Israel under attack from hamas, war declared.

[noosard]

The PLO and their ilk lost my sympathy way back in the 70s due to their hijack of planes
Has caused worldwide expense at airports ever since

[Doodoo]

"Israeli military official says Hamas cannot be destroyed, as rift with Netanyahu widens"

"Israel’s top military spokesman has said Hamas cannot be made to “disappear,” casting doubt about whether the government’s war aim of defeating the militant group can be achieved and drawing a sharp rebuke from Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu."

https://www.yahoo.com/news/israeli-mili ... 15468.html

[jackspratt]

Keep up at the back, Dd.

I posted this 2 days ago viewtopic.php?p=689344#p689344

I'm not sure if Admiral Hagari is still employed - telling the truth is not always welcomed.

[Whistler]

The PLO and their ilk lost my sympathy way back in the 70s due to their hijack of planes
Has caused worldwide expense at airports ever since

Very naughty of the PLO to hijack planes and cause expenses for travellers. I suppose the fact they killed people was not so bad. It was causing expenses being their main naughtiness.

[AlexO]

Keep up at the back, Dd.

I posted this 2 days ago viewtopic.php?p=689344#p689344

I'm not sure if Admiral Hagari is still employed - telling the truth is not always welcomed.

Absolutely, can you imagine if HAMAS ever told one real fact instead of the constant barrage of falsehoods that are straight out of the Goebbels book of BS.

[Laan Yaa Mo]

In a 7+-week old article, Gwynne Dyer gives his two cents worth:

Hamas did not need a ceasefire. It had already demonstrated that Israel could not eradicate it. It had achieved its primary goal of wrecking the anti-Iran alliance that was brewing between Israel and the major Arab Gulf states. And it doesn’t care about how many Palestinians get killed; they are all “martyrs” for the cause.
So why would it have agreed to a ceasefire that isn’t permanent?

https://trinidadexpress.com/opinion/col ... ebd9b.html

[Udon Map]

So why would it have agreed to a ceasefire that isn’t permanent?

Interesting piece. It's important to note that "permanent cease-fire" is a term of art. I see no reason for Israel not to agree, assuming that all the hostages are released. Of course any permanent cease-fire would have to apply to both sides, so the first rocket that Hamas fired into Israel (and history tells us that it would just be a matter of time until it did, and not a long time at that) would seem to violate that permanent cease-fire, all bets are off, and we're back where we are now, except that the all hostages would have been released, as well as the "Palestinians" in prison in Israel.

[Laan Yaa Mo]

So why would it have agreed to a ceasefire that isn’t permanent?

Interesting piece. It's important to note that "permanent cease-fire" is a term of art. I see no reason for Israel not to agree, assuming that all the hostages are released. Of course any permanent cease-fire would have to apply to both sides, so the first rocket that Hamas fired into Israel (and history tells us that it would just be a matter of time until it did, and not a long time at that) would seem to violate that permanent cease-fire, all bets are off, and we're back where we are now, except that the all hostages would have been released, as well as the "Palestinians" in prison in Israel.

Dyer is one of the few journalists who tackle world issues that I respect. He usually gets to the heart of the matter and can articulate the view of all sides well. As you note a permanent ceasefire would soon see Hamas firing rockets into Israel again, but at the lest the hostages would have been freed. How would all this work out for the Israeli PM?

[Udon Map]

So why would it have agreed to a ceasefire that isn’t permanent?

Interesting piece. It's important to note that "permanent cease-fire" is a term of art. I see no reason for Israel not to agree, assuming that all the hostages are released. Of course any permanent cease-fire would have to apply to both sides, so the first rocket that Hamas fired into Israel (and history tells us that it would just be a matter of time until it did, and not a long time at that) would seem to violate that permanent cease-fire, all bets are off, and we're back where we are now, except that the all hostages would have been released, as well as the "Palestinians" in prison in Israel.

Dyer is one of the few journalists who tackle world issues that I respect. He usually gets to the heart of the matter and can articulate the view of all sides well. As you note a permanent ceasefire would soon see Hamas firing rockets into Israel again, but at the lest the hostages would have been freed. How would all this work out for the Israeli PM?

I think that Israel should agree to a permanent cease fire, get the hostages back, and hold elections (not necessarily in that order). I'm not going to opine on the likely outcome of the criminal case(s) pending against P.M. Netanyahu because I know so little about them and haven't seen or heard any of the evidence. But those cases should move forward, and let the justice system take its course, whatever the result.

[Laan Yaa Mo]

Yes, get the hostages back, and then deal with Hamas when their missiles strike Israel again. In the meantime, there is also Hezbollah to think about.

[Udon Map]

There's been some discussion in this thread about whether, and to what extent, Hamas relies on hiding in, and thus endangering, the civilian population of Gaza. A Hamas leader has cleared this up for us:

An analysis of battlefield videos released by Hamas and interviews with three Hamas members and scores of Israeli soldiers, most of whom spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly, suggests that Hamas’s strategy relies on:

• Using civilian homes and infrastructure — including medical facilities, U.N. offices and mosques — to conceal fighters, tunnel entrances, booby-traps and ammunition stores;
  
  Ambushing Israeli soldiers with small groups of fighters dressed as civilians, as well as using civilians, including children, to act as lookouts;
  
  Dragging out the war for as long as possible, even at the expense of more civilian death and destruction, in order to bog Israel down in an attritional battle that has amplified international criticism of Israel.

After Israeli ground troops invaded in late October, Hamas went further in transforming civilian areas of Gaza into military zones, setting traps in scores of neighborhoods and creating confusion about what a combatant looks like by dressing its fighters as civilians.

Mousa Abu Marzouk, a senior Hamas official based in Qatar, dismissed criticism of Hamas’s use of civilian attire and storage of weapons inside civilian homes, saying that it deflected attention away from Israeli wrongdoing.

Other Hamas members acknowledge and defend the movement’s use of civilian clothes and civilian homes, saying the group had no alternative.

Hamas militants wear civilian clothes in a legitimate attempt to avoid detection, Mr. al-Awawdeh said. “That’s natural for a resistance movement,” he added, “and there’s nothing unusual about it.”

The tunnel network grew so extensive that it ran underneath a major U.N. compound and the largest hospital in Gaza, as well as major roads, countless homes and government buildings.

Hamas showed off most of these approaches in an extensive eight-minute video released on its social media channels in early April. . . . Next, Hamas men — wearing civilian clothes — are seen laying those explosives in the rubble of a ruined neighborhood.

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/13/worl ... Position=1

[jackspratt]

An interesting article from the Economist, with a couple of points highlighted which jumped out at me.

A history of Hamas dispenses with some pervasive myths

But it does not offer much hope for the future

......What led up to October 7th? The answers are bound to fill plenty of doorstoppers. One uncomfortable explanation is that for decades extremists on both sides have acted in a tacit alliance. This is true of Hamas, the Palestinian Islamist group that has ruled Gaza since 2007 and perpetrated the October 7th massacres, and Israel’s hard right, particularly under Binyamin Netanyahu, the country’s longest-serving prime minister. For 30 years these bitter foes have hammered each other during repeated rounds of violence. But they share a goal: undermining the peace process.....

----- The authors offer two lessons. One is that no matter how much of Hamas’s military capacity Israel obliterates, it will not be able to destroy the group’s ability to act as a spoiler. The other message is that only a political path, leading to an end of Israeli rule over millions of unhappy Palestinians, can hobble Hamas.
https://archive.ph/v2iB0

[AlexO]

The other message is that only a political path, leading to an end of Israeli rule over millions of unhappy Palestinians, can hobble Hamas.

And there's the rest of the world thinking Hamas rules over millions of unhappy Palestinians, jeez wonderful when someone uses reliable sources for their information.

[jackspratt]

Another interesting article from the Economist, and well worth reading (with selected highlights).

The world court says Israel’s occupation is illegal

FOR FIFTY-SEVEN years Israel has justified its control over the territories it captured in 1967 with a combination of historic, legal, diplomatic and security arguments: The eastern part of Jerusalem and the west bank of the Jordan river were inhabited by Jews from biblical times; Israel had not captured the territory from a sovereign country but from an illegal occupation by the Jordanian kingdom, which attacked Israel first in 1967; as a small country surrounded by enemies, it needed to hold the territory to protect itself and besides, the final status of the area would be decided through negotiations.

On the basis of these arguments Israel annexed east Jerusalem and has kept the West Bank under military occupation for almost six decades. During this time it has allowed— and often encouraged and enabled—more than 700,000 Israelis to settle in the occupied territories.

On July 19th the International Court of Justice (ICJ) rejected all of Israel’s legal claims in response to a request for a legal opinion by the United Nations General Assembly. In a series of coruscating majority rulings, it said that Israel’s prolonged presence can no longer be considered a temporary military occupation, but amounts to illegal annexation that undermines the rights of the Palestinians living there to self-determination. It said the occupation, “transfer by Israeli of settlers to the West Bank and Jerusalem” and “forced displacement” of Palestinians are clear breaches of international law. The bottom line, according to the judges, is that “Israel’s continued presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory is unlawful” and that the Jewish state is “under an obligation to cease immediately all new settlement activities” and evacuate the settlers already there...

... But it is a further blow to Israel’s international standing, which has been rapidly eroding due to criticism over its conduct of the war in Gaza, now in its tenth month. It is also a warning that Israel may begin to pay a higher price for the occupation than it has over the past 57 years.

https://archive.ph/GpWEV

[Laan Yaa Mo]

Hasn't it already been demonstrated that the ICJ is a biased organisation that is pro-Hamas and anti-Israel? Therefore, it is difficult to take any of their decisions in the Israel-Hamas War seriously.

[jackspratt]

Hasn't it already been demonstrated that the ICJ is a biased organisation that is pro-Hamas and anti-Israel? Therefore, it is difficult to take any of their decisions in the Israel-Hamas War seriously.

Not that I am aware of - can you point out where?

This decision is also about the occupation, rather than the war.

[Laan Yaa Mo]

Somewhere on this thread, maybe even by me, it was noted that the head of the ICJ leadership, based in London, was anti-Israel.

‘A reward to Hamas’: International legal expert on the ICJ's latest ruling on Israel
Arsen Ostrovsky spoke about his work as an international human rights lawyer and the politicization of international legal bodies

I am about to take the dog for his evening walk, and haven't read the full article yet, but the headline quote looks interesting.

https://nationalpost.com/news/world/isr ... -interview

[AlexO]

Hasn't it already been demonstrated that the ICJ is a biased organisation that is pro-Hamas and anti-Israel? Therefore, it is difficult to take any of their decisions in the Israel-Hamas War seriously.

Only if you are an Anti-Semitic.
But thats not racism just politics for sure.

[AlexO]

Another interesting article from the Economist, and well worth reading (with selected highlights).

The world court says Israel’s occupation is illegal

FOR FIFTY-SEVEN years Israel has justified its control over the territories it captured in 1967 with a combination of historic, legal, diplomatic and security arguments: The eastern part of Jerusalem and the west bank of the Jordan river were inhabited by Jews from biblical times; Israel had not captured the territory from a sovereign country but from an illegal occupation by the Jordanian kingdom, which attacked Israel first in 1967; as a small country surrounded by enemies, it needed to hold the territory to protect itself and besides, the final status of the area would be decided through negotiations.

On the basis of these arguments Israel annexed east Jerusalem and has kept the West Bank under military occupation for almost six decades. During this time it has allowed— and often encouraged and enabled—more than 700,000 Israelis to settle in the occupied territories.

On July 19th the International Court of Justice (ICJ) rejected all of Israel’s legal claims in response to a request for a legal opinion by the United Nations General Assembly. In a series of coruscating majority rulings, it said that Israel’s prolonged presence can no longer be considered a temporary military occupation, but amounts to illegal annexation that undermines the rights of the Palestinians living there to self-determination. It said the occupation, “transfer by Israeli of settlers to the West Bank and Jerusalem” and “forced displacement” of Palestinians are clear breaches of international law. The bottom line, according to the judges, is that “Israel’s continued presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory is unlawful” and that the Jewish state is “under an obligation to cease immediately all new settlement activities” and evacuate the settlers already there...

... But it is a further blow to Israel’s international standing, which has been rapidly eroding due to criticism over its conduct of the war in Gaza, now in its tenth month. It is also a warning that Israel may begin to pay a higher price for the occupation than it has over the past 57 years.

https://archive.ph/GpWEV

Can you point out where Hamas ruled millions in Gaza are mentioned.
There's a good chap.

[jackspratt]

https://www.icj-cij.org/contact-the-court