Israel's War Against Hamas - Updates

[Sixties Fan]

 

[Sixties Fan]

 

[Sixties Fan]

 

[Sixties Fan]

[ Welcome to the ignorance around the world ]

 

[Sixties Fan]

 

[Sixties Fan]

 

[Sixties Fan]

 

[Sixties Fan]

Suddenly, the Palestinian Authority doesn't want Gaza​

For over 15 years since the Hamas coup, the Palestinian Authority has been trying to regain control over Gaza.

They have tried "unity" agreements. They have tried restricting electricity and fuel and medicines. Nothing has worked.

Now, they are seeing the possibility of Hamas being toppled from power - and suddenly, they have lost all interest.

The Palestinian Authority will not return to governing Gaza after the Israel-Hamas conflict without a comprehensive agreement that includes the West Bank in a Palestinian state, the authority’s prime minister has said.

Israeli civilian and military officials have said their plan for the end of the Gaza war is to have some form of transitional authority rule the territory, perhaps involving Arab states, leading to the restoration of the Palestinian Authority (PA), which was ousted from Gaza in a 2007 Hamas coup.

But Mohammad Shtayyeh, who has been prime minister since 2019, said the PA would not cooperate without a return to a genuine peace process resulting in two sovereign states.

“To have the Palestinian Authority go to Gaza and run the affairs of Gaza without a political solution for the West Bank, as if this Palestinian Authority is going aboard an F-16 or an Israeli tank?” Shtayyeh said. “I don’t accept it. Our president [Mahmoud Abbas] does not accept it. None of us will accept it.”

To the PA, Hamas' attack on innocent Jews is an opportunity to extort concessions from Israel.

In the past, Mahmoud Abbas has threatened, many times, to dissolve the PA and force Israel to re-occupy and take care of day to day affairs, which would be a huge drain. Here he sees a way to do the same without losing anything - forcing Israel to govern Gaza and refusing to do the job they are supposed to be doing under existing agreements.

Suddenly, the Palestinian Authority doesn't want Gaza

Blogging about Israel and the Arab world since, oh, forever.

elderofziyon.blogspot.com

 

[Sixties Fan]

[ Denounce it ]

Every day, the New York Times writes exactly what Israel is doing in this war. Today, for example:

Israel has provided limited details about the invasion, four days into what an Israeli official described as an “extended ground operation.” But imagery verified by The Times indicates large groups of tanks and other armored vehicles making their way deep into Gaza, as Israel’s military has continued to strike nearby buildings from the air.

In northwest Gaza, a satellite image taken on Monday morning by Planet Labs shows large groups of armored vehicles advancing about three miles south of the northern border near the coast of the Mediterranean Sea. Groups of vehicles can be seen amassed in open spaces of the densely populated area of Al Karama, northwest of Gaza City, less than two miles north of the crowded Shati refugee camp. Many nearby buildings appear to have been heavily damaged or completely destroyed by airstrikes.

Photographs also show a second group of armored vehicles near the city of Beit Hanoun, on the northeast edge of the Gaza Strip. Beit Hanoun had already been significantly damaged by airstrikes in the past several weeks.

Farther south, a video taken by Palestinian media worker Youssef Al Saifi on Monday morning, and verified by The Times, showed an Israeli armored vehicle firing on and destroying a car along Salah al-Din, Gaza’s main north-south road..

This is the New York Times providing intelligence to Hamas, using satellite photos and other information sources Hamas doesn't have access to. Planet Labs, as far as I know, only provides paid services, and it would not be allowed to provide services to Hamas directly, so why can the New York Times buy and publish the same information where Hamas can read it?

If the NYT was also using its contacts in Gaza to provide information about where tunnel entrances, rocket launchers or groups of Hamas armed members were, then one could say it was being even handed, although it would still be problematic. But for weeks, the only information it has been publishing has been Israeli movements, and speculation on Israeli strategy.

The only people it helps are the terrorists.

And now it is publishing information on exactly where in Gaza the Israeli troops are.

I'm no lawyer, but it sounds like a violation of 18 USC 2339B: Providing material support or resources to designated foreign terrorist organizations:

(a) Prohibited Activities.-

(1) Unlawful conduct.-Whoever knowingly provides material support or resources to a foreign terrorist organization, or attempts or conspires to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both, and, if the death of any person results, shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life. To violate this paragraph, a person must have knowledge that the organization is a designated terrorist organization (as defined in subsection (g)(6)), that the organization has engaged or engages in terrorist activity (as defined in section 212(a)(3)(B) of the Immigration and Nationality Act), or that the organization has engaged or engages in terrorism (as defined in section 140(d)(2) of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1988 and 1989).

Hamas is a designated terrorist organization, and the New York Times knows this. So how can this be legal?

New York Times is providing Hamas with intelligence. How is this not a violation of US law against aiding terror organizations?

Blogging about Israel and the Arab world since, oh, forever.

elderofziyon.blogspot.com

 

[Sixties Fan]

WATCH: The Roadmap to Eliminate Antisemitic Rhetoric in the Arab World | United with Israel

Is there a way to eradictae antisemitism from the Arab world?

unitedwithisrael.org

 

[Sixties Fan]

After the worst massacre of the Jewish people since the Holocaust, whose voices did CNN’s Alaa Elassar choose to elevate? The fringe Jews dedicated to delegitimizing the Jewish state and justifying the acts of terrorism committed against it.

In her October 23 article, “‘Not in our name’: Jewish peace activists across the US call for immediate ceasefire and justice for Palestinians,” Elassar whitewashes Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP) and IfNotNow, two far-left radical organizations. As is becoming an unfortunate pattern at CNN, Elassar also distorted the facts.

The article depicts JVP and IfNotNow as just “peace activists” who are “at odds with some groups within their own community,” the latter of which “question[] their morals and even accuse[] them of being anti-Israel.”

Elassar deceptively inflates their significance in the Jewish community. She writes that “JVP has over 440,000 members and supporters across 30 states…” Aside from the fact that JVP itself acknowledges one need not be Jewish to join, the last time JVP’s annual report provided such information, in November 2021, it had only 16,000 members. While “supporters” is undefined in the CNN article, as recently as June 2023, JVP’s FAQ page said it had only 200,000 “supporters on our email list.” Neither figure appears anymore on JVP’s FAQ page or annual report.

And while Jews practice their faith differently, these organizations frequently engage in the cynical use of Jewish symbols. They distort and make a mockery of Jewish rituals and practices to provide cover for themselves while they advocate for far-left ideologies and condemn the Jewish state. JVP has even denounced the Jewish holiday of Purim as a “prominent revenge fantasy” and thinks it should be “transformed” into a tale in which the genocidal Persian minister Haman just needed to “take lessons in cultural sensitivity and prejudice reduction…”

And politically, these organizations are not just fringe. They are extremist.

The article sympathetically quotes JVP’s Alissa Wise as saying: “I am Jewish, I’m not a Zionist, and I reject the idea that critiquing the politics of a government, the way you would any other government, is antisemitic.” Elassar writes: “Jewish groups that advocate for Palestinian rights face a lot of criticism…”

But JVP and IfNotNow don’t just “criticize” policies, nor do they just “advocate for Palestinian rights.” They repeatedly engage in overtly antisemitic tropes and libels all while justifying terrorism against the Jewish state.

Last year, JVP published a blatantly antisemitic cartoon on its Instagram depicting Jewish soldiers drinking blood, an unmistakable use of the ancient blood libel.

(full article online)

When Bad Journalists Find “Good” Jews: CNN Runs PR for Far-Left Jewish Groups

After the worst massacre of the Jewish people since the Holocaust, whose voices did CNN’s Alaa Elassar choose to elevate? The fringe Jews dedicated

www.camera.org

 

[Sixties Fan]

CNN regularly relies on statements by actors from the United Nations and similar international organizations when reporting on matters relevant to international law. What CNN fails to explain to its audience, however, is that these statements are rarely honest reflections of international law, but instead political declarations. Worse, they come from institutions known for their extreme anti-Israel bias, which apply one standard of law to Israel and another standard everywhere else.

The latest example comes from a statement given to CNN by the chief prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, Karim Khan. According to the October 29 article, titled “International Criminal Court prosecutor says strikes on civilian infrastructure always have to be justified”:

“There should be no doubt that every decision-maker, from head of government, to military advisors, to lawyers that have targeting-making decisions, should be on clear notice that they will be required to justify every strike against every civilian object,” Khan said.
…
“In all circumstances, human objects have to be protected, unless you can establish that they’ve lost their protection,” he continued.
Khan said civilian targets, such as a “house or school or hospital or a church or a mosque,” are required to be protected under international law unless they become military objectives.
He said to determine whether those targets are military objectives is “complex” and will require analysis and information.
“You’ve got to prove that — you can’t assume it. And the burden of proof is on the person that is firing at, or targeting the dwelling house, or the school or the hospital or the church or the mosque,” Khan outlined.

This is another deeply misleading and frankly inaccurate description of the law from the chief prosecutor. As explained by legal expert and UKLFI Charitable Trust Legal Director Natasha Hausdorff, Khan’s recent statements are “attributing an evil intent to Israel without an evidentiary basis.”

Avi Bell, a professor of law at San Diego School of Law and Bar-Ilan University, explains in more detail what Khan’s recent statements on Israel get wrong:

Mr. Khan’s statement is outrageous and false in three different respects.
First, nothing in the laws of war requires warring parties to “prove” to the ICC or to anyone else the legitimacy of their targeting decisions. In a war, combatting parties are required to aim their fire at legitimate targets based on the information they have available at the time. Israel does this in all cases; Hamas and other Palestinian combatants never do this. There is no doctrine in international law requiring that Israel or any other party share its intelligence with the ICC or any other actor; there is certainly nothing requiring Israel to prove the validity of its decisions to the satisfaction of the ICC or any other party.
Second, Mr. Khan’s role is that of a criminal prosecutor, not a grand overseer over military operations. Criminal law place the burden of proof on the prosecutor, who must prove all elements of his case beyond a reasonable doubt. The suggestion that the ICC prosecutor can simply shake off the burden of proof and assign it to Israel due to his bias or laziness is presumptuous, at best, and willfully ignorant of the most basic principles of international criminal law.
Third, and most striking, Mr. Khan’s statement must be evaluated in relation to his exceptional caution in referring to Hamas’ numerous and ongoing severe crimes against humanity, crimes of genocide and war crimes. Hamas is daily and openly targeting civilians, committing acts of genocide, using human shields, holding hostages, engaging in persecution, abusing humanitarian symbols and institutions, and committing numerous other crimes. Mr. Khan has mentioned publicly only some of Hamas’ crimes, and in every mention, he has taken care to describe the crimes as “alleged,” while stating that the crimes must be “proved” by the court. By contrast, when discussing Israel, Mr. Khan places the burden of proof not on the court but on Israel. It is clear that Mr. Khan is creating and attempting to enforce a double standard in which Israeli Jews are guilty until proven innocent and Palestinian Arabs are innocent until proven guilty. This is bigoted and a fundamental betrayal of the rule of law.

Khan also misled when he “warned that denying humanitarian assistance to civilians is a crime.” As has been articulated in several articles by legal experts recently, it’s not that simple. In a 2022 article, United States Military Academy law professor Sean Watts explained that siege law rules “reflect a compromise between human needs and military demands,” And while there is debate about how the rules around starvation in siege work, another United States Military Academy professor, Thomas Wheatley, explained: “To interpret the law to categorically outlaw even incidental civilian starvation would be to create an exception that swallows the rule, which ‘could well render siege impossible as it has historically been known…’”

Unfortunately, this is far from the first time CNN has platformed UN or ICC figures who make legally and factually dubious claims. In March, for example, CNN’s Isa Soares platformed the UN’s Francesca Albanese. At no point did Soares inform her audience of Albanese’s long history of antisemitism and of her open acknowledgement that she is biased on the matter. Several days ago, CNN similarly aired the accusations of a UN Commission of Inquiry without informing its audience that the three commissioners have been widely condemned for antisemitic remarks.

(full article online )

CNN Leaves ICC Prosecutor's Questionable Claims Unchallenged

Media outlets, including CNN, cannot simply treat UN and ICC figures as neutral, unbiased sources whose claims can be left uncontextualized or unchallenged. In

www.camera.org

 

[Sixties Fan]

National Public Radio (NPR) has long been criticized for its biased coverage of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, causing some unhappy listeners to substitute the word “Palestine” for “Public” in the public network’s well-known acronym. Dependent in large part on funding from its listeners, NPR continuously denies its clear bias, promoting its reporting as “impartial,” “honest” and “transparent.” But no objective person who has been listening to NPR’s coverage of Hamas’ current war on Israel can remain in any doubt that the media outlet’s reporting on the conflict is as biased as ever.

The detailed analysis that follows focuses on NPR’s reporting of a single incident – a deadly explosion that took place on Oct. 17 at the parking lot of the Al-Ahli hospital in Hamas-run Gaza. It provides a case study of the methods NPR reporters use to bolster an anti-Israel narrative and run interference for Israel’s enemies. Despite the mounting evidence and conclusions by international experts that Israel was not at fault for the explosion, NPR steadfastly refused to rule out Israeli responsibility, eventually turning to an anti-Israel, BDS activist to cast doubt on Israel’s account.

The Incident​

Even with all evidence pointing to a misfired Islamic Jihad rocket landing in the parking lot of the Al-Ahli Hospital, Hamas used the incident as a propaganda weapon against Israel. Through its health ministry, it declared that an Israeli airstrike had targeted a hospital filled with civilians who had come for treatment or were taking shelter there, killing many hundreds of Palestinians. Israeli spokesmen immediately denied involvement, arguing that the IDF does not target hospitals and did not fire in that area. Shortly afterwards, the IDF provided evidence – including video footage, photos taken by drones, and intercepted Hamas communications indicating a misfired Islamic Jihad rocket as responsible for the damage and for the resulting loss of Palestinian lives. The Pentagon, National Security Council, Office of the Director of National Intelligence, Senate Intelligence Committee, as well as EU, Canadian and British Intelligence Services and individual munition experts independently uncovered and analyzed evidence that supported Israel’s assessment of the explosion. Estimates of the number of lives lost in the incident also yielded a far lower number than Hamas claims. A U.S. intelligence report cited by Reuters estimated the death toll as “probably at the low end of the 100 to 300 spectrum” while AFP cited a senior European intelligence official who estimated the death toll as 10-50 people. Hamas never provided any evidence for any of its claims.

NPR Coverage​

By the time NPR’s All Things Considered was broadcast on the day of the explosion, Israel had already pointed to evidence of a misfired terrorist rocket as the cause, but that program and subsequent ones presented the two claims as competing but equally compelling versions of what had happened, with reporters sowing uncertainty about which claim held more weight. Over the following days, NPR reporters would continue to distort the story and mislead readers by one or more of the following methods:

1. Putting the incident into the context of Israel airstrikes on Gaza, either with or without presenting Israel’s denial of responsibility (the latter being the most disingenuous way of implying Israeli fault without directly saying so.)
2. Presenting the cause of the explosion as a dueling narrative, giving Israel’s evidenced account equal weight to the unverifiable proclamations of the Hamas terrorist regime.
3. Casting doubt on Israel’s version of events.
4. Presenting Hamas statistics as fact, unquestioningly, despite Hamas’ long track record of lying about casualties and Hamas’ directives to call all casualties “innocent civilians.”
5. Providing no transparency about sources: using anonymous or unnamed sources, obscuring Hamas’ authority over sources by referring to the Health Ministry or Palestinian Health Ministry or Gaza Health Ministry or their employees, with no indication that these are directly under Hamas governance and pay.
6. Concealing the partisan affiliations of guests, interviewees and sources.

(full article online)

NPR Runs Interference for Palestinian Terrorist Regime

Focusing on NPR's coverage of a single incident – the deadly explosion that took place near the Al-Ahli hospital in Hamas-run Gaza – this

www.camera.org

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

You’re a lib and a traitor, regardless how much you supposedly support our ancient homeland.

 

[Coyote]

Great article. I'm not sure where you think our points of disagreement are.

First, that Israel had not only a right but a moral obligation to respond to Hamas’ vicious attack on its civilian population.
Agree? No?

Agree

This may not seem obvious, as a ceasefire would certainly lead to some immediate reduction in civilian suffering. Indeed, a temporary ceasefire to provide humanitarian relief before further Israeli escalation might well be a good idea.
Agree? No?

Agree

But an indefinite ceasefire is politically impossible in Israel — no major faction could countenance it — for reasons that speak to the very purpose of having a state. Governments owe their citizens a duty of protection, to keep them safe from external threats. If Hamas is not militarily degraded and deterred by the end of this operation, the Israeli state will have failed in this basic task.
Agree? No?

Agree.

Second, that no matter how barbarous Hamas’ conduct, Israel cannot itself ignore the laws and moral codes governing warfare in response. While civilian casualties are a terrible inevitability in warfare, there are clear moral rules that any state must follow — even when facing a brutal enemy who disregards all of them like Hamas.
Agree? No?

Agree…but that is where I think Israel dangerously close to crossing the line if it hasn’t already.

I will further add to the quote from the article above:
Hamas and the people of Gaza have a responsibility as well. It can not all be laid on Israel.
Agree? No?

Agree. And I have said so already.

 

[Sixties Fan]

 

[Sixties Fan]

 

[Sixties Fan]

Most people in Gaza live in abject poverty. This is so the world will continue pouring money in to Hamas. Hamas uses the money to build their terror infrastucture and to live well. Ordinary Gazans know that Hamasniks steal the aid and live in luxury. They are very bitter about it.

There is an active anti-Hamas movement. They organized protests in July because of electricity shortages etc, which were brutally suppressed.However, all the anti-Hamas activists completely support Hamas atrocities against Israeli civilians amd bombing Israeli civilians.#TheGazaYouDontSee

 

[Sixties Fan]

 

[Sixties Fan]

Last night, three weeks after over 1,400 Israelis were murdered and 239 were abducted, the IDF announced that we’ve intensified ground operations in Gaza.

We deployed additional infantry, combat engineering and armored forces corps, together with the artillery corps, Navy, and Israeli Air Force to neutralize Hamas threats.

This is a war against an enemy that - rather than investing in its civilians - has invested in digging down. Massive tunnels under mosques, universities, schools, UN facilities…you name it. We encountered this back in 2014 and it’s clear to everyone that since then, Hamas urban buildup has only intensified.

Hamas attacked Israeli civilians and promptly hid under its own. And as we aim to ensure that they can’t do it again, I expect the IDF will face intense combat in areas under their control.

Speaking of urban fighting..

Urban fighting has always been different from large scale maneuver warfare. Operating in a densely populated city is a slow, painstaking task, complicated by the presence of civilians.

As in prior operations, we are fighting terrorist groups, not conventional armies. These groups aim to magnify civilian suffering in urban combat (and, of course, lie or falsify claims), without regard for international norms or agreements.

There’s no place for the Geneva conventions in Hamas’ jihad and there is no place for international lawyers in their ranks.

(full article online)

Mission Brief: Dispatch #2

Urban Warfare and Immoral Enemies

idfspokesperson.substack.com