only one- or two-vote margin and build the model of, how do you listen to people?

Someone like myself is from a very well-educated district.

I represent the Phoenix-Scottsdale area, compared to someone that may have a rural district or other districts that haven't had the same opportunity as my population.

GEOFF BENNETT: There are lots of educated people in rural areas, but I... REP. DAVID SCHWEIKERT: No, no.

Yes, but the point is, we all come with different desires.

If you actually take a look at some of the no-votes, it was more -- we wanted more aid for what's happening in agricultural America.

You had others that it's an issue of what's happening in the middle of the country compared to the coasts.

So we have got to be very careful that this isn't populist versus conservatives versus liberals, that it's an understanding that the movement of how we vote is actually much more complex.

GEOFF BENNETT: Congressman David Schweikert of Arizona, thanks for your time this evening.

We appreciate it.

REP. DAVID SCHWEIKERT: Thank you for having me.

GEOFF BENNETT: And we start today's other headlines with an unfolding tragedy in Germany, where a car drove at high speed through a crowd of people at a Christmas market in the Northeastern city of Magdeburg.

At least two people are dead and dozens are injured.

A German media outlet reports the death toll could be as high as 11.

Officials believe this was a deliberate attack and the suspect, a 50-year-old Saudi doctor, has been arrested.

Residents and visitors were in a state of shock and called the attack a dark day for the city so close to the holidays.

DORIN STEFFEN, Germany Resident: We are shaking.

We are full of sympathy for the relatives.

Also, we hope that nothing has happened to our relatives, friends and acquaintances.

GEOFF BENNETT: This week marks the anniversary of an attack on a Berlin Christmas market eight years ago, where an extremist drove a truck through a crowd and killed 13 people.

Ukraine and Russia traded deadly missile strikes today.

A Russian official says Ukraine struck inside the Kursk border region with U.S.-supplied weapons, killing at least six people, including a child.

Eyewitness video caught scenes of destruction and panic.

Ukrainian soldiers have held part of Kursk ever since a surprise incursion earlier this year.

Meantime, in Ukraine's capital, Kyiv, officials say one person was killed in a Russian missile attack during morning rush hour.

Ukraine's Foreign Ministry also said Russia endangered other countries' diplomats.

HEORHII TYKHYI, Ukrainian Foreign Ministry Spokesperson (through translator): As a result of the missile attack, several embassies were damaged.

You can see a car with diplomatic plates that belongs to one of the diplomatic institutions.

Here's the interior of the embassy.

All of these embassies are housed in the same building, which was heavily damaged by the Russian strike.

GEOFF BENNETT: Moscow claimed its attack was retaliation for a Ukrainian strike on Russian soil earlier this week that used American-made weapons.

Back here at home, baristas at a handful of Starbucks stores went on a five-day strike today after contract negotiations reached an apparent standstill.

PROTESTER: No contract!

PROTESTERS: No coffee!

GEOFF BENNETT: Union organizers said the walk-offs happened at about 10 stores in the Los Angeles, Seattle, and Chicago areas, and the strike could expand to hundreds of cafes by Christmas Eve.

The coffee giant said in a statement that there would be no significant impact to its operations.

The Biden administration announced today that it would forgive another $4 billion in student loan debt for roughly 55,000 borrowers who work in public service.

The relief is a result of fixes the Education Department made to the Public Service Loan Forgiveness program.

The president has forgiven more student debt than any other president, waiving $180 billion for nearly five million people with student debt.

But Republican-led legal challenges have hindered the president's efforts at delivering wide-scale relief.

Party City, the once-popular party supply store, is closing its doors after nearly 40 years in business, according to CNN.

The store's corporate employees were told today would be their last day as the company winds down operations.

It comes as the discount store Big Lots also prepares to shut its doors amid its own bankruptcy.

Both chains have struggled against online competitors like Amazon.

And, on Wall Street, stocks turned around what's been a dismal week of losses to end on a somewhat high note.

The Dow Jones industrial average gained nearly 500 points on the day.

The Nasdaq notched its own big gain of nearly 200 points, and the S&P also finished up by more than a percentage point.

Still to come on the "News Hour": David Brooks and Jonathan Capehart weigh in on Donald Trump's decision to complicate a congressional funding deal; and a court wrangles over who owns a vibe after one social media influencer sues another for copying her look.

American diplomats were in Syria today for the first time since the U.S. shut its embassy in Damascus in 2012.

They met with Syria's de facto new ruler, Ahmed al-Shar'a, and announced that the $10 million bounty the U.S. placed on him would be removed.

Assistant Secretary of State Barbara Leaf told reporters al-Shar'a was committed to ensuring that terrorist groups cannot pose a threat inside Syria or to other countries.

BARBARA LEAF, U.S. Assistant Secretary of State: I would characterize the discussion as quite good, very productive, detailed, rearranged over a wide set of issues, domestic and external.

He came across as pragmatic.

It was a good first meeting.

We will judge by deeds, not just by words.

GEOFF BENNETT: U.S. officials also said they're expanding their search for Austin Tice, the American journalist who was kidnapped in Damascus 12 years ago.

For perspective, we turn now to Theodore Kattouf.

He was U.S. ambassador to Syria during the George W. Bush administration.

Thanks for coming in.

THEODORE KATTOUF, Former U.S.

Ambassador to Syria: My pleasure.

GEOFF BENNETT: Help us understand the significance of the U.S. dropping the $10 million bounty it had offered for the Syrian rebel leader whose forces led to the ouster of Bashar al-Assad.

THEODORE KATTOUF: Well, I think it's a very positive sign.

Ahmed al-Shar'a at one point was an Islamic Stater.

At another point, he was al-Qaida.

Then he had his own offshoot in Syria, the Nusra Front.

But he and the organization Hay'at Tahrir al-Sham seems to have evolved and recognized that they can't rule Syria, they can't govern Syria without changing, to some extent, their Islamic or Islamist ideology and being inclusive and much more tolerant, because Syria is a mosaic of many minorities, with the Sunnis perhaps being the majority.

But within that grouping of Sunni Muslims.

There are many secularists or many people who don't want Islamist rule.

GEOFF BENNETT: What is the U.S. interest in Syria right now?

THEODORE KATTOUF: Well, I think the first interest is that it doesn't become a cockpit for exporting terrorism, as Afghanistan was and the like.

And Syria has ISIS still out in the desert, in the western desert of Syria, and the United States has about 2,000 troops there.

We have recently increased the number of troops, and they are there to work with what's known as the Syrian Democratic Front, but is largely a Kurdish organization, military organization, to root out ISIS.

And the Kurds actually guard some very huge prisons containing thousands of ISIS fighters and their families.

GEOFF BENNETT: Is it in the U.S. interest then to lift sanctions to provide more humanitarian aid and to encourage other countries to do the same?

THEODORE KATTOUF: I think it is.

I mean, Barbara Leaf, our assistant secretary, who we just heard from, it's her job as a diplomat to be positive and hopeful, but, in this case, I think it's the right thing to do, because Ahmed Shar'a recognizes that he has a country in ruins and people are suffering, and he has to deliver for them.

If he wants to consolidate HTS' position in Syria and stamp out resistance, then people have to have hope.

And that hope will come through the international community first providing humanitarian aid, but then reconstruction aid and even help with governance.

And Shar'a seems to me a very astute fellow who's learned a lot and come a long way.

I'm not saying he couldn't reverse himself.

Plenty of leaders have.

I'm old enough to remember Castro in Cuba who told us he was a democrat back in '59 and '60, and turned out to be a communist leader.

GEOFF BENNETT: Right.

THEODORE KATTOUF: So people can say one thing and do another.

Ahmed Shar'a not only has to talk the talk.

He's going to have to walk the walk.

GEOFF BENNETT: You have just articulated one of the immediate risks that Syria faces.

What are some of the others right now after the fall of Assad?

THEODORE KATTOUF: Oh, there are so many, Geoff.

The civil war is really not over.

We have a truce between Turkish or Turkish-backed forces and the Kurdish forces I just referred to in Northeastern Syria, but it's only a matter of days before that truce expires.

So we could see, again, fighting in that part area.

Not only that, but we could see more extremist elements from Hay'at Tahrir al-Sham or other allied organizations trying to push Shar'a aside because he's too moderate.

We also have many other things that can happen.

I mentioned ISIS and them gaining a bigger foothold and expanding the reach in Syria.

And, of course, Israel's been taking territory on the Golan that was supposed to be demilitarized in an agreement between Hafez al-Assad and the then Israeli government.

And that's putting pressure on Shar'a too.

He doesn't want a problem with Israel.

He doesn't want to have to be a confrontational leader.

But he's -- they're embarrassing him badly.

GEOFF BENNETT: The outgoing administration is engaged in this frantic round of diplomacy.

But president-elect Donald Trump has made clear that Syria, as he says, is not our fight.

How might his anti-interventionist world view affect the U.S. approach moving forward?

And what might that mean for Syria?

THEODORE KATTOUF: Well, first of all, we have been working with the Kurds in Northeastern Syria since about 2012.

You had Ambassador Jeffrey, I believe, on the show, who said, we never had an agreement with the Kurds for an independent Kurdish state or even a quite autonomous region.

But there is a moral obligation there.

The Kurds have been abandoned more than once by the U.S. and the West.

And if a slaughter takes place, their blood is going to be on U.S. hands.

And Turkey has said not only is ISIS a terrorist organization, but the Syrian Democratic Forces, i.e., the Kurds, are also a terrorist organization, something, of course, we don't agree with.

Our interest is that Syria not be a totally failed state and ISIS not -- and other organizations, al-Qaida, not be able to export terrorism to the West and to Europe and the like.

And if Trump pulls out too quickly, if he throws up his hands and says, I'm not giving any aid, let the Arabs worry about it, et cetera, without U.S. leadership, things could deteriorate very quickly.

So I'm hoping his advisers can talk him into a -- let's say a more moderate withdrawal, since he criticized the withdrawal from Afghanistan.

We shouldn't repeat that.

GEOFF BENNETT: Ambassador Ted Kattouf, thanks so much for your insights.

We appreciate it.

THEODORE KATTOUF: Thank you, sir.

GEOFF BENNETT: Overnight in the northern reaches of the occupied West Bank, a mosque was vandalized and set on fire by Israeli settlers, whose attacks against Palestinians there have increased greatly since the October 7 terror attacks.

Israel describes the West Bank as one of seven fronts it's fighting on stoked by Iranian support of Palestinian militants.

On a recent trip, Nick Schifrin traveled to the Jenin refugee camp, the epicenter of much of the violence.

He begins his story in a nearby village.

NICK SCHIFRIN: It is a window into life in the occupied West Bank, what was once a sanctuary reduced to rubble.

YOUNES HASSAN, West Bank Resident (through translator): I have been building this house for 15 years.

It took them 45 minutes to demolish it and leave.

NICK SCHIFRIN: Younes Hassan and his 2-year-old daughter, Jaffa, stand at the wreckage of the home he spent nearly half his life building.

He just finished it.

Jaffa's trampoline in the living room, family dancing in the kitchen.

But, in September, an Israeli bulldozer tore it down.

Israel told him he didn't have a construction permit, which Palestinians and the U.N. say is nearly impossible to obtain.

YOUNES HASSAN (through translator): If I wanted to build a house like this again, it would take me 100 years.

I will be in my grave before I can finish it.

NICK SCHIFRIN: The family says it's lived on this land for 100 years.

Israel has for decades bulldozed West Bank homes in the name of counterterrorism.

But the U.N. says this year Israel demolished the highest number of structures since records began 15 years ago.

And, since October the 7th, Israel has blocked Hassan's and some 150,000 West Bank Palestinians' livelihood by suspending their work permits that gave them access as day workers to Israel just beyond the wall.

YOUNES HASSAN (through translator): Before October 7, I used to work in Israel.

I used to work construction there, and they knew who I was and they liked me.

But since October 7, if I said hi, they don't respond.

They'd shoot at me.

We have no future now.

Even for my daughter, she has no future.

I ask, what happened to the house?

And she says the army flattened it.

If they had destroyed the house with us inside, it would have been better.

NICK SCHIFRIN: That defeatism toward death is shared even by those responsible for saving life.

WASEF SULAIMAN RAWAJBI, Jenin Paramedic (through translator): We are both living and we're not.

You don't know if your child leaves the house if they will be back safe.

Or even if I leave the house, you never know what could happen.

NICK SCHIFRIN: Wasef Sulaiman Rawajbi has been a paramedic in Jenin for 18 years.

He and international NGOs accuse Israeli forces since October the 7th of targeting health care facilities, workers and ambulances.

WASEF SULAIMAN RAWAJBI (through translator): Before October 7, the stop-and-searches were fewer.

Today, they have no problems shooting at anyone.

They will kill anyone.

NICK SCHIFRIN: The epicenter of the recent violence in the West Bank has been the Jenin refugee camp.

In late August, Israel launched its largest West Bank raids in 20 years.

Israel calls the camp the crucible of Palestinian militancy.

Another round of raids last month targeted what Israel labeled terrorists who'd attack Israeli settlers and soldiers.

Israel calls the Jenin fighting urban warfare at its most difficult, because militants are embed in the city and even throw explosives at Israeli soldiers from mosques.

The Israeli military campaign here has intensified using tactics that used to be unheard of, airstrikes.

This is a mosque in the Jenin refugee camp hit by Israeli jets.

And locals tell me they're not going to rebuild it because they fear that, if they did, Israel would hit it again.

The U.N. established the camp and others like it for Palestinians forced from their homes during Israel's independence in 1948.

At first, it was controlled by Jordan.

It's been occupied by Israel since 1967.

Today, some 14,000 of their descendants live here, and it has among the highest rates of unemployment and poverty across the West Bank.

SHEIKH ISMAEL ABDEL FATTAH JARADAT, Jenin Refugee Camp (through translator): The people are living in a sort of tough situation, a stressful situation.

There's been increasing pressure on people during this time.

NICK SCHIFRIN: Sheikh Ismael Abdel Fattah Jaradat is one of the imams at the main refugee camp mosque.

He says the toll on West Bank civilians since October 7 has been high.

The U.N. says at least 730 have been killed, including three children every week.

Israel's recent Jenin raids left dug-up roads and burned and bullet-marked homes.

It is no place to grow up or to parent, says Jaradat.

SHEIKH ISMAEL ABDEL FATTAH JARADAT (through translator): They're growing up around pressure and terror and killing.

So, of course they're going to grow up abnormally with abnormal thoughts.

During the last invasion, where the army came in around 11:00, right in the middle of the day.

I had to go pull my son out of school.

And the scene there was terrified parents worried for their children.

When the army comes in during this time, it's intentional to terrorize people.

NICK SCHIFRIN: Israel argues the terrorism is Palestinian.

Last week, Israelis who established settlements in the West Bank held a funeral for a 12-year-old killed by a Palestinian at a bus station.

And in early October, Israel says Palestinians from the West Bank attacked this train station south of Tel Aviv and killed at least seven people, their bodies left on the sidewalk.

BRIG GEN. ASSAF ORION (RET.

), The Washington Institute: West Bank is one of the seven fronts that Israel fights against the axis of resistance led by Iran.

NICK SCHIFRIN: Assaf Orion is a retired Israeli brigadier general whose last job was leading the Israeli Defense Forces' strategic planning.

Now he's a fellow with the Washington Institute of International Peace.

We spoke when I returned from the West Bank.

BRIG GEN. ASSAF ORION: The job there is to keep the situation relatively stable and keep terror down.

So, a famous Israeli term for that was mowing the lawn.

Since tall grass allows the snakes to proliferate, you go after, like, explosive laboratories, you go after bands of armed gunmen.

NICK SCHIFRIN: Jenin's militants are an umbrella of armed groups that today are supplied by weapons, including these from Iran.

They target Israel and the Palestinian Authority that governs part of the West Bank.

This past weekend, Palestinian police fought militants in Jenin in an operation the Palestinian prime minister called an attempt to reestablish law and order.

MOHAMMAD MUSTAFA, Prime Minister, Palestinian National Authority (through translator): This is to save the people in Jenin from the chaos they're living in and to save the nation.

NICK SCHIFRIN: West Bank chaos also comes from violence launched by Jewish residents, who have moved to the West Bank in what the international community calls illegal settlements.

This year, the U.N. has tracked more than 1,400 incidents, the highest in years.

BRIG GEN. ASSAF ORION: Settlers' appetite for friction, which is, I would say, an expression of their feeling that the government is supportive, and at the same time the huge weakening of police and law enforcement.

NICK SCHIFRIN: In the occupied West Bank, the Israeli army is responsible for Palestinians, but arresting settlers is the responsibility of the Israeli police, who are not doing their job, argue Iran and other security officials.

BRIG GEN. ASSAF ORION: If the Israeli police is disinclined, is showing its weak hand against those aggressors, so there's no law enforcement.

We can add to that recently the newly appointed minister of defense, Israel Katz, just said that administrative arrests for Jews will not be used anymore.

That's a big step backwards of when you try to deter Jewish terrorism.

NICK SCHIFRIN: Those administrative arrests, when Israeli security forces hold suspects without charge, has helped push the number of Palestinian detainees from 5,000 to 15,000.

HAMZA QUTENA, Attorney For Detainees (through translator): The arrests were different after October 7.

Israeli police were arresting people in masses in raids and the arrests became more violent.

NICK SCHIFRIN: You have been a lawyer for more than 10 years.

Hamza Qutena is a Jerusalem-based lawyer for Palestinian detainees.

He and the U.N. Human Rights Office accuse Israel of a wave of arbitrary and punitive arrests.

They allege abuse, including of Moazaz Obaiat, a healthy bodybuilder before he was detained.

The U.N. also says at least 53 Palestinian prisoners from the West Bank and Gaza died while in custody, including Thaer Abu Asab, who was serving a 20-year sentence for attempting to bomb a checkpoint.

At least 19 guards were detained in his death.

HAMZA QUTENA (through translator): Without a doubt, the Israelis are using torture in their prisons, sometimes even leading to the death of detainees.

They were tortured, mattresses taken away, leaving them in the cold.

They were also subjected to psychological and mental torture by staying in the dark and lessening the amount of food they were given.

NICK SCHIFRIN: Israeli prison authority, which is overseen by Itamar Ben-Gvir, the far right national security minister, has said repeatedly -- quote -- "All prisoners are detained according to the provisions of the law."

But Ben-Gvir has publicly feuded with Israel's other security agencies, which have criticized prison conditions.

ITAMAR BEN-GVIR, Israeli National Security Minister (through translator): I'm surprised by my misfortune in recent days.

I have dealt with the question if Palestinian prisoners should have a fruit basket or not.

And I say Palestinian prisoners must be killed, shot in the head.

NICK SCHIFRIN: All of this adds up to tensions remaining high.

BRIG GEN. ASSAF ORION: The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is not on a reconciliation path.

There's not a political process in sight.

NICK SCHIFRIN: And so the cycles of violence will continue.

For the "PBS News Hour," I'm Nick Schifrin in Jenin.

GEOFF BENNETT: Congress spent the week on yet another chaotic, down-to-the-wire funding battle.

So, as we close out the week, we turn tonight to the analysis of Brooks and Capehart.

That's New York Times columnist David Brooks, and Jonathan Capehart, associate editor for The Washington Post.

Jonathan, I will start with you.

What's your assessment of the drama surrounding this government funding battle?

Keeping the government funded is the basic function of Congress.

It should be this straightforward, noncontroversial process, not the source of political brinksmanship, and yet... JONATHAN CAPEHART: And yet.

Noncontroversial, I love that description, because it hasn't been that way since Kevin McCarthy was speaker of the House.

Look, you had Speaker Johnson negotiating in good faith, if you listened to congressional Democrats, with them to come up with what we can now call plan A.

It wasn't what Speaker Johnson had promised his caucus.

It was a more-than-1,000-page bill, had lots of stuff in it, but it kept the government open.

It got disaster aid.

It did a bunch of things.

And, what was it, Monday, early in the morning, Elon Musk starts tweeting against it.

Then president-elect Donald Trump joins in.

You can't expect anything to get passed if you swoop in at the last minute and blow up the deal and then blow up the second deal by saying, oh, we should just eliminate the debt ceiling, when you have got people in your own conference who ran on cutting the debt and things like that.

And so what happened this week, to me, was not surprising.

What is surprising is that they actually got a deal done and they got it passed with a lot of votes.

GEOFF BENNETT: And, David, there have been those Republicans who have said that, by taking aim at the Washington status quo, that Donald Trump did exactly what he said he would do on the campaign trail, and especially since the government is viewed with such distrust by those on the populist right.

DAVID BROOKS: Yes, I actually thought - - I had a positive week with this.

I thought all parties had a piece of the truth.

So Donald Trump was absolutely right.

We should get rid of debt ceiling.

The debt ceiling is sort of a sham procedure.

If we want to cut spending and do fiscal discipline, we should do it during the appropriations process or the authorization process, not with this weird thing called the debt ceiling.

The second people who are right were the 38 Republicans who defied Donald Trump, who said, if we're going to get rid of the debt ceiling, we should actually cut spending.

And they were right about that.

But then Speaker Johnson was also right, that this is not the time.

In the hours before a government shutdown, you can't do something massive like cutting $1.2 trillion out of the federal budget.

So I think Speaker Johnson did the right thing.

And Donald Trump learned a lesson, which is, there's realities here.

You can say things on the campaign trail, but there are realities in governance.

And the realities often have to do with the timetable.

And Donald Trump weighed in at the wrong time.

If he wants to do it when he's president, fine.

He's on the right course on this.

But he can't just do it just at the last minute, when you're not even president yet.

And so I think what we learned is that at first 38 and then hundreds of Republicans defied Donald Trump in order to deal with the reality in front of them.

GEOFF BENNETT: Jonathan, David mentioned Elon Musk.

I mean, what about his influence?

Because he led the rebellion against the initial bill, as you mentioned.

And The Post reported that his swift accumulation of political power has sparked criticism that the incoming Trump administration will function like an oligarchy.

JONATHAN CAPEHART: Well, yes, because, remember, this all got started, not because Donald Trump weighed in first.

Elon Musk weighed in.

And he's the -- he -- I just start calling him the first buddy.

He is in on all the phone calls.

He's in on all the meetings.

No one elected him to anything, no one.

And yet Republicans on the Hill listened to what he had to say.

Donald Trump listened to what he had to say.

There's a reason why Democrats this week were calling -- were saying -- were calling him President Musk and then calling Donald Trump Donald Trump.

If what we saw this week is prologue for what the Trump administration is going to be like, what the 119th Congress is going to be like, we should be prepared for continual weeks like the one we had now.

GEOFF BENNETT: David, what does this suggest about what we can expect moving forward, especially as Donald Trump will likely have to renew his tax cut plan?

And he says he wants to embark upon this mass deportation of undocumented immigrants.

That's going to take coordinating with Congress to a certain degree.

DAVID BROOKS: Yes, again, it's reality.

First on Elon Musk, Donald Trump's been against the debt ceiling for a long time.

He didn't need Elon Musk to tell him that.

As for Elon Musk, this bromance is going to end in tears.

We're all -- I give it 30 days, maybe 60 days, something like that.

We're all going to be crying as they part ways and they start taking shots at each other.

I don't expect Elon Musk to be around for very long, but presidents get to advisers.

And if Elon Musk can do some good, then maybe he can do some good.

I mean, one of the things that even Democrats are saying is that they missed the chance when they were in office to reform government.

If you're trying to improve the Medicare, if you're trying to improve the delivery of veteran services, there are government rules and regulations that impinge and block you from actually improving the way government works.

And sensible Democrats know that and they should have done something about it.

If Elon Musk, some billionaire, walks in and can reform some of the rules that are impinging the way the government works, all to it.

I don't expect that to happen, but what I expect is that Donald Trump has some right instincts about immigration, about reforming government, but he does not know anything about the reality of governance.

And so my posture right now is let's let him try.

He's got some instincts that are terrible and some instincts that are not terrible.

And let's let him try.

But change in government is just phenomenally hard.

And you have to really know what you're doing.

And neither Donald Trump nor Elon Musk really knows how the game is played.

GEOFF BENNETT: Jonathan, where was President Biden in all of this?

And I raise the question because at one point Donald Trump posted on social media, if there is going to be a shutdown of government, let it begin now under the Biden administration, not after January 20 under Trump, and no response from President Biden himself.

He really seems to have abdicated the bully pulpit.

JONATHAN CAPEHART: No, no, no, no, no, no, no.

Why should President Biden get in the middle of a Republican-on-Republican food fight melee?

Why should he?

If this were any other time, any other president, everyone would be saying the president is staying out of it because, when you're when your opponent is digging the hole, just let them dig the hole.

So that's what I think was up with President Biden.

As for Elon Musk, just to go back, David, I will not be crying when the bromance -- when the bromance implodes.

And while I understand that government needs to be reformed and regulations need to be tightened, what I -- the thing that concerns me most about the world's richest person being in charge of an agency that doesn't have -- really have any power -- it's going to be Congress that has to do something.

I don't really know what his values are.

David's values are right and true, fix Medicaid, fix Medicare, fix Social Security.

I don't know if that is what Elon Musk is going to be focused on.

GEOFF BENNETT: Well, this is the final Brooks and Capehart before the holidays, and this has been quite a year, gentlemen, so much tumult in the world, so much uncertainty and churn and change.

But I want to ask you the one thing that you find yourself most grateful for.

And, David, I will start with you.

DAVID BROOKS: Yes, I'm in New York right now.

I'm a few blocks away from the Christmas tree, and this Hollywood -- Hollywood -- this holiday season is -- it's a time that's more alive.

We all remember this as kids.

We're just more alive.

There was a second century Christian saint named St. Irenaeus, and he said, the glory of God is a human being fully alive.

So you walk over to the tree up Fifth Avenue here, and you watch the children with the glory in their eyes, and you can't help think this is a special magical season.

If you're not a believer, if you are a believer, those of us who are believers, it's a season when the lord is more present in the world, just because the radical reality of God coming down and being born in a manger that smells like dung, that's just magical.

And so you see it right there on the streets, right all around me.

GEOFF BENNETT: How about you, Jonathan?

JONATHAN CAPEHART: I mean, I can't even top that.

I mean, look, I don't know about grateful.

I mean, I answered this question during Thanksgiving.

I guess my answer is a little more political, and I don't think of it as grateful as much as what brings me optimism for the new year.

And what brings me optimism is the 50.1 percent of the American people who voted for someone other than Donald Trump.

And that brings me optimism, because, after he's inaugurated on January 20, it is going to be those Americans who will be called upon to defend American values, to defend their communities, and to defend their loved ones for whatever may come their way from a new Trump administration.

GEOFF BENNETT: Optimism seems to be in short supply in our politics these days.

David, what can we look to feel better about the current state of our politics?

DAVID BROOKS: Postponement.

I have just started to postpone my panic.

(LAUGHTER) DAVID BROOKS: Terrible things may happen.

I'm going to wait for it.

I'm not going to react to everything Donald Trump says.

I'm not going to panic until there's time to panic.

And maybe there will come time in January and February that things will be really harsh.

But, right now, I'm just going to enjoy the holiday season.

GEOFF BENNETT: Well, David Brooks and Jonathan Capehart, our best to you both and your families at this holiday season.

JONATHAN CAPEHART: Thanks, Geoff.

Same to you.

DAVID BROOKS: Appreciate it.

JONATHAN CAPEHART: Same to you, David.

DAVID BROOKS: Thank you, Geoff.

GEOFF BENNETT: Who owns a vibe?

That question is at the heart of a lawsuit where one online influencer is suing another for copyright infringement; 24-year-old Sydney Gifford claims that Alyssa Sheil, a 21-year-old fellow influencer, knowingly replicated her aesthetic and her posts on social media.

Amna Nawaz spoke to Sandra E. Garcia of The New York Times, who has been covering this story extensively.

AMNA NAWAZ: Sandra E. Garcia, welcome to the "News Hour."

Thanks for being with us.

SANDRA E. GARCIA, The New York Times: Hi.

Glad to be here.

AMNA NAWAZ: All right, so let's start with these influencers, Sydney Gifford and Alyssa Sheil.

Just tell us a little bit more about who they are.

SANDRA E. GARCIA: Alyssa Sheil is a 21-year-old influencer who uses her time to suggest things that her followers should buy off of her Amazon Marketplace.

Sydney Gifford is similar to her in that way.

They're both young women looking for items to inspire people to buy on their social media accounts.

AMNA NAWAZ: And their vibe, their aesthetic is what?

How would you describe what it is that they're putting out to their followers?

SANDRA E. GARCIA: The way they would describe it themselves is very minimalistic, beige, not very busy, cool girl, oversized sweaters, chunky knits, clear sort of plastic Amazon basics.

They like things to look very clean and neat.

AMNA NAWAZ: And what is the relationship between these two women?

They have actually professionally collaborated before?

Is that right?

SANDRA E. GARCIA: They were influencers that followed each other at one point and they met up to hang out, and they took some pictures of themselves to post and to brainstorm things that they could post on their social media accounts.

And then their relationship sort of dissolved when Alyssa Sheil unfollowed Sydney Gifford.

AMNA NAWAZ: So the idea that you can sue someone over an aesthetic, how does that work?

Like, what is the case that's being made in federal court right now?

SANDRA E. GARCIA: Well, Sydney Gifford noticed that Alyssa's post started looking a lot like hers a year after their initial hangout, whether that is the aesthetic, the vibe, the minimalistic style, the clean style, even at some point, some poses and some outfits she details in her lawsuit that she filed.

The lawsuit basically says that she got her vibe, her whole look from Sydney Gifford.

And Sydney is saying that she has infringed on her profit, right, because they use their social media accounts to promote their Amazon Marketplace, where they can influence people to buy things off of Amazon and Amazon pays them a commission to do so.

And because of that, Sydney has brought this lawsuit in federal court against Alyssa.

AMNA NAWAZ: And in your reporting, you quote a professor of intellectual property law, who explains that, in this whole online space, there's an idea that you are both a creator and a borrower.

So how hard is it to lay claim to an aesthetic, something intangible, like a vibe?

SANDRA E. GARCIA: It is such a layered issue.

The algorithm feeds you similar posts, similar creators, similar influencers.

If I see a rug and I take a picture on that rug and it just so happens that another influencer took a picture on the rug a similar way, we could have both reached that last photograph by following a lot of different influencers, celebrities.

And so it's hard to say that an aesthetic was reached because of one other influencer, especially when it's such a popular aesthetic.

The minimalistic, beige, concrete, neat, clean girl look is very popular right now.

And the algorithm is feeding followers and influencers the same kind of posts.

And so it's hard to say that this one influencer copied the other, as opposed to the algorithm fed her a million other posts that got her to that endpoint.

AMNA NAWAZ: And as you have noted in your reporting, there is an entire economy built around this kind of content creation.

So when it comes to this legal case, what's at stake here?

What's the potential impact of how this case goes?

SANDRA E. GARCIA: It is an unprecedented case and it could really change the content creator world and the economy, because influencers can now be beholden to copyright law, and they would have to be careful how they arrange things.

If one person owns an aesthetic, then another person can say they own another aesthetic.

And suddenly we're not building on these different vibes and social media looks.

We are sort of stifling the content creator world if this case moves forward and it's ruled in favor of Ms. Gifford.

AMNA NAWAZ: It's a fascinating case.

We're going to be following your reporting to see how it goes.

Sandra E. Garcia of The New York Times, thank you for your time.

SANDRA E. GARCIA: Thank you.

GEOFF BENNETT: And there's a lot more online, including a story about a push to finalize compensation for veterans with a debilitating lung condition before the end of the Biden administration.

That's at PBS.org/NewsHour.

And be sure to watch "Washington Week With The Atlantic" tonight on PBS.

Moderator Jeffrey Goldberg and his panel discuss Elon Musk's influence over president-elect Trump and congressional Republicans.

And on "PBS News Weekend," a humanitarian aid worker recounts the need of children who've been affected in a year marred by multiple wars.

And that is the "News Hour" for tonight.

I'm Geoff Bennett.

For all of us here at the "PBS News Hour," thanks for spending part of your evening with us.

Amna and I will see you after the holidays.

Have a great weekend.