Hamas attacks Israel
-
Copied from the other thread, where it shouldn't have been posted.
But, whatever...
Hamas insists permanent ceasefire needed for hostage deal
Hamas publicly insisted Tuesday that a permanent ceasefire must be in place before any deal is implemented for the release of the remaining 134 hostages held in Gaza, in a statement that seemed to run counter to optimism from Washington that an agreement was possible before the start of the holy month of Ramadan.
“In the past two days, the movement presented its position on the proposal put forward by the brotherly Qatari and Egyptian mediators,” senior Hamas official Osama Hamdan said in Beirut.
He spoke as ceasefire talks mediated by both Egypt and Qatar continued in Cairo with no sign of a breakthrough.
“We reaffirmed our conditions for a ceasefire: a full pullout from the Strip and the return of the displaced [Palestinians] from areas they left, in particular in the north,” he said.
Wasn't there a cease-fire in place on October 6?
-
No. Just no. Hamas dies. Anybody stand between Hamas and Israel? They’ve cast their lot as well.
-
President Trump talks about Isreal war.
“You’ve got to finish the problem,” Trump said on Fox News on Tuesday when asked about the war. “You had a horrible invasion that took place that would have never happened if I was president.”
First part, I agree with. Second part, well he is a legend in his own mind.
-
@George-K said in Hamas attacks Israel:
Wow. Fatah speaks.
So, are Fatah, Hamas, and Hezbollah three groups in the area?
-
Also Hezbollah is a led by Shia Muslim fanatics and Hamas is led by Sunni Muslim fanatics. While that sectarian difference means little to most people outside Islam, it is a big deal within the religion. Their only common mission is the annihilation of Israel. Beyond that Hamas and Hezbollah hate one another with a passion and would be content to terrorize one another on an ongoing basis in the absence of the Jewish state.
-
I'd feel better about their position if I didn't think it was about the election. They don't want to lose the young folks while I suspect in private they are fine with Israel's actions.
-
I'd feel better about their position if I didn't think it was about the election. They don't want to lose the young folks while I suspect in private they are fine with Israel's actions.
@Mik said in The Ukraine war thread:
They don't want to lose the young folks while I suspect in private they are fine with Israel's actions.
And the "young folks" are woefully ignorant.
But yeah, there's probably more than a bit of cynicism warranted.
-
From the RWEC:
Even if that weren't the case, what are the alternatives? Hamas has made it clear that they have no intention of simply releasing the rest of the hostages and surrendering en masse. (That could end the war tomorrow.) So the only other options would be an endless standoff outside of Rafah or having Israel surrender and go home, allowing Hamas to win the war. Would Kamala Harris prefer one of those options more?
Sadly, these cracks in our alliance with our closest ally didn't have to be inflicted. The Veep was only attempting to follow her marching orders and act as an extension of Joe Biden's current, floundering foreign policy moves. None of this has anything to do with Israel and Gaza. It has to do with Michigan and Wisconsin. The Biden administration is hemorrhaging support among Arab and Muslim liberal voters and going into a panic. They're trying to walk a tightrope between continuing to support Israel and seeming as if they support a ceasefire. Kamala Harris just took it a step too far during her interview on ABC. The end result will be negligible. Bibi Netanyahu already responded to the Veep's comments and said that the move into Rafah "will happen." He is not impressed with Harris' threats.
-
UN Security Council passes resolution calling for Gaza ceasefire
The UN Security Council has called for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza, after the US did not veto the measure in a shift from its previous position.
It also demanded the immediate and unconditional release of all hostages.
It is the first time the council has called for a ceasefire since the war began in October after several failed attempts.
The move by the US signals growing divergence between it and its ally Israel over Israel's offensive in Gaza.
In an unusually strong rebuke, a statement from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's office said the US had "abandoned" its previous position which had directly linked a ceasefire to a hostage release.
"Regrettably, the United States did not veto the new resolution," it said.
In the Security Council vote on Monday, the US abstained, while the remaining 14 members voted in favour.
The US had previously blocked resolutions calling for a ceasefire, saying such a move would be wrong while delicate negotiations for a truce and hostage releases were continuing between Israel and Hamas.
But on Thursday it tabled its own draft, which for the first time called for a ceasefire, marking a hardening of its stance towards Israel.
US National Security Council spokesman John Kirby said the US' decision to let the resolution pass did not mean a "shift in our policy". He said the US backed a ceasefire but did not vote in favour of the resolution because the text did not condemn Hamas.
Speaking at a press briefing after the resolution was passed, Mr Kirby said: "We have been very clear, we have been very consistent in our support for a ceasefire as part of a hostage deal. That's how the hostage deal is structured, and the resolution acknowledges the ongoing talks."
