"The problem with UNRWA-Gaza isn't that of a few bad apples; it is a rotten and poisonous tree whose roots are Hamas. The Colonna report ignores the severity of the problem, and offers cosmetic solutions that do not deal with the enormous scope of Hamas' infiltration of UNRWA. This is not what a genuine and thorough review looks like. This is what an effort to avoid the problem and not address it head on looks like."
Testimonies from camp residents, which were provided to the Euro-Med Monitor team, confirm that the sound of women screaming and babies crying was heard late at night on both Sunday and Monday. When some of the residents went out to investigate and tried to help, they were shot at by Israeli quadcopter drones. The sounds they had heard were in fact recordings played by the Israeli drones, with the intent of forcing the campâs residents out into the streets, where they could be easily targeted by snipers and other weaponry.
According to the testimonies, this tactic also involved broadcasting gunshots, armed conflicts, explosions, military vehicle movements, and occasionally songs in Hebrew and Arabic in order to psychologically intimidate civilians who live amid total darkness at night and total disconnection from the external world.
Iranâs decision to retaliate against an Israeli attack on its consulate in Damascus, Syria, by launching drone and missile strikes reveals just how badly the Biden administration has mishandled the Middle East. Having convinced itself on the eve of Hamasâs Oct. 7, 2023, attack against Israel that the region was âquieter than it has been for decades,â U.S. officials have since responded in ways that made a bad situation worse. The most one can say in their defense is that they have plenty of company; the Trump, Obama, Bush, and Clinton administrations mostly made a hash of things, too.
The administrationâs response to Hamasâs brutal attack on Oct. 7 has had three main objectives. First, it has sought to convey steadfast support for Israel: backing it rhetorically, conferring regularly with top Israeli officials, defending it against accusations of genocide, vetoing cease-fire resolutions in the United Nations Security Council, and providing it with a steady supply of lethal armaments. Second, Washington has tried to prevent the conflict in Gaza from escalating. Lastly, it has tried to convince Israel to act with restraint, both to limit harm to Palestinian civilians and to minimize the damage to the United Statesâ image and reputation.
This policy has failed because its aims were inherently contradictory. Giving Israel unconditional support gave its leaders little incentive to heed U.S. calls for restraint, so it is hardly surprising that they have ignored them. Gaza has been destroyed, at least 33,000 Palestinians (including more than 12,000 children) are now dead, and U.S. officials now admit that civilians there are facing conditions of famine. Houthi militias in Yemen, claiming to demand a cease-fire, continue to target shipping in the Red Sea; a low-level conflict between Israel and Hezbollah is still simmering; and violence has risen sharply in the occupied West Bank. And now Iran has retaliated against the April 1 bombing of its consulate by launching drone and missile strikes on Israel, raising the prospect of an even wider war.
Because Americans are accustomed to hearing that Iran is the embodiment of evil, some readers may be inclined to blame Tehran for all this trouble. Just last week, for example, the lead story in the New York Times announced that Iran was âfloodingâ the West Bank with weapons in the hopes of stirring up unrest there. (...)
Did not Gaza invade and attack Israel on October 7th ?
Or is the opinion that October 7th never happened now an established truth and fact ?
Which means that Israel is acting in Gaza without cause or instigation ?
Doesn't matter now that Iran has actually attacked Israel.
Israel is the one that is suffering from a genocidal attack now.
Or is Iran attacking Israel strictly for shits and giggles ? Asking for a friend.
Fair enough getting this back on topic. I was more replying to his general world-view that excuses Russia.
I can only reiterate my basic stance. The state of Israel is there and has the right to exist. The settlements in the West Bank are very destabilising for a peaceful solution. Israel could have done more to stabilise life in Gaza, even with Hamas in power. Hamas might be amenable to a peaceful resolution, depending on who you believe and whether you think the pre-1967 war or after the 1967 attack on Israel is the appropriate set of pencil marks on the map. But Hamas' official stance that Israel shouldn't exist is fundamentally at odds with a two state solution, as is the current Israeli government's position. And the October 7 attacks were horrifying and warranted a response. As I have said before, the fact that Hamas is weaker militarily doesn't somehow make their cause or actions just. Given that, the Palestinians have been shooting themselves in the foot for decades. I do believe Israel's response has been over the top and has not done enough to avoid harm to civilians. Yes, that is an understatement. The whole situation is fucking tragic.
Basically, I want to say to the Israelis and the Palestinians what I said, oh, 40 years ago, "Ok, we know what you are willing to sacrifice for war. What are you willing to sacrifice for peace?"
Pragmatism is a thing that keeps us from spiralling into world war. Remember when the Libyans murdered a British police woman from their embassy in London? The Brits didn't go attack Libya (although they did allow the US to use air bases in Britain for a later attack around a different issue). Tit-for-tat is a sure way to escalate into situations neither side really want. Cameron didn't say what strong action would entail, but I hope he would have the sense to find a solution where everyone can back down.
The best solution for everyone right now is restraint, which incidentally is what the US is pushing for, in spite of your insistence that they are the warmongers around the world.
Pragmatism is a thing that keeps us from spiralling into world war. Remember when the Libyans murdered a British police woman from their embassy in London? The Brits didn't go attack Libya (although they did allow the US to use air bases in Britain for a later attack around a different issue). Tit-for-tat is a sure way to escalate into situations neither side really want. Cameron didn't say what strong action would entail, but I hope he would have the sense to find a solution where everyone can back down.
The best solution for everyone right now is restraint, which incidentally is what the US is pushing for, in spite of your insistence that they are the warmongers around the world.
